Independence Day: Resurgence SPOILERS FROM POST 266 ONWARD

Parachutes · 04-07-2016 3:08pm

Was disappointed coming out of this even though my expectations of it were low enough.

The premise is fantastic but the delivery just wasn't there. From the marketing it really looked like it was all about the infusion of alien and human technology but in the actual film it was very surface level and wasn't given the depth necessary. I also thought the crashed alien ship and band of rebel aliens holding out in Africa was a really interesting concept but was used as little more than a cheap plot device to keep the story moving along.

Also I couldn't help but thinking that we have spent years harvesting this advanced extraterrestrial tech but decided it was okay to overlook the shielding technology that made them so hard to beat in the first place?! Plot hole anyone?

The marketing also made it look like an actual war with the aliens we could win with their technology but this time they just had bigger and better ships, weapons etc. So just like the first film so? We apparently spent 20 years preparing and being united to face them but they annihilated us in 10 minutes, kind of defeats the point of the entire film really!

I know this was supposed to be a summer blockbuster and not a serious science fiction flick but it lacks the magic the first film had, you were invested in the characters. This time they seemed like cardboard cut outs. It's completely lacking a second act. If they want to turn this into a franchise (which they clearly do) some universe building was desperately needed here but it was virtually non existent.

Bacchus · 04-07-2016 6:01pm

Parachutes wrote: »

The premise is fantastic but the delivery just wasn't there. From the marketing it really looked like it was all about the infusion of alien and human technology but in the actual film it was very surface level and wasn't given the depth necessary. I also thought the crashed alien ship and band of rebel aliens holding out in Africa was a really interesting concept but was used as little more than a cheap plot device to keep the story moving along.

It'd be cool to see a spin off movie of this ground war.

Parachutes wrote: »

Also I couldn't help but thinking that we have spent years harvesting this advanced extraterrestrial tech but decided it was okay to overlook the shielding technology that made them so hard to beat in the first place?! Plot hole anyone?

They did adapt the shield tech though. They trapped the big bomb inside the shield that was being used to protect the base. It did come across that the shield tech was less developed so at least the avoided that plot hole.

Parachutes wrote: »

The marketing also made it look like an actual war with the aliens we could win with their technology but this time they just had bigger and better ships, weapons etc. So just like the first film so? We apparently spent 20 years preparing and being united to face them but they annihilated us in 10 minutes, kind of defeats the point of the entire film really!

Yup, agree with that. I guess they were going for "we never had a chance" but it just killed all the tension that we were so obviously and spectacularly outgunned. Mashing the fire button on the boss level to take down shields that just survived a mega bomb was what it came down to.

Fysh · 04-07-2016 8:21pm

Ah lads, if you're going to pick holes in a film about aliens which try to conquer the earth with ships that are almost as big as the planet yet magically don't cause hugely destructive gravitational disruptions you're not going to end up anywhere happy

I think that the disjointed feeling in the film is due to trying to lift from a variety of influences that don't stitch together easily - the lunar sequences felt like they'd drawn on Moon for the visuals, whereas the crashed ship in Africa bits had felt very District 9. Meanwhile the stuff in the USA felt like a weird mix of the original Independence Day and the sort of shinier-CGI sci-fi-action film standard (Oblivion, the 2012 Total Recall remake, etc). But it didn't feel like a cohesive world.

I'd have liked to know more about how they adapted the tech, etc, and ideally about the ground war in Africa, but This Ain't That Film, sadly.

The OH reckons that this was an attempt to kindle a new Starship-Troopers-esque franchise, and that the Independence Day name was used because it was an easy and available property to use as a franchise-starter. Not a bad theory, as far as it goes.

bradolf pittler · 04-07-2016 11:04pm

How did Will Smith's missus go from a stripper in the 1st film to a doctor in this 1????????

MilesMorales1 · 04-07-2016 11:08pm

bradolf pittler wrote: »

How did Will Smith's missus go from a stripper in the 1st film to a doctor in this 1????????

20 years is a long time innit.

silverharp · 05-07-2016 8:12am

bradolf pittler wrote: »

How did Will Smith's missus go from a stripper in the 1st film to a doctor in this 1????????

that was a it of an immersion breaker and roll eyes moment.

05-07-2016 8:57am

Yea.. 20 years is more than enough time to become a doctor, surely?

To be honest, it felt like a lot of this movie was relying on the nostalgia factor.

silverharp · 05-07-2016 9:37am

actually they seem to describe her as a hospital administrator which wouldn't necessarily be a doctor

“Dylan has now grown up and so have I,” says Fox. “My character is no longer working the pole, which is a beautiful thing. She’s going to be a hospital administrator, so she’s not stripping for tips. OK, so you guys will be happy to hear that. So she’s a hospital administrator and she’s in there saving lives, and doing good things.”

05-07-2016 9:51am

"You guys will be happy to hear that".

Gets killed off pretty early into the movie.

silverharp · 05-07-2016 10:10am

Deleted User wrote: »

"You guys will be happy to hear that".

Gets killed off pretty early into the movie.

yeah , it was like sh1t she agreed to be in the movie.....ok I have an idea :pac:

Dravokivich · 05-07-2016 11:21am

SB_Part2 wrote: »

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.

Kinda humming and hawing about your character development comment. I think the main focus of this movie was about bringing on the main characters from the original movie. But they've brushed over a core focal point of the previous movie (which I feel is humanity being compelled to work together) by bringing us straight into some sort of utopia where we are to take it for granted that all's well... except or that camp in Africa.

syklops · 05-07-2016 1:51pm

bradolf pittler wrote: »

How did Will Smith's missus go from a stripper in the 1st film to a doctor in this 1????????

Is that really the biggest plot hole you could find? Plus, do you know how much a stripper earns?

p to the e · 05-07-2016 1:55pm

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

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

Thank you for getting that.

MilesMorales1 · 05-07-2016 2:48pm

p to the e wrote: »

Thank you for getting that.

I-Dont-Know-What-I-Expected-Reaction-Gif-On-Arrested-Development.gif

Rgb.ie · 06-07-2016 9:06pm

Seen this last night

For me, it was akin to a straight to DVD sequel. Really enjoyed the first one all those years ago and recently watched it but this was awkward.

Forced humour was cringe .. Maybe I expected too much

Harry Palmr · 09-07-2016 10:45pm

Looks like this will get beached at about 350-370m dollars worldwide.

Riddle101 · 16-07-2016 6:12pm

Just back from the cinema. I actually thought it was decent. I don't know how I would compare it to the first movie which I really enjoyed. It was better than I expected and I wasn't disappointed. I will admit though that the humor did seem a little forced, but I was ok with Judd Hirsch/Julius Levinson's scenes because he has charm I think.

KingBrian2 · 16-07-2016 10:32pm

Riddle101 wrote: »

Just back from the cinema. I actually thought it was decent. I don't know how I would compare it to the first movie which I really enjoyed. It was better than I expected and I wasn't disappointed. I will admit though that the humor did seem a little forced, but I was ok with Judd Hirsch/Julius Levinson's scenes because he has charm I think.

Yeah I liked it also. Not bad, certainly no original but it had a lot going for it.

Christy42 · 17-07-2016 1:23pm

Loved the original and liked the reboot. It suffered from a lack of Will Smith but was never going to be as good as the first.

The alien tech was cool and would to see that explored in some extra material (books etc.). The decision to have Dr. Okun still alive helped as Data does a great job of the humour required for the role. I liked the world building element though I agree this wasn't the best place to show it all. I think the world was well put together (though why the rest of the world didn't help the Africans fight them seems off).

The plot made about as much sense as the first and still the theme of global unity means America needs to save the day (we got a bit more help from non Americans in this one at least). However it had some decent humour and decent action in it which was what I hoped for.

For people complaining about the plot holes: you are aware that in the first one the day was saved by a virus from a mac and the grand plan was to ping tiny missiles off a spaceship the size of a city? I loved the first one but not for the plot. And having Chinese writing and a few Chinese people in it at least stopped the entire thing from being American. Seems realistic that if we get global unity a few things will be influenced by the country that has 1 billion people in it.

Overall not an Oscar winner but if you wanted that you wouldn't step close to a cinema this time of year.

TerrorFirmer · 20-07-2016 5:29pm

For the first few minutes I was really afraid that I was witnessing the birth of an absolute turkey. Thankfully, it picks up and to be fair, overall it entertains well enough throughout and has some excellent visuals that go a long way towards holding your interest.

Everything about the film is sub-standard though. Dreadful script, acceptable but passionless acting, no stand-out scenes or dialogue exchanges, no memorable nor strong characters. Someone said it was like a direct to DVD sequel, and that nails it on the head exactly. Absolutely everything about the movie, save for the visual effects, is below par.

Yes, the original was cheesy as hell and a highly questionable script, but it has much better characters, dialogue and direction - as well as a real sense of charm. ID2 tries too hard in every field - tries to shoehorn in too many nods to the original, tries to develop too many pointless plots that serve only to facilitate aforementioned shoehorning, tries way to hard to up the ante in terms of scale, and the end result is that the movie suffers badly. It's like someone got a draft script and wrote words like 'More lasers', 'More ships', 'Make 10x bigger', 'Insert joke here' in red pen all over it.

ID2 is definitely watchable and not a total waste of time but falls way short of what it should, and could very easily, have been. I've seen the first movie loads of times and always end up watching it when it's on TV. ID2, once was definitely enough.

Slydice · 29-07-2016 9:33pm

Watched it.

Special effects were good but the heart just didn't feel like it was in it.

Maybe a better writer coulda got more feels into it.

_Kaiser_ · 30-07-2016 9:30pm

Awful, awful mess... where to even start:

- The whole thing rushes from scene to scene with virtually no pause at all. - They destroy London and half of the US, but no time to dwell (or even witness it really) as we have to move on to the next dull sequence.
- Certainly didn't feel like 2 hours at least (a plus point maybe?)
- The new cast is awful. Generic pretty people with no charisma or personality. Chinese characters/actors shoehorned in for no other reason than MARKETING
- The characters that do return from the first have been given a personality/character development bypass in favour of rushing to MOAR CGI action!
- The effects range from ok to awful (particularly at the end when Whitmore's daughter finds her boyfriend at the crashed ship)
- There's never any real sense of threat despite the destruction, partly because of the aforementioned rushing from scene to scene. Besides, we have space fighters and lasers now... of course we'll win!

I could go on but this is easily the worst film I've seen in ages - even more annoying as I love the original and the first trailer for this looked great, but we'll have to go through it all again in another few years with the blatant SEQUEL setup

Christy42 · 30-07-2016 11:07pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Awful, awful mess... where to even start:

- The whole thing rushes from scene to scene with virtually no pause at all. - They destroy London and half of the US, but no time to dwell (or even witness it really) as we have to move on to the next dull sequence.
- Certainly didn't feel like 2 hours at least (a plus point maybe?)
- The new cast is awful. Generic pretty people with no charisma or personality. Chinese characters/actors shoehorned in for no other reason than MARKETING
- The characters that do return from the first have been given a personality/character development bypass in favour of rushing to MOAR CGI action!
- The effects range from ok to awful (particularly at the end when Whitmore's daughter finds her boyfriend at the crashed ship)
- There's never any real sense of threat despite the destruction, partly because of the aforementioned rushing from scene to scene. Besides, we have space fighters and lasers now... of course we'll win!

I could go on but this is easily the worst film I've seen in ages - even more annoying as I love the original and the first trailer for this looked great, but we'll have to go through it all again in another few years with the blatant SEQUEL setup

Again what is wrong with Chinese characters. I am sick and tired of only people from the US being allpwed save the world (the reason for that is also marketing).

FunLover18 · 30-07-2016 11:25pm

Christy42 wrote:

Again what is wrong with Chinese characters. I am sick and tired of only people from the US being allpwed save the world (the reason for that is also marketing).

It baffles me, I get that it's a bit cynical to specifically market for the Chinese market but in the broader picture it makes much more sense for the global defence against aliens to be a bit diverse. And in the long run I think it will be much better. As you say, up until recently movies have been cynically marketed towards middle class white people and that was fine.

_Kaiser_ · 31-07-2016 5:53am

Christy42 wrote: »

Again what is wrong with Chinese characters. I am sick and tired of only people from the US being allpwed save the world (the reason for that is also marketing).

Thre's no issue with adding Chinese characters at all but at least give them something to do (especially if they're a main character) so it isn't just quite as obvious that they're only on screen to appeal to that market. But then this was obviously a "handover" film to the new generation. Maybe she'll have more to do in the next one?

There's so much wrong with this film though that in the scheme of it, it's a minor thing. The biggest complaints have to be the ridiculous pacing, the (generally average) CGI overload, and the complete lobotomy of the charm and humour of the original.

nullzero · 31-07-2016 11:15pm

I thought it did everything I'd expect of a film of its type especially in this day and age. It wasn't as good as the original but the original wasn't exactly high brow stuff itself.

Seeing that the original seems to be on constantly on TV some of the fond memories I had of it seem misplaced through adult eyes. The original had better character development but it wasn't exactly paced like a Michael Mann film either, it also had that peculiar 90's trait of every single character being a wise cracking comedian (see Die Hard with a vengeance for another prime example of this).

I never expected this film to be anything other than it turned out to be, could it be better? Of course but I was prepared to abandon logic before I watched it, I turned my higher brain functions off and just enjoyed it for what it was.

rob316 · 02-08-2016 1:04am

Absolute rubbish. A typical cgi orgy from emmerich without any substance. My expectations were very low but it actually managed to fall way below that.

allibastor · 05-08-2016 12:09am

Saw this earlier. It is terrible.

All I could compare it to was learning to drive.
Lots of stops and starts,loads of jagging about but no real go anywhere attitude.

Big plot hole for me, first film set in 96, they had a ship is Roswell since the 40's which was identical, but come back 20 years in ships 2.0

And how did the pilot guy know the director guy. Were they drinking buddies? I mean American Air Force must be 30K or more, but you know , hey David!!

Load of crap. May as well have got pacific rim robots to fight the queen

LCD · 20-08-2016 3:04pm

My god this movie is unbelievable tripe! I guess some people would enjoy it in a mindless kind of way. Afraid I am not one, just thought was pure trash.

Thankfully America was able to save the world again, backed up by a few Chinese. Co incidentally the world's 2 biggest movie markets.

I guess these "blockbusters" are now made bad so that they can be exported around the world & there is no fear of the plot getting lost in translation

Thargor · 25-12-2016 1:50am

Jesus the amount of people praising this film in this thread is unbelievable, this is one of the worst films of the last 10 years and I just had to sit through it again, its a complete and utter turd, the dialog is absolutely shocking. I found myself getting angry at it like I was watching Mrs Brownes Boys.

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

Comments

Independence Day: Resurgence SPOILERS FROM POST 266 ONWARD