Oblivion

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Oblivion

    In the future, clones will have no mourning period.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Oblivion

      Originally posted by sixridgeroad View Post
      Plot unable to withstand scrutiny.
      Plot?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Oblivion

        Seen it

        My only question is, would this have taken anywhere near this money without Cruise. Answer for me is no, in fact, I think it would have bombed. It` s a film strictly for TC fans, offering little else for anyone who isn't.

        Comment


        • #79
          I am curious

          Originally posted by miktal-1 View Post
          Seen it

          My only question is, would this have taken anywhere near this money without Cruise. Answer for me is no, in fact, I think it would have bombed. It` s a film strictly for TC fans, offering little else for anyone who isn't.
          Then why did you watch it? Your disdain for populist. Hollywood blockbusters is well noted so here is one with a megastar, how much more populist can you get? That's like the prudes who watch a saucy program knowing full well it's going to be sexy and then complain to the TV company at how they were offended.
          M.A.G.A.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: I am curious

            Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
            Then why did you watch it? Your disdain for populist. Hollywood blockbusters is well noted so here is one with a megastar, how much more populist can you get? That's like the prudes who watch a saucy program knowing full well it's going to be sexy and then complain to the TV company at how they were offended.
            Why did I watch it? I didnt say that I hated Tom Cruise films, neither did I watch it just because he`s in it. Not sure where you`re going with that.

            My disdain for HW Blockbusters is well noted here?? Is it?? I don't recall expressing that opinion anywhere here. You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Oblivion

              Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
              I'm not sure why you guys think Cruise isn't successful. Other than ROCK OF AGES, his last six movies all exceeded $200 million worldwide (or soon will; OBLIVION is just about there already). And ROCK wasn't even a starring vehicle for him so that probably doesn't even count as far as the bean counters are concerned.

              He's a box office draw, and he'll continue to make movies as long as he keeps pulling in the dough for the studios.
              Cruise is also a producer on his films, except for Spielberg vehicles. Has been since 1996.

              He typically hand-picks the directors, and the writers. Or alternatively, decides to make a spec script. Like the upcoming black-lister All You Need Is Kill. His films tend to have a strong directorial vision, which means that he obviously respects the people he works with.

              He is most of the time - And this is really important - the main reason his films get made.

              Tom is not the world's best actor, and he might be a little bit crazy. But he's one of the most consistently high-pedigree entertainers in the industry, and has been for the last 20 years or so. As a "filmmaker" I have enormous respect for him. Only few people have the kind of track records he has.

              In the last 18 months alone, I think M:I-4, Jack Reacher and Oblivion were all far better than the average Hollywood fare, and they are not even among Cruise's best films.
              Last edited by tuukka; 05-14-2013, 02:48 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Oblivion

                Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                The main problem seems to be that supporters of the film can't be bothered* to offer counterpoints to arguments that the plotting relies on setpieces rather than an organic narrative, the characterization is lazy, the science is egregiously boneheaded, the dialogue is basic and redundant without being illuminating, the extreme overuse of voiceover (which in itself violates "show don't tell) and of course the derivative content itself which drives the plot more than one fundamental creative vision.

                Oblivion is (in my opinion) not a movie aspiring screenwriters should look to as a model for spec writing.

                Although we all seem to agree that the graphics are shiny.

                *On the other hand, it's waaaaay easier to tear a movie down than to offer insight into why it might be undervalued.
                I'll take the challenge.

                *** SPOILERS ***

                The plot is not reliant on set-pieces. It's not really an action-heavy film at all. Mostly it's a mystery film and a character piece, with very deliberate pacing.

                It's easy to argue that the trailers gave away too much. They did. Much of the mystery aspect - And the film IS built like a mystery narrative - got spoiled in the marketing.

                Without it, we wouldn't really guess right away that the Scavengers are actually humans. We wouldn't guess that Jack is unknowingly working for the enemy. We wouldn't know that there is an active human resistance. We wouldn't know that Jack will change sides and join them.

                The plot is not driven by set-pieces. It's driven by questions and reveals. This, IMHO, is very bluntly obvious. Everything in the film built around that approach.

                The film can't be blamed for lackluster marketing. Really, they could have built so much better trailers for Oblivion. The footage for marvelously intriguing trailers was definitely there.

                To push my point further, on how the plot is not driven by set-pieces. There are only three real action set-pieces in the film: The underground lair shootout in the beginning, the chase in the canyon, the drone shoot-out in the rebellion base. Only the last action beat has any substantial story significance. It has lasting repercussions, and changes the course of story in an important way.

                The other two are (almost) just action noise. Enjoyable action, but nevertheless. Yes, they do affect the story somewhat, but not in a major way.

                A more accurate criticism would be that the film has superficial action scenes that are not really needed storywise, and exist primarily to give the audience an adrenalin thrill.

                But this is almost an exact opposite of your complaint.

                As for characterizations, I had no problems really. I thought they were well done. I particularly enjoyed the relationship between Jack and Victoria, which was the main relationship in the film, in terms of screen time. It was interesting drama.

                Dialogue is not witty, but it's mostly elegant. It's simple, and it's often adding an extra layer. What is *really* happening in a scene is often not expressed in the dialogue at all, and the dialogue can even fight the real content, which is revealed through images instead.

                It's not a talky film, and the story moves forward more with images than talking heads. Which is the kind of writing I tend to like, and it's most definitely a right approach in a film like this.

                I don't understand the complaint about extreme use of voiceover. The film uses voiceover only *twice*. And it doesn't violate "Show, don't tell". The opposite of it. Because both times the VO is a cheat - The opening VO deliberately misguides the audience, as does the closing VO, up to the final line, which again is a reveal. (Not really a surprising reveal, but satisfying emotionally, at least to me).

                I didn't like the opening VO. The opening would have been stellar without it, with those majestic images. But I did like the closing VO.

                The science wasn't bone-headed to me. The film is not really hard sci-fi, and doesn't attempt to be. The concept of sucking out the oceans seemed silly, because it's hard to imagine why TET would do everything just for that. If it just wants water, there are better places to get it. Like Titan. But maybe it wasn't merely sucking water, maybe it wanted all the other bio-mass in the ocean, for some strange purpose. It's a God-like alien machine, I have no idea what it wants, really.

                But that's it, really. Otherwise, I didn't have any problems with the science. Can you cite more specific examples why the science in the film is bone-headed?

                Saying that the "graphics are shiny" is a massive understatement. Oblivion establishes its own, distinct visual look. Most of the time, it looks amazing. Not just the graphics, but the cinematography, editing, set design, costume design, VFX design, etc. Films are a visual medium, so yes, this is all extremely important. And it's particularly important in a film of this genre.

                Kosinski has a very vivid visual imagination. The film is full of striking, often very original imagery.

                It also has great sound design. And cool music.

                While there are elements that can be compared to other film, I never found this problematic. I've never seen a film where I couldn't play that game. Particularly in the sci-fi genre, which happens to be my favorite genre, both in film and literature.

                Maybe I should mention things that I did find fairly original. Not in terms of sci-fi literature, but in terms of sci-fi movies:

                The method of apocalypse: TET destroys moon, which causes natural catastrophies on earth. Haven't seen that done in any other movie I can recall.

                Visual design of the apocalypse. I really enjoyed seeing everything covered in the grey sand. N.Y is merely a collection of canyons - the past streets - with some of the highest buildings piercing through. The film managed to build a new vision for a post-apocalyptic world. Not an easy feat, with so many past movies having done it. The iMac-style TET-tech juxtaposed with the grungy aftermath of the apocalypse was a very clever approach.

                The drones. Creepy bastards in the 1st half of the film, with a lot of nice quirks. Too easily killed on the 2nd half, but the initial impression of them is really good.

                The hero is actually working for the alien enemy. It's a pretty novel concept in movies, right off the top of my head, I can't think of a good comparison (Althought there are probably some).

                TET himself. I fully expected aliens. I was delighted to get a God-like alien machine instead, which is a rather original villain in a sci-fi film. I also liked how TET did its invasion by using just the clones of the two astronauts it happened to catch, and fooling them by building simulations of the feed they used to get from NASA. Haven't seen those things often - it's pretty original. We could argue all day that TET could have had a more effective long-run strategy. But I think the things it did were very machine-like in thinking, so I buy it.

                In relation to that, I had no clue what was gonna be in the radiation zone. Once we saw the man walking away from the fly-craft, it was obvious. But a nice reveal, anyway.

                I also didn't see Jack killing himself in the end, in order to give a better life for his clone (Along with everyone else). Once he starts his journey to TET, I thought that was probably what was gonna happen. But it's still a pretty novel concept, and made for a cool ending. (But yeah, maybe they just stole the idea from 6th Day... and then made it completely different. But like I said, we could play this game all day long).

                There are a lot of smaller things I could mention, that I found interesting an original to an extent.

                For non-script stuff:

                The film had some very good acting, particularly from Riseborough. Kurylenko has a much less interesting role, but she's also very good. An under-appreciated actress. Melissa Leo is deliciously creepy in all her cheerfulness. Freeman is playing Freeman, but that's always a plus.

                And Tom is Tom. I already wrote a post about what I think of him. When you go see a Tom Cruise film, you make a pact with him, because he is who gets these films made. Most of the time, he is just playing a variation of Tom Cruise. But I like him as an actor, he has a good movie-star quality to him.

                And regardless, while I think that this time Tom didn't quite manage to capture the torment of his character, I think he did the natural curiosity and rebellious stubbornness well, like he always does.

                The film isn't without flaws, thought.

                It has a semi-aura of coldness and detachment, which is a result of Kosinski's directorial style. Slow pacing, under-played drama, under-played suspense moments, and moments of stoic acting. The emphasis on striking visual imagery and the pulsing electro-sountrack are impressive on their own, but they under-sell human warmth.

                Structure and pacing are also uneven on the 2nd half. The forward momentum is clunky, it's not *building*. I did enjoy the finale, thought.

                All in all, I thought this was a very good movie. Not great, not without flaws, but really good still. Ambitious, fairly smart, lot of interesting elements, with grade-A talent across the board. And it has that good old sense of wonder that the best science fiction can offer.
                Last edited by tuukka; 05-14-2013, 02:52 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Oblivion

                  Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                  I think you're spot on. Perhaps examples would be best to help explain:

                  a) Lucas was influenced a lot by Edgar Rice Burroughs' novels. The whole space opera, future as past, fairytale in space aspect for example, but he didn't borrow plot elements. There was no Death Star to blow up in John Carter.

                  Whereas in oblivion:

                  *SPOLIERS*

                  a giant "alien locust" mothership hovering in orbit waiting for its giant daughter ships to ravage Earth, and then getting blown up in the end by a nuke being carried aboard one of its own close support fighters is an EXACT DUPLICATE of ID4's plot.

                  Imagine if John Carter of Mars had a giant steel space station blowing up planets with a superlaser as its plot. No one would be praising George Lucas for creativity here!
                  *** SPOILERS ***

                  In ID4, the giant daughter ships were battleships that were on a big offensive to kill all humans, in a few days. In Oblivion, the giant daughter ships are merely big machines that collect water, and apparently they have been already doing it for about 50-60 years. The assignment for Jack and Victoria is going to end in two weeks according to TET, but it seems they are simply being replaced by two other clones.

                  In ID4, the heroes capture an enemy fighter and use it to sneak into the mothership. In Oblivion, a technician working for the mothership uses an aircraft that he has used in his work for the last 5 years, to enter the mothership, because the mothership asks him to do so.

                  Both films do use a nuke (Which is the only weapon we have, that is powerful enough to fight against such enemy). But in ID4 the two heroes do a heroic escape from the mothership. In Oblivion, the two heroes die along with the explosion.

                  There are of course many more details and plot elements, that also distinguish the two films from each other in the mothership segment.

                  The point is: When you get away from the *broadest comparisons possible*, the climaxes for the two films are in fact completely different.

                  Granted, I do agree that the mothership in Oblivion was too similar to ID4 visually. It would have served the film to distinguish the mothership more.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Oblivion

                    Originally posted by tuukka View Post
                    I didn't have any problems with the science. Can you cite more specific examples why the science in the film is bone-headed?
                    Just Google [spoiler] "Do clones retain memories?" [/spoiler]

                    You'll get your answer in a few seconds. Which is a few seconds more than the writers expended. And this is pretty much the entire premise of the movie. It's also a trope as hoary and silly as the one where getting a hand transplant from a killer will compel the recipient to take up murder themselves.
                    "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

                    My YouTube channel.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Oblivion

                      Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                      Just Google [spoiler] "Do clones retain memories?" [/spoiler]

                      You'll get your answer in a few seconds. Which is a few seconds more than the writers expended. And this is pretty much the entire premise of the movie. It's also a trope as hoary and silly as the one where getting a hand transplant from a killer will compel the recipient to take up murder themselves.

                      Holy crap. Is that really the premis? A fully cooked

                      Between this and Prometheus, I got me some serious parody'n to do.
                      Free Script Reads and Notes

                      ​
                      ​

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Oblivion

                        Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                        Just Google [spoiler] "Do clones retain memories?" [/spoiler]

                        You'll get your answer in a few seconds. Which is a few seconds more than the writers expended. And this is pretty much the entire premise of the movie. It's also a trope as hoary and silly as the one where getting a hand transplant from a killer will compel the recipient to take up murder themselves.
                        ***SPOILERS***

                        Except that the film never states how the "clones" are made. It doesn't even call them clones.

                        You are assuming that Jack and Victoria are merely some advanced versions of Dolly The Sheep. Which is not a position supported by the film.

                        It's a lot more logical to assume that a God-like machine like TET is able to read and convert the bodies of humans - also their brains and brain activity, including memories - into data. And then TET uses that data to create copies, with advanced nano-technology.

                        Not clones. Not Dolly The Sheep.

                        Copies.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Oblivion

                          I'm on board with tuukka. EDITED TO ADD == whoops me and tuuka posted the same re clones.




                          SPOILER RESPONSE TO SIGNAL:


                          What do we know of the cloning technology used in Oblivion? Our current clone experiments (still in their infancy) require injecting DNA into a pre-existing cell then putting it through full gestation. That's why our clones to date don't retain memories -- because they start out as cells.

                          But the Oblivion clones were fully formed adults created by an alien machine that can somehow "xerox," for lack of a better term, bio-matter.

                          Unless you're claiming the alien machine used old school cloning, waited nine months for their petri dish babies to be born, then waited another 20+ years for their clones to mature, be trained as fighters, etc., your criticism doesn't hold up.

                          Is it logical to reject the future science created by the writer because it doesn't conform to current clone science? If we did that with the science in all all sci-fi films nothing would hold up, storywise.

                          It's clearly stated in the film they "voluteered" to have their memories erased. So it's no leap to accept whatever "xerox" process used also "xeroxed" memories.

                          What the alien machine underestimated -- as with many other stories about alien invasions -- is the unique "soul" quality of humans, the human ability to love and attach to each other, and maintain that attachment and love even when separated by time and space -- human qualities which cannot be easily destroyed.
                          Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Oblivion

                            I had no idea there were that many people who thought the movie was good enough to evoke this type of detailed discussion.

                            Actually, kinda reminds me of BLADE RUNNER: pretty, but not really much there.

                            (everyone stares at the gauntlet on the ground)

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Oblivion

                              I didn't say that it couldn't be rationalized out. Just that the writers didn't seem to put as much thought into it as you guys did. And I do it myself. Just not here.

                              Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
                              Actually, kinda reminds me of BLADE RUNNER: pretty, but not really much there.

                              (everyone stares at the gauntlet on the ground)
                              BLADE RUNNER would have been brilliant if Scott had cut out all the talky bits.
                              "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

                              My YouTube channel.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Oblivion

                                Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
                                I had no idea there were that many people who thought the movie was good enough to evoke this type of detailed discussion.

                                Actually, kinda reminds me of BLADE RUNNER: pretty, but not really much there.

                                (everyone stares at the gauntlet on the ground)

                                Gauntlet - oy vey. I think the many fans of BLADE RUNNER -- and the fact it's entered the classic film category -- greatly tarnishes your gauntlet, perhaps even turns it to rust.

                                And before you point out BR did not do big BO when released consider that it defied sci-fi tradition and had no scary monsters for teenage boys. But over time people began to see its value.

                                The only thing you're half right about is that both films explore the question -- what does it mean to be human? In BR a corporation created replicated human physiology to create worker bees. And in doing so underestimated how human their replicants would become.
                                Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X