Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
As someone who has sometimes enjoyed Will Smith's films, there was literally not a single thing I saw in the trailer that made this film look appealing. I am pleased but unsurprised to see this was an accurate assessment.

Ditto (apart from the bit about enjoying Will Smith Films ).

The only thing the trailer did for me was let me know how much I didn't want to waste any money on it whatsoever.

Come on, you guys didn't like Independance Day? He punched an alien in the face - what more do you people want?

An Alien to punch Will Smith in the face

Gak movie is gak! More at 11!

Seems After Earth and the Lone Ranger are the big flops of the year so far.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Seems After Earth and the Lone Ranger are the big flops of the year so far.

And Lone Ranger is the third effort in Disney's new concept of producing only big budget, franchise establishing movies. The other two efforts were Oz: The Great and Powerful and John Carter. Ouch.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Seems After Earth and the Lone Ranger are the big flops of the year so far.

And Lone Ranger is the third effort in Disney's new concept of producing only big budget, franchise establishing movies. The other two efforts were Oz: The Great and Powerful and John Carter. Ouch.

Pirates of the Caribbean?

sebster wrote: Even in stuff like I Am Legend, which had real problems with the last act, his performance made the rest of the film pretty enjoyable.

I agree with you on the third act. Have you seen the alternate ending? I think it's so clearly the superior ending; it's sort of mind-popping they went with the one that they did theatrically. A major fumble, IMO.

 Ouze wrote:

sebster wrote: Even in stuff like I Am Legend, which had real problems with the last act, his performance made the rest of the film pretty enjoyable.

I agree with you on the third act. Have you seen the alternate ending? I think it's so clearly the superior ending; it's sort of mind-popping they went with the one that they did theatrically. A major fumble, IMO.

100% agree.

The alternate ending is a much more satisfying conclusion and explains allot more than the theatrical ending.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Seems After Earth and the Lone Ranger are the big flops of the year so far.

And Lone Ranger is the third effort in Disney's new concept of producing only big budget, franchise establishing movies. The other two efforts were Oz: The Great and Powerful and John Carter. Ouch.

And now they have the Star Wars franchise. Anyone worried yet?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Seems After Earth and the Lone Ranger are the big flops of the year so far.

And Lone Ranger is the third effort in Disney's new concept of producing only big budget, franchise establishing movies. The other two efforts were Oz: The Great and Powerful and John Carter. Ouch.

And now they have the Star Wars franchise. Anyone worried yet?

After the three prequels, I think the time for worrying is long gone......


Only kidding - only the first one truly sucked (imo, of course), the other two, if not great were at least watchable.

I am however, dubious about any Disney Star Wars movies - I'm just not sure they can do them justice.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And now they have the Star Wars franchise. Anyone worried yet?

But they also have Marvel, which has been stupidly successful.

 Ahtman wrote:

But they also have Marvel, which has been stupidly successful.

That's the point I also try to make regarding Star Wars.

On-Topic:

So far I've liked most of the Will Smith movies I've seen...but this looked pretty meh at best. However, I'll Redbox it or watch it on Netflix since I enjoy sci-fi in general.

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:

Only kidding - only the first one truly sucked (imo, of course), the other two, if not great were at least watchable.

You state that all Will Smith movies are to be avoided and then say that Star Wars episodes 2 and 3 are watchable?

Something is seriously wrong with your movie tastes!

Dont forget, WHERE DID ALL THE RUINS GO. it may have been 1000 years, but we still see ruins of rome and stuff that have been around since the birth of jesus(2000 years)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont forget, WHERE DID ALL THE RUINS GO. it may have been 1000 years, but we still see ruins of rome and stuff that have been around since the birth of jesus(2000 years)

Everything wasn't built by chinese slave labor 1-2000 years ago

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont forget, WHERE DID ALL THE RUINS GO. it may have been 1000 years, but we still see ruins of rome and stuff that have been around since the birth of jesus(2000 years)

They didn't like our garish architecture and re-decorated while we were gone

I have not seen the movie, primarily based on reviews like the ones here, but one thing that confuses me:

If there are no people on Earth at the time of the movie, then how has everything evolved to kill people, then maintained those evolutionary advancements after people are gone?

I understand never letting the facts get in the way of a good movie, but if its the primary premise of why the new Earth is such a dangerous place then I think it requires some sort of explanation...

Am I over thinking this?

IronWarLeg wrote:
I have not seen the movie, primarily based on reviews like the ones here, but one thing that confuses me:

If there are no people on Earth at the time of the movie, then how has everything evolved to kill people, then maintained those evolutionary advancements after people are gone?

I understand never letting the facts get in the way of a good movie, but if its the primary premise of why the new Earth is such a dangerous place then I think it requires some sort of explanation...

Am I over thinking this?

Advanced mammals and birds like the ones shown in the movie also don't have any significant evolutionary leaps in just 1000 years...

Quasi-tropical climates like the ones shown in the movie don't have the traumatic climate changes that the movie shows...

Why is that thing supposed to even happen on earth? They are CGIying everything anyway, why not just set the setting in an alien planet somewhere?

Also, if humans live on a different planet now, why were they even close enough to Earth to crashland on it?

IronWarLeg wrote:
I have not seen the movie, primarily based on reviews like the ones here, but one thing that confuses me:

If there are no people on Earth at the time of the movie, then how has everything evolved to kill people, then maintained those evolutionary advancements after people are gone?

I understand never letting the facts get in the way of a good movie, but if its the primary premise of why the new Earth is such a dangerous place then I think it requires some sort of explanation...

Am I over thinking this?

Not really, suspension of disbelief can only go so far, and even if we understand stories aren't reflections of reality they should at least have some consistency, which this does not. Humans apparently left not very long ago and yet there are no signs of civilization left at all. they say creatures evolved to kill humans but there is really no indication of this either. Of course, perhaps it is all part of the new math.

How Did This Get Made? has a pretty good episode about it if you like podcasts.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont forget, WHERE DID ALL THE RUINS GO. it may have been 1000 years, but we still see ruins of rome and stuff that have been around since the birth of jesus(2000 years)

There was a dam and that's all I spotted.

There are like 3 things that are auto stop for me when it comes to movies.
1. Does this movie feature a talking CGI animal with a live action cast?

2. Is this a movie adaptation of something I truly loved as a child?

3. Is this movie directed by M. Night Shyamalan?

If the answer is yes to any of those I will not pay money for it. Shyamalan is just a bad director. He accidentally made one good/interesting movie, and Unbreakable, which was kind of interesting. Everything else he touches is gak. Remember The Last Airbender, people.

Ruins from Rome are still around because we make an effort to preserve them as much as we can. Without that effort, I could imagine there'd not be much left in 1000 years.

As for why they were close enough to Earth to crash land on it, it was a wormhole drive malfunction.

PhantomViper wrote:
Pirates of the Caribbean?

Pirates of the Carribean came before the new strategy, as did all the good Pixar stuff. In fact is was films like PotC that led Disney in to their new strategy of only releasing a few movies, but making each one a mega-budget high concept thing that is primed to start a franchise and sell loads of merchandise.

And so far under that strategy the three new big franchise films have been The Lone Ranger, Oz: The Great and Powerful and John Carter.

I mean, it isn't disastrous because Disney has been making solid bank on their estabslished franchises, but as a business model, their new theory on how to build new franchises is looking to be about as successful as New Coke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I agree with you on the third act. Have you seen the alternate ending? I think it's so clearly the superior ending; it's sort of mind-popping they went with the one that they did theatrically. A major fumble, IMO.

I haven't seen it, but I heard it described after the film came out. It sounded a lot more interesting than the ending we actually got.

I think they released both endings to test audiences, and like always the test audience picked the boring option.

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
As someone who has sometimes enjoyed Will Smith's films, there was literally not a single thing I saw in the trailer that made this film look appealing. I am pleased but unsurprised to see this was an accurate assessment.

Ditto (apart from the bit about enjoying Will Smith Films ).

The only thing the trailer did for me was let me know how much I didn't want to waste any money on it whatsoever.

Come on, you guys didn't like Independance Day? He punched an alien in the face - what more do you people want?

An Alien to punch Will Smith in the face

Already has happened....1997, Men in Black, Jay vs. the Giant Alien Cockroach.

I liked both Oz and John Carter...

 AduroT wrote:
I liked both Oz and John Carter...

I didn't see Oz, and while I didn't think John Carter was great I did have a bit of sympathy that they were trying, for the most part, to do something a little different from the norm.

So my comment isn't really about whether I liked the movies, but about Disney's current strategy, and how it's worked out for them.

Man, so much Will Smith bashing...

I enjoyed WWW, and Bad Boy's 1 and 2. They were popcorn movies, nothing more. Hancock was pretty good to, as was Seven Pounds and the aforementioned Enemy Of The State. And yes, that was a White Dwarf that Will Smith is reading towards the end of that movie. Although i'm glad I missed going to see After Earth, I talked myself out of it after perusing Rotten Tomatoes...

I also just got done watching Lone Ranger. Didn't think that was bad at all. Much better than After Earth.

 sebster wrote:

And his efforts in more dramatic stuff, like Seven Pounds and The Pursuit of Happyness show the guy has actual range, even if the movies were more that a little bit too much oscar bait.

The funny thing about Seven Pound is that, as much as it was Oscar bait for Smith, it was Rosario Dawson who stole the entire show.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:

Only kidding - only the first one truly sucked (imo, of course), the other two, if not great were at least watchable.

You state that all Will Smith movies are to be avoided and then say that Star Wars episodes 2 and 3 are watchable?

Something is seriously wrong with your movie tastes!

If you think that's bad, I actually don't mind Wild Wild West My only defence is that I liked the crazy inventor & the bad guy with the mad facial hair, oh, and the giant mechanical spider. Will smith's presence in the film was, for me, irrelevant.

Man, maybe I do have a lousy taste in movies.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Man, so much Will Smith bashing...

I enjoyed WWW, and Bad Boy's 1 and 2. They were popcorn movies, nothing more. Hancock was pretty good to, as was Seven Pounds and the aforementioned Enemy Of The State. And yes, that was a White Dwarf that Will Smith is reading towards the end of that movie. Although i'm glad I missed going to see After Earth, I talked myself out of it after perusing Rotten Tomatoes...

Bad Boys 2 was pretty much a minor re-write of Bad Boys 1. I'm sure if you played them both at the same time most of it would sync up.