Independence Day: Resurgence **SPOILERS FROM POST 266 ONWARD**

eviltimeban

^ the "virus" was simply him changing the 1s to 0s and the 0s to 1s in the alien's binary code. He was able to connect as they had the alien space craft, which was "switched on" and connected to the mothership. Makes sense (in a movie way of course).

Duggy747

Deleted User wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in deleted scenes from the previous movie explain why they were able to interface? I'm not sure why it was removed, really.

Yea, a deleted scene (haven't seen it) is supposed to show Goldblum figuring out that the now-powered up ship they had at Roswell was using the same kind of code that he managed to decipher the countdown from earlier in the film. So he worked from there on his Macbook.

Krudler used to always bring that virus scene up, whatever happened to that guy?

p to the e

I feel humbled today. Some people can go through their entire life and never even begin to answer that important question; what is the worst film you have ever seen? Well today I can answer that.

This steaming pile of dog **** is called Independence Day: Resurgence. Don't get me wrong I have seen terrible films before but they're usually forgotten within a short amount of time never to be whispered about again. It's not that it's bad, it's offensively bad. This geriatric masturbatory aid of a film clings to you like a cancer and leaves you wasted away and begging for it to end.

First things first is the unsubtle attempt to claw as much money out the Chinese market as possible. The good old lads of the People's Republic (sure aren't they great craic altogether) are shown/mentioned as intricate cogs in Earth's defences when in reality all they actually would want is to define a new "close encounter of the 8th kind" i.e. eat an alien.

Several oriental stars also thread the boards here most notably Angelababy (no, me neither) who, let's be honest, is the most Western looking Easterner I've ever seen. She must be Chinese but not too Chinese.

The younger stars of the film (Hemsworth, Usher et al.) can't really be blamed for this testicle tumour. They will take what roles they can get as long as they don't have to blow the producer¹. But there's actors of genuine pedigree here that should really know better.

Goldblum (the world's finest hand actor) does his best but he can't help but convey his true sentiments of a quick cash grab.

Bill Pullman looks downright embarrassed throughout and looks like he's wondering where it all went wrong.

The last two times I saw Charlotte Gainsbourg she was cutting off her bits with a scissors in Lars Von Trier's "Anti Christ" and getting the box rode off her in "Nymphomaniac". This girl has form. When not hinting at incestuous relationships with her father she stars in controversial art house films. Who the hell had dirt on her to force her to be in this JimmySaville of a film?

"But wait", you say, "there must be something you liked about the film?". Well that's like asking me my favourite genocide, the Holocaust or the Holodomor? If there's one positive to take it's that Will Smith had better sense than to appear in this midnight toe stub.

To paraphrase myself, it's not that it's bad, it's annoyingly bad.

¹ On a side note Mae Whitman (her?) was never even asked to reprise her role but instead passed over for the more conventional pretty, and Keira Knightly clone, Maika Monroe.

homerun_homer

Terrible film. Just thinking about the stupidity of Jeff G's dad surviving on that boat and then later not spotting the HUGE ship flying over about to attack because he reunited with his son.

Thargor

Wedwood wrote: »

Haven't seen the movie yet, but considering the first beloved movie concluded with a triple whammy of the aliens being defeated by suffering a Windows virus, a nuclear explosion that destroyed the mothership, but our heroes survived in the alien fighter and Randy Quaid flying his biplane up a flying saucer laser gun, I'll reserve judgement till I see the new film.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Actually, it was a Mac. I know... The irony.

It wasnt his biplane he flew up there either, the USAF put out a call for pilots, he was flying a modern fighter.

Mitch Connor

Thargor wrote: »

It wasnt his biplane he flew up there either, the USAF put out a call for pilots, he was flying a modern fighter.

Was going to point that out too.

I'm an alternative ending they had it was his crop dusting bi-plane he used. Thankfully they went with the ending we got.

MilesMorales1

p to the e wrote: »

I feel humbled today. Some people can go through their entire life and never even begin to answer that important question; what is the worst film you have ever seen? Well today I can answer that.

This steaming pile of dog **** is called Independence Day: Resurgence. Don't get me wrong I have seen terrible films before but they're usually forgotten within a short amount of time never to be whispered about again. It's not that it's bad, it's offensively bad. This geriatric masturbatory aid of a film clings to you like a cancer and leaves you wasted away and begging for it to end.

First things first is the unsubtle attempt to claw as much money out the Chinese market as possible. The good old lads of the People's Republic (sure aren't they great craic altogether) are shown/mentioned as intricate cogs in Earth's defences when in reality all they actually would want is to define a new "close encounter of the 8th kind" i.e. eat an alien.

Several oriental stars also thread the boards here most notably Angelababy (no, me neither) who, let's be honest, is the most Western looking Easterner I've ever seen. She must be Chinese but not too Chinese.

The younger stars of the film (Hemsworth, Usher et al.) can't really be blamed for this testicle tumour. They will take what roles they can get as long as they don't have to blow the producer¹. But there's actors of genuine pedigree here that should really know better.

Goldblum (the world's finest hand actor) does his best but he can't help but convey his true sentiments of a quick cash grab.

Bill Pullman looks downright embarrassed throughout and looks like he's wondering where it all went wrong.

The last two times I saw Charlotte Gainsbourg she was cutting off her bits with a scissors in Lars Von Trier's "Anti Christ" and getting the box rode off her in "Nymphomaniac". This girl has form. When not hinting at incestuous relationships with her father she stars in controversial art house films. Who the hell had dirt on her to force her to be in this JimmySaville of a film?

"But wait", you say, "there must be something you liked about the film?". Well that's like asking me my favourite genocide, the Holocaust or the Holodomor? If there's one positive to take it's that Will Smith had better sense than to appear in this midnight toe stub.

To paraphrase myself, it's not that it's bad, it's annoyingly bad.

¹ On a side note Mae Whitman (her?) was never even asked to reprise her role but instead passed over for the more conventional pretty, and Keira Knightly clone, Maika Monroe.

Who?

Kirby

I had the same reaction. I'm pretty sure he's talking about the child actress who played the presidents daughter in the original.

R e F

Did people honestly like the first film anyway? Having just watched it, I wasn't blown away to say the least.

Cantstandsya

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Who?

Some nobody who played a 5 year old in the first movie. For some reason people are bothered that they didn't call her back for the sequel (while not caring that whoever played Will Smith's son wasn't called back either).

MilesMorales1

Cantstandsya wrote: »

Some nobody who played a 5 year old in the first movie. For some reason people are bothered that they didn't call her back for the sequel (while not caring that whoever played Will Smith's son wasn't called back either).

Its an arrested development reference, in response to the one he posted in his original rant :pac:

FunLover18

Cantstandsya wrote: »

Some nobody who played a 5 year old in the first movie. For some reason people are bothered that they didn't call her back for the sequel (while not caring that whoever played Will Smith's son wasn't called back either).

The reason people were annoyed is because Mae Whitman has continued acting and is quite good in things like Arrested Development, Parenthood and The DUFF howeverthe suspicion is that she wasn't recast due her the fact that while she is pretty, she's no "pin up" girl unlike Maika Monroe who was cast instead. I wasn't particularly annoyed about it myself but it was a questionable decision and having seen the film I can safely say that Mae Whitman would have been just as good. It wasn't exactly a very taxing role.

Drumpot

Shock as Hollywood studio chooses eye candy to try and bolster sales .... Yeh, I never thought I would see the day when the cats at Hollywood HQ would get so shallow....

KingBrian2

Just watched the movie. Thought it was a good showing. Hope they make sequels, continue the franchise.

R e F

R e F wrote: »

Did people honestly like the first film anyway? Having just watched it, I wasn't blown away to say the least.

I think that's the important part - you're watching it now, instead of when it was first released, so you're not getting the full effect of the timing of when it was released in '96. A lot of it doesn't hold up well, but their choice of using a lot of physical effects, props, and whatnot, made it last a lot longer.

Plus it was one of the first times we got this new generation of actor in the likes of Will Smith.

Sleepy

Myself and Mrs Sleepy brought the kids last weekend. I didn't think it was that much worse than the original tbh though it missed Will Smith and under-used Bill Pullman: it sorely lacked an equivalent to his "we will not go quietly into the night" scene, sure there was a small nod made to it but it was nowhere near as good which in part, I think, came down to the scoring. We watched the original the night before going along and it made me realise just how much the score had to do with the punch the air feel good sense of the movie. This time around, the score just didn't have as much emotional impact.

It's been mentioned already but the lack of suspense hurts it a bit too.

That said, our 10 year old absolutely loved it and we found it enjoyable enough nonsense. The set-up for a sequel appealed to the sci-fi fan in me but I'm not sure I can see this being successful enough to make that happen, or the Earth involved in a galactic war plot being all that appealing to the general movie-going audience. It might be a bit too SyFy for many...

eviltimeban

Sleepy wrote: »

It might be a bit too SyFy for many...

I feel this is the case with this one - it was the realism of the first one (at least, for the first half of the movie) that appealed to audiences. And then the action part was just fun, didn't take itself seriously.

This movie is very sci-fi - the moon base, all the "new technology". It makes us lose our ability to associate with it.

As for Mae Whitman, how interesting would an "indie" cast have been! With Jesse Eisenberg, Frances McDormand as the president...

eviltimeban

eviltimeban wrote: »

I feel this is the case with this one - it was the realism of the first one (at least, for the first half of the movie) that appealed to audiences. And then the action part was just fun, didn't take itself seriously.

This movie is very sci-fi - the moon base, all the "new technology". It makes us lose our ability to associate with it.

As for Mae Whitman, how interesting would an "indie" cast have been! With Jesse Eisenberg, Frances McDormand as the president...

I think this is a great point - it is set in our current time, but features flying everything and moon cannons and crap. I get that it is because of the use of alien technology and yada yada, but it gets a bit lost where, in the midst of flying machines and moon cannons, someone takes out a mobile phone of our time.

Bacchus

eviltimeban wrote: »

I feel this is the case with this one - it was the realism of the first one (at least, for the first half of the movie) that appealed to audiences. And then the action part was just fun, didn't take itself seriously.

This movie is very sci-fi - the moon base, all the "new technology". It makes us lose our ability to associate with it.

Funny reading that. It's something I thought would be the big challenge in making this movie way back when it was in production... I even have the posts to prove it :pac:

Bacchus wrote: »

It's a tricky one to follow up and is one instance where I think they'd be best off sticking close to the formula and not try and stick a hybrid dinosaur in there to make it "different". Human tech surely must have been advanced by the alien tech but I'd still like to see it set in a world not too different to our own. That was one of the great things about ID, it took a snapshot of our world with our tech and war machines and added aliens. If we're all technologically advanced for ID2, then it's no longer relatable to the real world and it's just another sci-fi invasion movie with everyone firing lasers at each other. Obviously though the world will have to have changed due to the events in ID but I just hope that is primarily from a military point of view and we don't have colonies living on Mars going around on jet packs.

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm not saying that ID was an airtight plot. I'm just saying that part of the appeal was seeing "the real world" get invaded and blown up by vastly superior aliens. So, for the sequel I think they have a tricky task in balancing what made ID appealing and creating the post ID world. It's trickier too because most of the major landmarks are already blown up! In my mind it should be an almost post 9/11 world on a global scale (without getting too political and losing the fun) - i.e. the world is still spinning, civilisation is just getting back on it's feet (as you menioned too) but there is the terror of the aliens returning. Technology should be more advanced than what we have now (particularly military) but I'd rather not see a human space armada or moon bases etc.

I really enjoyed it, not on the same scale as I enjoyed ID but it hit a lot of nostalgia buttons and the visuals/action were impressive. I even liked how they expanded the universe and there's this bigger war happening. However, it did lose the "relatable factor" that the original had. The original followed the invasion starting from "modern day" life and it had so much tension. This though had moon bases, satellite arrays with lasers, a rebuilt white house, laser guns, a floating sentient orb that holds the key to even more technology... it was all quite sci-fi and sterile. I enjoyed it but I can see how a lot of people would fail to connect with this world.

Cantstandsya

FunLover18 wrote: »

The reason people were annoyed is because Mae Whitman has continued acting and is quite good in things like Arrested Development, Parenthood and The DUFF howeverthe suspicion is that she wasn't recast due her the fact that while she is pretty, she's no "pin up" girl unlike Maika Monroe who was cast instead. I wasn't particularly annoyed about it myself but it was a questionable decision and having seen the film I can safely say that Mae Whitman would have been just as good. It wasn't exactly a very taxing role.

Seems like a fair enough reason to me. It's a dumb popcorn movie so they wanted a better looking actor to help sell it. Looks count (far more than acting ability) when you want to star in summer blockbusters. I am sure lots of less good looking but better actors could have played all the male roles too and I am equally sure that the guy who played Dylan in the original would have taken the role if offered (even if he's not been acting since the original I don't think he could have done a worse job than the bloke who took over the role).

Don't really care either way, sure for fans of the original it would have been better if the original actors returned for the roles but it makes sense why they chose better looking alternatives.

Sudden Valley

I was not that much a fan of the original movie but having watched it on tv last week it was suprising how much better it was rthe sequel. Pullman, Smith and Goldblum make the original film interesting, while I can't think of one new cast or any of the returning cast from the original that comes out well from this film. Strangley the CGI also looks worse in the new movie compared to the original - though perhaps that was because the original used CGI sparingly. Another very disappointing reboot to an old movie.

silverharp

an Irish Youtuber "computing forever" did a review of the movie and made the comment that it felt like he was watching a videogame walkthrough and it was just missing the boss health bar in the corner. it was just a blancmange of special effects at times

MilesMorales1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoV1Xr-QyZE

Moviebob on point.

Nervous Wreck

silverharp wrote: »

an Irish Youtuber "computing forever" did a review of the movie and made the comment that it felt like he was watching a videogame walkthrough and it was just missing the boss health bar in the corner. it was just a blancmange of special effects at times

What a stupid comment to make. I don't know where people get these ideas. Watching a video game walk through would be much more engaging! :P

Slydice

Right so, film lowered to "when I get around to it"

Fysh

I caught this tonight. I'm not a massive fan of Roland Emmerich's more recent films, but I liked Stargate and ID4 well enough when they were first released.

As watch-once entertainment goes, Resurgence was grand. Some nice bits of design crop up as part of the whole "world in which humans have adapted the alien technology" aspect, but it doesn't get explored in any depth so don't expect much there. The story is more or less what you'd expect; visually it's mostly good though there are a few monents of ropey CGI. The main thing that I thought was disappointing was the clunky delivery and so-so performances (particularly from the younger cast). Because someone had mentioned it upthread, I kept an ear on the score and was a bit nonplussed at it - it doesn't really sell the drama at a lot of points where that would help, most notably during Bill Pullman's speech.

It's grand enough if you want an undemanding couple of hours of invading aliens and things exploding, but keep your expectations in check - this is not a film that breaks any new ground...

StudentDad

I watched this yesterday with my wife and sorry to say it was awful. No character development, the story was irrelevant and the characters utterly forgettable. At one point I wanted the Harvesters to win the film was that bad.

After the initial opening sequence and the setting up of the moon base gun, the film just nosedived. No suspense, no nothing. I couldn't have cared less about the characters and the few interesting bits in the storyline were just dropped.

They had the ingredients for a good film, obviously had the budget, but the end result is a total mess of a film. It makes Star Ship Troopers II look good in comparison!

SD

syklops

Fysh wrote: »

but keep your expectations in check - this is not a film that breaks any new ground...

Sequels rarely do and sequels made 20 years after the original never do.

SB_Part2

I thought it was terrible. It made me really appreciate the original. I couldn't have cared less if all of them had died. No character development at all.

P_1

Pretty bad truth be told, at least it had the nostalgia factor going for it i guess