When aliens blowing up the white house is not enough...

BlitzKrieg

Drop a ship on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iledf3TbqWU

Its almost like a best of collection for Roland's films...

Stargate: mysterious link to prior civilisation with the future/supernatual being
Independence Day: Well known landmarks getting the smackdown
Day after tomorrow: unnatural exagerated weather effects
Godzilla: Funny guy lead...

(I said best of, so I cant think of anything for universal soldier or 10,000 bc and even at the moment I am stretching the best of term to include any of his films)

But seeing as this film he doesnt have any limitations in plot or badly researched science he really has gone for broke. Its the end of the world so lets have *EVERYTHING!* earthquakes, asteroids, giant waves, snowstorms, CGI crashing on top of people

etc

etc

etc

Elessar

Nice, cant wait for this

Rhyme

I'm a big fan of crazy shit happening in CGI. Looking forward to this.

Mossy Monk

It looks like it will be a load of **** imo.

Rhyme

Mossy Monk wrote: »

It looks like it will be a load of **** imo.

Of course it'll be a big load of sh*t, not going to stop people enjoying it for being a spectacle rather than some life-changing experience.

Sometimes, people just want to see big stuff go boom and fall over.

amacachi

So wait, Internal Affairs were in on it the entire time?

pixelburp

I never thought I would see John F Kennedy return to the White House

Jesus, that movie looks batsh*t crazy. You can totally tell that the White House moment is a deliberate harking back to his previous demolition of the building

Otherwise, am not feeling anything for the film; the FX look very "stagey", almost posed with no sense of weight or existence within the real world (in particular those vistas of cities in ruin). I dunno, I think CGI effects have come full circle in that artists can now make things look so real they pass through and come out the other side into these video-game esque FX shots. I know that makes no sense, but still ...

I suppose there's no point discussing the plot because ... well, yeah!

Supposedly, and by the look of the trailer, the film involves arks shot out into space to preserve humanity on another planet.

A good mixture of acting talent from the A-list star (Cusack, Glover) to the excellent under-rated ones (Chiwetel Ejiofor I spot).

Kiith

Rhyme wrote: »

Sometimes, people just want to see big stuff go boom and fall over.

+1

BlitzKrieg

pixelburp wrote: »

I never thought I would see John F Kennedy return to the White House

i lolled

Jesus, that movie looks batsh*t crazy. You can totally tell that the White House moment is a deliberate harking back to his previous demolition of the building

I think the whole film looks to be nods to all his previous films in some manner.

delibrate or not I dont know.

Otherwise, am not feeling anything for the film; the FX look very "stagey", almost posed with no sense of weight or existence within the real world (in particular those vistas of cities in ruin). I dunno, I think CGI effects have come full circle in that artists can now make things look so real they pass through and come out the other side into these video-game esque FX shots. I know that makes no sense, but still ...

It does make sense.

On a similar thought I find that CGI has killed the specticle by simplifying the *how* It use to be *How did they do that???* Now regardless if its true or not, people just mutter to themselves *CGI sigh* and move on. Takes that bit of wonder out of it.

I suppose there's no point discussing the plot because ... well, yeah!

Supposedly, and by the look of the trailer, the film involves arks shot out into space to preserve humanity on another planet.

A good mixture of acting talent from the A-list star (Cusack, Glover) to the excellent under-rated ones (Chiwetel Ejiofor I spot).

Doesnt look like they go to space,

I think its going for a cringeworthy Noah's Ark tribute with all the continents being flooded as the tectonic plates realign to form new continents etc. The ships dont look like they go into space, i could be wrong though

dlofnep

that looks fecking awesome.

when's it out?

lostexpectation

whats happend to john cusack?

niallon

lostexpectation wrote: »

whats happend to john cusack?

He needs to fund some more indy flicks, simple strategy really!

robbie_998

dlofnep wrote: »

that looks fecking awesome.

when's it out?

2012 :rolleyes:

chin_grin

Great. That's all we need. Another stupid end-of-the-world cash in for the afraid!

Special effects does not a good movie make.

Oh oh oh oh oh oh

Goodie.

I like these kind of movies. It's going to be terrible. Absolutely terrible. But the effin' White House gets destroyed by a boat. BY A BOAT.

Whats not to love?

BlitzKrieg

Whats not to love?

That its not the white house being destroyed by the statue of liberty?

Ghostbusters 2 missed a golden oppurtunity with that one...

norrie rugger

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

That its not the white house being destroyed by the statue of liberty?

Ghostbusters 2 missed a golden oppurtunity with that one...

That's a long frikken walk!!

pixelburp

Hey, there's always Ghostbusters 3 ...

Galvasean

This looks absolutely rubbish... but fun at the same time! :pac:

Could have done without the Day After Tomorrow 'millions of birds flying away from an oncoming disaster' shot. There's self referenciing and then there's just recycling your own stuff.

Anyone else LOL at the giraffe being hauled onto the Ark. Yes the world is coming to an end and what's our first taught? "Save the giraffe!!!!"

Galvasean

norrie rugger wrote: »

That's a long frikken walk!!

Considering its a movie about meteor impacts, gigantic floods and hyper plate tectonic movements all happening at the same time I don't think the statue of liberty stepping on the white house would seem all that out of place.

Rhyme

Galvasean wrote: »

Anyone else LOL at the giraffe being hauled onto the Ark. Yes the world is coming to an end and what's our first taught? "Save the giraffe!!!!"

Unconsciously, my hand covered my face at that shot... and then again when I realised that the harness for the giraffe was specifically designed.

That sh*ts weird.

Now I want to watch a disaster movie.

dlofnep

robbie_998 wrote: »

2012 :rolleyes:

Release Date:
13 November 2009 (USA)

According to IMDB.

:rolleyes:

Cannot wait. I never can understand why people will look at a trailer of thigns going boom and then moan about it being unrealistic and crap.

There's a certain pleasure attained from sitting in a dark room and being near deafened as giant balls of fire crash and burn onscreen, as millions die in cataclysmic incidents so amazing looking that you jaw rests on the floor.

Kiith

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a certain pleasure attained from sitting in a dark room and being near deafened as giant balls of fire crash and burn onscreen, as millions die in cataclysmic incidents so amazing looking that you jaw rests on the floor.

Don't forget the popcorn.

BlitzKrieg

I never can understand why people will look at a trailer of thigns going boom and then moan about it being unrealistic and crap.

Actually my complaint was it looks to be boring. Same stuff he's done 3-4 times already.

My biggest gripe with the day after tomorrow was because it has such an awesome teaser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au0hfbZqtzI

I genuinely thought that all the freak weather changes would be the first chunk of the film and like its title suggests the film was going to focus on surviving the new enviroment.

Instead we got independence day with aliens replaced with snow and wolves.

This is just more of the same and i'll be bored out of my skull in the cinema if I go see it.

MikeC101

I can remember the line in the Day After Tomorrow teaser ("save as many as you can") giving me one of those "this might be epic!" shivers down my spine when I first heard it.

Then I saw it.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy epic special effects and summer blockbusters, but I'm not sure why tight storylines, decent plot and good characters now seem to be impossible to find in said movies.

Then people trot out the "what did you expect - it's an action movie, that's what it does."

I mean sure, I'm not expecting Oscar winning stuff, but for me well rounded characters, good dialogue, sensible plot, they all add hugely to the overall experience of the movie. Look at say Terminator 2 compared to T3, or Salvation.

I dunno, Hollywood laziness perhaps?

Rhyme

MikeC101 wrote: »

I can remember the line in the Day After Tomorrow teaser ("save as many as you can") giving me one of those "this might be epic!" shivers down my spine when I first heard it.

Then I saw it.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy epic special effects and summer blockbusters, but I'm not sure why tight storylines, decent plot and good characters now seem to be impossible to find in said movies.

Then people trot out the "what did you expect - it's an action movie, that's what it does."

I mean sure, I'm not expecting Oscar winning stuff, but for me well rounded characters, good dialogue, sensible plot, they all add hugely to the overall experience of the movie. Look at say Terminator 2 compared to T3, or Salvation.

I dunno, Hollywood laziness perhaps?

They definitely seem to have a 'it'll do' mindset when it comes to these films.

I, myself, trot out the 'what did you expect' line when these films pop up because, to be honest, I've not seen much else when it comes to films that blow up the world. Armageddon had Bruce Willis, Billy-Bob and Steve Buscemi and it was still silly, Deep Impact had its moments but was 'brain turn off' territory (albeit with "let's crash our nukes into the asteroid YEEE-HAWWW").

I'm sure with the right team, these films could be wrangled into something better but it's come to the point where I no longer look for a coherent plot or sterling acting performances, if one turns up in the rubble, so be it. I go for the BANG and stay for the CRASH.

Galvasean

Rhyme wrote: »

I'm sure with the right team, these films could be wrangled into something better but it's come to the point where I no longer look for a coherent plot or sterling acting performances, if one turns up in the rubble, so be it. I go for the BANG and stay for the CRASH.

Call it cynical but filmmakers know that the vast majority of movie-goers go to see these kinds of films for the explosions and OTT action set pieces. Sure they could put more effort into characterisation and acting but it probably wouldn't make any significant impact on the box office gross. In the end its all about what gets bums onto cinema seats.

Rhyme

Not cynical, realistic. It's pretty much exactly what happens.

Expelling that extra effort seems to be beyond a lot of film directors as they reach the point where they've made their money and then when given the option to make a better film* they shrug and fall back on 'it'll do'.

*obviously I have no idea about the processes of large-scale film making. I'm going with my opinion as a movie-goer that enjoys just about anything rather than as an art student somewhat involved in short movies.

MikeC101

Yeah, hell I have no huge problem with Hollywood churning out massive explosion filled blockbusters, I generally enjoy them. Plus they make big bucks for the studios, so why not.

I dunno, just sometimes it's frustrating to get what is basically the same movie over and over again, but with bigger explosions, better fx, and not much else.

robbie_998

dlofnep wrote: »

Release Date:
13 November 2009 (USA)

According to IMDB.

:rolleyes:

pssst ..... it was a joke :rolleyes: