134 réponses à ce sujet

[Leinadi]

I think a lot of negativity at the moment is coming from Alien fans (huge Alien fan myself). Even though I went in expecting something quite different than Alien, I was still disappointed by those elements of it. It's definitely coloring my opinion of the entire film at the moment.
However, there were still a few things that I think were big failures no matter how you look at them.

-The script stretches out in too many directions, and as a result there is very little character development and very little meaningful exploration of the rather heavy themes of the film. It really feels like it should've been focused a lot more. And it's a disservice to the actors who generally do a very good job with what they have.

-It is just not particularly scary. I'm not even comparing this to Alien at the time it came out (which was one of those sensational things that just seems to break barrier, you can't replicate that easily). But there was *one* scene in the entire film that I found to be scary/tense, and even in that I sort of had to stave off feelings off "well, the entire premise of this scene is pretty goddamn weird/almost stupid". And there are a lot of horror scenes in the film, they just fail to deliver for a variety of reasons.

-There are some scenes that are just... *stupid* man, just downright dumb.

[termokanden]

Quite frankly I'd have to agree with all three points. Didn't ruin the movie for me though.

I'm glad it didn't have more nonsensical pocket philosophy than it did, by the way. I was expecting much more of it.

[Leinadi]

It's a tough one and I was pretty wary of it before going in to see the film.

It's hard because if you just sorta mention it almost in by-passing in a way (like I feel Prometheus does), then it just feels undercooked. On the other hand, if you want to do it *right* you have to spend a lot of time on it and take an enormous risk of just sounding pretentious and falling flat on its face.

That said, I think the film does raise a few interesting questions about the mythology of the whole Alien universe so to speak, and while I think it sorta does ruin some of the mystery of the original, it also thankfully raises new questions which I think they did a good job of not answering but without just ****-blocking the viewer.

[termokanden]

That's exactly what happens to a lot of movies. Don't even get me started on Diary of the Dead. A rather mediocre zombie movie trying to sound deep? Please.

The ending was a bit nonsensical I thought. I don't want to spoil it, but I couldn't understand the motivation there. I guess maybe that's because I'm a robot or something

Modifié par termokanden, 02 juin 2012 - 08:09 .

[Tazzmission]

for me i will judge after i see it because the only oppinion that matters is my own


some people hated mib3 but i enjoyed it

guys like ebert and siskel hated home alone but i loved it


i dont take other reviews seriously because there such a thing as full blown hype and full blown hate for such a thing

[Vez04]

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

Pretty much this.

Modifié par Vez04, 02 juin 2012 - 11:26 .

[Daennikus]

I loved it. Despite some shortcomings mentioned above, I gotta say I was generally pleased as a fan. The movie could have lasted an extra hour, though. It was scripted as a contemporary action/sci-fi movie and was affected by the trend to "skip to the essential" and it's a little too fast-paced. But otherwise, a great movie. The story made sense but leaves lots of room for questions and interpretation. That was always the case for the franchise, if you think about it.

And, I was shocked that they would undertake certain themes in archeology/religion and nobody really making a fuss about it. Maybe I care too much... But the people I went to see this movie with didn't dare to express their opinion on that. Most, I guess, will assume that it was just fiction.

[Tazzmission]

Daennikus wrote...

I loved it. Despite some shortcomings mentioned above, I gotta say I was generally pleased as a fan. The movie could have lasted an extra hour, though. It was scripted as a contemporary action/sci-fi movie and was affected by the trend to "skip to the essential" and it's a little too fast-paced. But otherwise, a great movie. The story made sense but leaves lots of room for questions and interpretation. That was always the case for the franchise, if you think about it.

And, I was shocked that they would undertake certain themes in archeology/religion and nobody really making a fuss about it. Maybe I care too much... But the people I went to see this movie with didn't dare to express their opinion on that. Most, I guess, will assume that it was just fiction.

so i take it ancient alien theory? i wouldnt really call that fiction just yet becaus ei have read charriots of the gods and it does have alot of interesting things  on religion  and how humanity started

[Daennikus]

Tazzmission wrote...

so i take it ancient alien theory? i wouldnt really call that fiction just yet becaus ei have read charriots of the gods and it does have alot of interesting things  on religion  and how humanity started

You were lucky to have read the book and are familiar with the theory, but think of the rest of the public who aren't aware of these studies, and those who won't open their minds to the archeological evidence...

[Mystic dream]

I think after the history channel shenanigans, just the mentioning of the ancient astronaut theory will leave a bitter taste to peoples mouths I reckon...

[Tazzmission]

Daennikus wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

so i take it ancient alien theory? i wouldnt really call that fiction just yet becaus ei have read charriots of the gods and it does have alot of interesting things  on religion  and how humanity started

You were lucky to have read the book and are familiar with the theory, but think of the rest of the public who aren't aware of these studies, and those who won't open their minds to the archeological evidence...

thing is though and this is just my attitude but more people need to read that book because all my life i have believed in aliens and even had 4 ufo encounters

after i read charriots it actually opened my mind even wider to how certain things came to be what we see them as

[A-K-M]

Tazzmission wrote...

Daennikus wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

so i take it ancient alien theory? i wouldnt really call that fiction just yet becaus ei have read charriots of the gods and it does have alot of interesting things  on religion  and how humanity started

You were lucky to have read the book and are familiar with the theory, but think of the rest of the public who aren't aware of these studies, and those who won't open their minds to the archeological evidence...

thing is though and this is just my attitude but more people need to read that book because all my life i have believed in aliens and even had 4 ufo encounters

after i read charriots it actually opened my mind even wider to how certain things came to be what we see them as

Sigh, people actually take Erich von Daniken's crap seriously? The man is even a convicted fraudster and embezzler ffs


That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. But the idea that beings from elsewhere will save us from ourselves is a very dangerous doctrine - akin to that of the quack doctor whose ministrations prevent the patient from seeing a physician competent to help him and perhaps to cure his disease.
—Carl Sagan

[android654]

A-K-M wrote...
That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. But the idea that beings from elsewhere will save us from ourselves is a very dangerous doctrine - akin to that of the quack doctor whose ministrations prevent the patient from seeing a physician competent to help him and perhaps to cure his disease.
—Carl Sagan

Thats right folks, there is no god, no alien, no magic. There is only us. The sooner we all understand that, the quicker we can get this species back on track.

[android654]

Empiricism works one way. You have evidence, then we can analyze and determine from there. If you have a hypothesis, you need some form of evidence to rationalize it. You have neither and it's all speculation. If all you have is speculation, it's best to ignore it and focus on something else.

As of right now there is zero evidence to support existing intelligent life on any planet other than our own. Claiming anything else is just speculation.

[Daennikus]

android654 wrote...

Empiricism works one way. You have evidence, then we can analyze and determine from there. If you have a hypothesis, you need some form of evidence to rationalize it. You have neither and it's all speculation. If all you have is speculation, it's best to ignore it and focus on something else.

As of right now there is zero evidence to support existing intelligent life on any planet other than our own. Claiming anything else is just speculation.

Can I ask you an honest question: have you watched several episodes of the Ancient Aliens documentary? To me, a number of finds seem like genuine mind-boggling puzzles:

The architectural precision of the ruins in Puma Punku.

The representation of Mayan ruler Pacal in the temples of Tikal. 

Engravings of what looks like ancient Sumerian script found at Puma Punku. 

Those two sites are the ones that come off the top of my head.

If there was rationalization, it was because there's a lot of material for speculation. Why should people leave records of such detailed, sometimes obvious, astronauts visiting them if not because they were just that?

It's not even a matter of opinion, or belief, or faith. If there weren't some kind of (at the time) unexplanable force interacting with us, like say, (beings interpreted as) "gods" and "angels", we wouldn't have had the drive to build huge temples and seemingly useless structures. We wouldn't have been drawn to progress technologically for war. We would have just lived on as hunters/pickers in tribes. To me, all of this put together makes more sense than just blind coincidence and luck. Why on Earth should humans evolve so fast and so much while other animals didn't? 

I know, you want your rational knowledge to come from someone who is known worldwide not to be speak none-sense. It's true that, when facts and ideas are tossed around for everyone to see, they get twisted and manipulated and transformed. But when all of the scientific discoveries are made available through the internet, getting to the bottom of things is child's play. It only requires one to have an open mind and a will to learn.

I understand that we don't need to know everything, but when something is out there to be acknowledged, even by millions of people, I don't want to dismiss it. I'm way too curious to reject a theory just because it hasn't been approved by mainstream scientists worldwide. 

So, after looking at the studies, dismissing the ancient astronaut theory as unfounded is more a personal choice than real common sense. 

[termokanden]

greengoron89 wrote...

Right, I think this picture seems appropriate:

Nooo, not that guy again. So-called documentaries that interview 50 gazillion book authors out to make a quick buck on people's gullibility. Maybe they will give one real scientist all of  5 seconds of screen time, after which they immediately ridicule him or her with another interview with some BS artist with an agenda.

And they have the nerve to call it the History Channel!

Modifié par termokanden, 03 juin 2012 - 06:22 .

[termokanden]

I didn't mean Ridley's motivation

android654 wrote...

Thats right folks, there is no god, no
alien, no magic. There is only us. The sooner we all understand that,
the quicker we can get this species back on track.

I have a science background. I don't believe in gods or magic. However, I also don't believe I can prove that they don't exist, so I tend not to make definitive statements. I don't know for certain that there isn't a squid-human hybrid standing behind me preparing to extract my brain with its head tentacles. I won't deny it, but I also won't consider it a real possibility unless I see some sort of evidence to the contrary. Yes, that does make me easy prey for mindflayers.

As for aliens, I do believe there is probably some form of life out there. I don't know for sure, but with the vastness of the uniiverse it wouldn't be all that strange. I see no reason to believe aliens are abducting our livestock though, or us for that matter. Alien life probably wouldn't be like anything like the stuff we see in pop culture.

Modifié par termokanden, 03 juin 2012 - 06:40 .

[android654]

termokanden wrote...

I didn't mean Ridley's motivation

android654 wrote...

Thats right folks, there is no god, no
alien, no magic. There is only us. The sooner we all understand that,
the quicker we can get this species back on track.

I have a science background. I don't believe in gods or magic. However, I also don't believe I can prove that they don't exist, so I tend not to make definitive statements. I don't know for certain that there isn't a squid-human hybrid standing behind me preparing to extract my brain with its head tentacles. I won't deny it, but I also won't consider it a real possibility unless I see some sort of evidence to the contrary. Yes, that does make me easy prey for mindflayers.

If you have a science background, then you know that it is impossible to prove or disprove a negative. It can not be done. As the evidence exists, my statement is correct. Until we have evidence to prove the opposite, the believers are merely thinking very wishfully.

As for aliens, I do believe there is probably some form of life out there. I don't know for sure, but with the vastness of the uniiverse it wouldn't be all that strange. I see no reason to believe aliens are abducting our livestock though, or us for that matter. Alien life probably wouldn't be like anything like the stuff we see in pop culture.

If we look back at our knowledge of evolutionary biology, we can see how easy it would have been for us to not have survived and to be replaced by one of our "cousins" if circumstances were difference. Same could be said for any other sentient life. Since all this talk about aliens is hypothetical, they could look like us or like leather covered soup cans. Without evidence, the concept is subject to everyone's imagination.

Daennikus wrote...
Can I ask you an honest question: have you watched several episodes of the Ancient Aliens documentary? To me, a number of finds seem like genuine mind-boggling puzzles:

The architectural precision of the ruins in Puma Punku.

The representation of Mayan ruler Pacal in the temples of Tikal. 

Engravings of what looks like ancient Sumerian script found at Puma Punku. 

Those two sites are the ones that come off the top of my head.

Yes I've had the unproductive Sunday afternoon before.

Yes, math is amazing. We know this since we've been using math to build for thousands of years. There's nothing to suggest that any thing was built in correlation to celestial bodies other than the supposition from people who have a conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it. That's called pseudo science. The interpretation of images in one location or the other is held captive by the imagination of these "experts"on these kinds of shows. Many languages in the past and today are merely parent languages with many dialects beneath them. For example I speak Castellano which houses 6 dialects of Spanish, and I'm sure there are many more. These dialects have different uses of tenses, accent marks, spelling, punctuation, vernacular, etc. There's a high probability, and a more rational one, that an incoherent script found at any ancient site is merely a different dialect of the parent language.

If there was rationalization, it was because there's a lot of material for speculation. Why should people leave records of such detailed, sometimes obvious, astronauts visiting them if not because they were just that?

In recorded history, we have about 5,000 years of records about many religious figures and beliefs. These are often written to give gods and their familiars/followers/servants the ability to perform that which we find to be mind bending. As of today, there are an estimated 21 major religions being practiced and Christianity has more than 30,000 groups in that one religion. This illustrates the point that even though we know what electricity is, weather, atoms, etc, there are still people who ignore those facts and believe another being is responsible for it's generation and distribution. What do you think people would think during a time when only two people in a given village were taught to read and/or write? Before the invention of vaccines? Before science was a common practice? What would these primitive people attribute to their existence on Earth and why everything happens?

It's not even a matter of opinion, or belief, or faith. If there weren't some kind of (at the time) unexplanable force interacting with us, like say, (beings interpreted as) "gods" and "angels", we wouldn't have had the drive to build huge temples and seemingly useless structures. We wouldn't have been drawn to progress technologically for war. We would have just lived on as hunters/pickers in tribes. To me, all of this put together makes more sense than just blind coincidence and luck. Why on Earth should humans evolve so fast and so much while other animals didn't?

That's entirely your opinion. One that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We evolved because that it what nature does with all creatures. A process of trial and adaptation to various situations leads us to have biological changes that change our off spring. Mammals have all changed and progressed over time, some because of our intervention and others because of the natural order of things. If you're asking why they're aren't "Catmen" and "lizardmen" like we are "Apemen," well there's myriad explanations as to why. Simply put, we have the grey matter and biological structure that needed change others didn't. A combination of luck and determination made us the dominant species not the guiding hand of another species.

I know, you want your rational knowledge to come from someone who is known worldwide not to be speak none-sense. It's true that, when facts and ideas are tossed around for everyone to see, they get twisted and manipulated and transformed. But when all of the scientific discoveries are made available through the internet, getting to the bottom of things is child's play. It only requires one to have an open mind and a will to learn.

I know, you should try it some time.

I understand that we don't need to know everything, but when something is out there to be acknowledged, even by millions of people, I don't want to dismiss it. I'm way too curious to reject a theory just because it hasn't been approved by mainstream scientists worldwide.

I disagree. We have a duty to learn everything. We're unique in the fact that we have the gift to manipulate our planet to our whims. That being the case, we have a duty to learn as much as we can. This theory is nonsense, not because it isn't popular, but because it relies entirely on the interpretation of someone who wants to find evidence to support their theory, rather than scientists looking at information that isn't complete.

So, after looking at the studies, dismissing the ancient astronaut theory as unfounded is more a personal choice than real common sense. 

Try again.