Great movie.  Not really what I was expecting, but not entirely 
different, either.

There were some slow parts in it, where I felt they were dragging things 
out, but overall it was quite riveting.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Yes. I liked it a lot, but the people I went with thought it was bad.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

On 08/16/09 22:35, Chambers wrote:
> Great movie.  Not really what I was expecting, but not entirely
> different, either.
>
> There were some slow parts in it, where I felt they were dragging things
> out, but overall it was quite riveting.

	HERE BE SPOILERS!!!

	In terms of action, pretty good. As a movie in general, fairly good. As 
a sci-fi plot, merely OK.

	If you're into scifi, then you'll realize it may be somewhat pointless 
to make the aliens just like humans. They should have shown at _least_ 
one character trait difference...

	Perhaps I missed it, but why didn't the aliens use the weapons before 
handing/selling them to the Nigerians? I think there were quite a few 
mini plot holes like this - although that may have been intentional.

-- 
When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     HERE BE SPOILERS!!!
> 
>     In terms of action, pretty good. As a movie in general, fairly good. 
> As a sci-fi plot, merely OK.

That's funny, because my reaction was so different :)  As an action 
movie, it was only OK.  As a movie in general, it was great.  As a 
sci-fi movie, it was pretty good.

YMMV :)

>     Perhaps I missed it, but why didn't the aliens use the weapons 
> before handing/selling them to the Nigerians? I think there were quite a 
> few mini plot holes like this - although that may have been intentional.

Because the aliens that were found on the ship were the worker class, 
who had been bred (and trained) to just take orders.  Sure, some of them 
would fight, but most of the time you could get them to back down by 
just being confident and acting like you were in command.

It was implied that Christopher was a survivor of the ruling class.  He 
certainly showed more intelligence, as well as knowledge about their 
technology (not to mention a real concern for their condition).

BTW, don't you live in SA?  I read about the forced eviction of District 
6, and how the movie was supposed to be a reference to that.  Any 
thoughts or comments about it?

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On 08/17/09 08:43, Chambers wrote:
> That's funny, because my reaction was so different :) As an action
> movie, it was only OK. As a movie in general, it was great. As a sci-fi
> movie, it was pretty good.

	Well, I'm comparing it not to other sci-fi movies, but to sci-fi 
fiction in general (mostly novels).

	I couldn't sympathize with the aliens until they showed Christopher's 
character in detail. Up to that point, it wasn't clear that the humans 
were simply being nasty - it may well have been that the aliens psyche 
was dangerous to humans, and they needed to be cordoned off.

	After all, giving human rights to aliens is a bit silly to assume, 
don't you think?

	But then they showed that the aliens were more or less like humans, 
except for the appearance. From a sci-fi perspective, that's not all 
that great. They should have put in some fairly explicit character 
traits of the aliens (not necessarily negative ones) to differentiate 
their behavior from humans.

> Because the aliens that were found on the ship were the worker class,
> who had been bred (and trained) to just take orders. Sure, some of them
> would fight, but most of the time you could get them to back down by
> just being confident and acting like you were in command.

	I must have missed all the indications of this. Did they point out 
different classes among the aliens?

> BTW, don't you live in SA? I read about the forced eviction of District
> 6, and how the movie was supposed to be a reference to that. Any
> thoughts or comments about it?

	I don't live there, and haven't heard of District 6, but yes, it was 
patterned after events in Apartheid South Africa.

-- 
When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     After all, giving human rights to aliens is a bit silly to assume, 
> don't you think?

True, it's a rather silly assumption ;)

>> Because the aliens that were found on the ship were the worker class,
>> who had been bred (and trained) to just take orders. Sure, some of them
>> would fight, but most of the time you could get them to back down by
>> just being confident and acting like you were in command.
> 
>     I must have missed all the indications of this. Did they point out 
> different classes among the aliens?

No, just the workers (and Christopher).  It's assumed that there are 
other classes, but they never go into it.  Nor do they spend any time on 
where all the other leaders are (dead? missing? hiding like Christopher?).

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On 08/17/09 21:01, Chambers wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> After all, giving human rights to aliens is a bit silly to assume,
>> don't you think?
>
> True, it's a rather silly assumption ;)

	Well, I didn't know if they wanted us to make that assumption or not. 
My guess would be "No" (it would be fairly poor SF otherwise).

>> I must have missed all the indications of this. Did they point out
>> different classes among the aliens?
>
> No, just the workers (and Christopher). It's assumed that there are

	Did they even do this? Beyond merely showing that Christopher seems 
smarter?

> other classes, but they never go into it. Nor do they spend any time on
> where all the other leaders are (dead? missing? hiding like Christopher?).

	Apparently, the whole story had been developed by the authors, but they 
intentionally left it out of the film. I agree that a lot of them can be 
left out, but I think they cut a bit too much.

-- 
Why a man would want a wife is a big mystery to some people.  Why a man
would want *two* wives is a bigamystery.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/17/09 21:01, Chambers wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:

>>> I must have missed all the indications of this. Did they point out
>>> different classes among the aliens?
>>
>> No, just the workers (and Christopher). It's assumed that there are
> 
>     Did they even do this? Beyond merely showing that Christopher seems
> smarter?
> 

They mention that the aliens seemed to be unable to act without
commands, like they were a hive that lost it's commander or something.
The documentary people thought it may have been because of the loss of
some module of the ship.

I thought it was implied that between that detail, and the insectoid
appearance of the aliens, that the audience was meant to think of them
as having an insect style hierarchy of minds.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/18/09 09:22, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> They mention that the aliens seemed to be unable to act without
> commands, like they were a hive that lost it's commander or something.
> The documentary people thought it may have been because of the loss of
> some module of the ship.

	OK. Must have missed that.

> I thought it was implied that between that detail, and the insectoid
> appearance of the aliens, that the audience was meant to think of them
> as having an insect style hierarchy of minds.

	Except that they're continually referred to as prawns, and I suspect 
prawns don't behave that way (and prawns aren't insects).

	For that matter, I suspect most insects don't either.

	And your last statement is getting to why I think it's poor SF. They 
were expecting us to assume something that most mature SF fans wouldn't 
assume. If they'd used literal giant ants, then it's more 
understandable. Even the Arachnids in Starship Troopers made more sense 
(and the movie had more explicit indications of their behavior).

	Over here, they show an alien creature that looks like a prawn, but 
we're supposed to assume it has a certain behavior that is neither 
human-like or prawn-like.

	Put another way, it isn't the *only* thing one could assume. One could 
as justifiably have assumed a totally different behavior, based on other 
cues in the movie.

-- 
As long as I can remember, I've had amnesia.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/18/09 09:22, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> I thought it was implied that between that detail, and the insectoid
>> appearance of the aliens, that the audience was meant to think of them
>> as having an insect style hierarchy of minds.
> 
>     Except that they're continually referred to as prawns, and I suspect
> prawns don't behave that way (and prawns aren't insects).
> 
>     For that matter, I suspect most insects don't either.
> 
>     And your last statement is getting to why I think it's poor SF. They
> were expecting us to assume something that most mature SF fans wouldn't
> assume. If they'd used literal giant ants, then it's more
> understandable. Even the Arachnids in Starship Troopers made more sense
> (and the movie had more explicit indications of their behavior).
> 
>     Over here, they show an alien creature that looks like a prawn, but
> we're supposed to assume it has a certain behavior that is neither
> human-like or prawn-like.
>

I think the prawn part just skipped by me, because it seemed to be more
of a pejorative name than all the descriptive. Maybe I am just haven't
eaten enough prawns.

>     Put another way, it isn't the *only* thing one could assume. One
> could as justifiably have assumed a totally different behavior, based on
> other cues in the movie.
> 

I didn't say it was well implied. There was one other comment, I think
one of the 'experts' called them workers. It was very vague and I don't
think I can defend it for that.

I went in expecting less of a hard science fiction film, and something
more art house, so I was expecting to work at piecing little clues
together. I asked a friend if he thought the alien speech was based on
any particular African language, or just made up, which garnered a very
odd look as the only response.

Of course, on the art film level, it made a few points that I really
hope were just accidental and resulted from them aiming for something
sci-fi-like. I mean, a movie about apartheid where the victims are
'workers' caste with only one leader left to rescue them?

As just a summer movie, I liked it. It had a nice enough blend of
artsy/sci-fi/action to hit a matinee for. As anything other than that,
eh, I know when the school year starts up again I am going to be hearing
a lot about this movie.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I think the prawn part just skipped by me, because it seemed to be more
> of a pejorative name than all the descriptive. Maybe I am just haven't
> eaten enough prawns.
> 
>>     Put another way, it isn't the *only* thing one could assume. One
>> could as justifiably have assumed a totally different behavior, based on
>> other cues in the movie.
>>
> 
> I didn't say it was well implied. There was one other comment, I think
> one of the 'experts' called them workers. It was very vague and I don't
> think I can defend it for that.

For what it's worth I got exactly the same worker class interpretation 
that you did from the movie, but it retrospect it did seem to be more 
implied than made explicit.  I actually sort of like this aspect to the 
movie though since I think a too many explanations would have detracted 
from the realism (since there's not much of a way that the humans in the 
movie could have known about the alien class/species structure anyway).

Overall, this was my favorite SciFi movie since Children of Men came out 
a few years ago, although I did also enjoy Moon.  I'll be curious to see 
how well it ages since opinions seem pretty split on it currently.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/18/09 14:52, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I think the prawn part just skipped by me, because it seemed to be more
> of a pejorative name than all the descriptive. Maybe I am just haven't
> eaten enough prawns.

	Well, it _was_ pejorative, but it chosen because it was descriptive. In 
the documentary scenes in the beginning, one person points out that they 
look like prawns, and hence the name stuck.

> Of course, on the art film level, it made a few points that I really
> hope were just accidental and resulted from them aiming for something
> sci-fi-like. I mean, a movie about apartheid where the victims are
> 'workers' caste with only one leader left to rescue them?

	Well, you're getting to why I'm complaining. Using aliens to make a 
movie about how humans treat others is a bad idea from the beginning - 
unless they put in the effort to do it *really* well (which is possible, 
I believe).

	Otherwise, I could come up with all kinds of reasons why the aliens 
should be afforded good treatment, but not my fellow human beings, and I 
could do likewise for the converse. The subtleties are important.

> As just a summer movie, I liked it. It had a nice enough blend of
> artsy/sci-fi/action to hit a matinee for. As anything other than that,
> eh, I know when the school year starts up again I am going to be hearing
> a lot about this movie.

	Oh - I liked it too. Good action and acting, at the very least. I just 
felt that were it not for these issues, it would be more than just a 
good movie. As it is, I like it more for the action than for its 
attempts at deeper depictions.

	I simply view it as a movie that could have been phenomenal, but ended 
up not being so because of issues that could have easily been fixed. In 
a sense, it's a sloppy movie.

-- 
"Carpe Dentiem ... Seize the teeth!"

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> For what it's worth I got exactly the same worker class interpretation 
> that you did from the movie, but it retrospect it did seem to be more 
> implied than made explicit.  I actually sort of like this aspect to the 
> movie though since I think a too many explanations would have detracted 
> from the realism

 From what I understand, there was a great deal more to the backstory 
(in fact, I read some of it in the few previews I looked at) that was 
simply implied rather than shown in the film.

On the one hand, I like that the implications add a level of subtlety. 
On the other hand, certain things really needed explaining to avoid the 
issues brought up in this thread.

> Overall, this was my favorite SciFi movie since Children of Men came out 

Ooh, that was a good one, too!

Does it seem to anyone else that there's a dearth of good sci fi lately?

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> Up to that point, it wasn't clear that the humans were simply being nasty 

Yes, because burning the eggs and describing the sounds as "popcorn" wasn't 
a give-away. :-)

> - it may well have been that the 
> aliens psyche was dangerous to humans, and they needed to be cordoned off.

And clearly vice-versa, yes.

 > I went in expecting less of a hard science fiction film

It wasn't very hard science. Indeed, I'd *almost* say it's barely science 
fiction at all. I liked it a lot, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/23/09 18:04, Darren New wrote:
>> Up to that point, it wasn't clear that the humans were simply being nasty
>
> Yes, because burning the eggs and describing the sounds as "popcorn"
> wasn't a give-away. :-)

	I guess we're using different meanings for nasty.

	If your house is full of mosquitoes that bite you, and you take 
pleasure in destroying them, are you a nasty person?

>> - it may well have been that the aliens psyche was dangerous to
>> humans, and they needed to be cordoned off.
>
> And clearly vice-versa, yes.

	Yes, but we're not on their planet.


-- 
Dragons - the ORIGINAL flying toasters!

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/23/09 18:04, Darren New wrote:
>>> Up to that point, it wasn't clear that the humans were simply being 
>>> nasty
>>
>> Yes, because burning the eggs and describing the sounds as "popcorn"
>> wasn't a give-away. :-)
> 
>     I guess we're using different meanings for nasty.
> 
>     If your house is full of mosquitoes that bite you, and you take 
> pleasure in destroying them, are you a nasty person?

Granted. But I don't think there was any support in the movie for the aliens 
actually being a threat like that.  I felt the author/director/whatever was 
clearly trying to show the humans having zero care for what the aliens might 
want or think.  I mean, murdering babies is clearly *intended* to show the 
humans aren't especially nice.

I loved the later scenes, with the main guy threatening to take 
"Christopher's" kid away if he doesn't agree to the relocation. That just 
felt so ... bureaucratic.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/23/09 20:38, Darren New wrote:
>> If your house is full of mosquitoes that bite you, and you take
>> pleasure in destroying them, are you a nasty person?
>
> Granted. But I don't think there was any support in the movie for the
> aliens actually being a threat like that. I felt the

	Sure there was. The documentary scenes in the beginning suggested 
terrorist attacks (derailed train was one of them, I think).

	And even if I grant your point, so what? There wasn't any support for 
the aliens actually being harmless either. I'm willing to give humans 
the benefit of the doubt, but not to aliens when I know nothing about 
them (and which the movie didn't tell me much about until quite a bit 
later). The presumption of innocence, IMO, shouldn't be taken as a given 
for nonhuman species.

	Rereading that paragraph, I'm finding trouble getting my point through. 
I'm not suggesting paranoia of the aliens. I'm not stating that it's OK 
to be nasty to aliens that visit the Earth from the get-go. All I'm 
saying is that 20 years have passed, and they've given us *very* little 
information about that time period. For all I know, the humans may well 
be justified in treating the aliens the way they do.

> author/director/whatever was clearly trying to show the humans having
> zero care for what the aliens might want or think. I mean, murdering
> babies is clearly *intended* to show the humans aren't especially nice.

	No, them enjoying it and making fun of it showed that they were not 
nice. The mere fact that they were killing the babies didn't suggest 
that, though.

	Why is killing the alien babies (who were all illegal, BTW) wrong? How 
do I know the aliens weren't merely pests whose babies should be killed? 
I don't until much later.

	As I said earlier, I can't take it for granted that human rights should 
extend to them. It needs to be established.

> I loved the later scenes, with the main guy threatening to take
> "Christopher's" kid away if he doesn't agree to the relocation. That
> just felt so ... bureaucratic.

	Oh yeah - those were the aspects that would have made the movie a great 
one if they had plugged all the holes I'm pointing out. The whole 
interaction between the humans and the aliens was brilliant - but the 
message only hits home once you realized that they shouldn't be treated 
that way.

	Still, I feel if they're going to have aliens that are more or less 
like humans except for their appearance...what's the point? It would 
have been more interesting if the aliens _did_ have fundamental 
differences in behavior, and the story had been more about the lack of 
willingness on the part of the humans to accomodate them.

-- 
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Sure there was. The documentary scenes in the beginning suggested 
> terrorist attacks (derailed train was one of them, I think).

I interpreted those as being stuff blamed on the aliens that the aliens 
didn't do. Maybe I'm just more cynical.

>     And even if I grant your point, so what? There wasn't any support 
> for the aliens actually being harmless either. 

You're interpreting it from the point of view of "what if this was real?" 
I'm interpreting it from the point of view of "this is a hollywood movie, so 
what would the fictional portrayal include if ....?"

> For all I know, 

Sure. I'm just saying that given it's a movie, if there was a reason to 
believe it, they probably would have made it more clear. Again, I might just 
be more cynical.

>     No, them enjoying it and making fun of it showed that they were not 
> nice. The mere fact that they were killing the babies didn't suggest 
> that, though.

Granted.

>     Why is killing the alien babies (who were all illegal, BTW) wrong? 

Generally, killing babies is frowned upon, even for domestic non-food 
non-humans.

>     As I said earlier, I can't take it for granted that human rights 
> should extend to them. It needs to be established.

Certainly. I'm just looking at it from the POV of it being a movie, while 
you're looking at it from the POV of "what if this were actually real?" 
I.e., I'm assuming that the movie would tell you what's important, while 
you're assuming there might be information that would change your mind about 
the situation were it available.

> message only hits home once you realized that they shouldn't be treated 
> that way.

I think I realized that early on. I tend not to get sucked into this sort of 
movie so much that I miss the cinematography of it.

>     Still, I feel if they're going to have aliens that are more or less 
> like humans except for their appearance...what's the point? It would 
> have been more interesting if the aliens _did_ have fundamental 
> differences in behavior, and the story had been more about the lack of 
> willingness on the part of the humans to accomodate them.

It certainly could have been a better movie, yes. It would be wildly 
different, and actually science fiction if they did.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/23/09 22:46, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Sure there was. The documentary scenes in the beginning suggested
>> terrorist attacks (derailed train was one of them, I think).
>
> I interpreted those as being stuff blamed on the aliens that the aliens
> didn't do. Maybe I'm just more cynical.

	Oh sure. The whole documentary scenes have multiple interpretations. 
That's one of them. Another is that they were simply responding to poor 
treatment. Another is that they did this unprovoked. All interpretations 
lead to different ethics. Given that, I had to suspend judgment.

>> And even if I grant your point, so what? There wasn't any support for
>> the aliens actually being harmless either.
>
> You're interpreting it from the point of view of "what if this was
> real?" I'm interpreting it from the point of view of "this is a
> hollywood movie, so what would the fictional portrayal include if ....?"

	Which is why I said that it sucks from a true SF perspective (or I 
think I said it here - maybe elsewhere). Hollywood rarely makes a good 
SF movie, from a SF reader's perspective.

	Otherwise, sure. A good action movie with good acting. ;-)

>> Why is killing the alien babies (who were all illegal, BTW) wrong?
>
> Generally, killing babies is frowned upon, even for domestic non-food
> non-humans.

	Not if they're potential pests. Heck, in places like Wyoming, people 
justifiably kill coyotes - including the cubs (or whatever you call 
them). Coyotes are on the rise, and are one of the few large animals 
that are thriving with the human population. They end up attacking too 
many animals on farms.

-- 
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.

Post a reply to this message