Independence Day - Resurgence

[Kelthaz]

I didn't realize that "INDEPENDENCE DAY 2" is already considered a bomb. Is it because it didn't top the box office charts? I've seen movies that were a lot worse than this end up as #1. "IDR" had the bad luck to go up against a kiddie film - "FINDING DORY". I still recall that 2006's "CASINO ROYALE" never made it to the top of the box office, due to "HAPPY FEET", yet it ended up being a major hit anyway. As far as "IDR" is concerned, it still has enough time to make money - if not here in the U.S., it still can elsewhere.

The ranking isn't important. What's important is how much money it makes. A $41 million opening weekend is terrible and with a multiplier between 2x and 3x we're looking at maybe $100 million domestic. The international market (aka. China) can possibly save it, but that's not too likely. Basically don't hold your breath for sequels.

 

[bigdaddy]

Unless Will Smith comes back. If they can get him back I think they might make another.

 

[Unicron]

I saw it tonight, and it's a mixed bag at best. I agree with a lot of the criticisms mentioned here in the thread, and I feel like they could have done more. I didn't feel like the pacing was that good either, although I thought the visuals were really nice.

 

[The Wormhole]

although I thought the visuals were really nice.

While the movie doesn't have bad visuals, there's nothing that matches the memorable visuals of the first, like the exploding White House, which is probably one of the most iconic images from 90s action movies. Or my personal favourite, the ruins of New York. That's an image that always stuck with me these past twenty years. IDR has nothing as memorable or haunting as that at all.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I saw this tonight and, while not as good as the first, I still had a good time watching it. The world building was really interesting (although it seems a little implausible to rebuild that much of Earth AND build stations on the moon and Saturn all within a 20 year span). I absolutely loved the burning sky effects as the Harvester mothership entered Earth's atmosphere. Like I said, the movie is nowhere near as good as the first one, but it doesn't deserve the negativity it seems to be getting. I'd compare it to being more like Ghostbuster II to ID4's Ghost Busters. That's not a bad thing. Both are enjoyable sequels (if a little TOO similar to the first)

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

The thing is you shouldn't have to read a bloody prequel for these kind of movies. If they can't tell you the whole story in the time allotted they should just stuff off and not make a movie sometimes.

Having said that I loved this movie.

 

[The Wormhole]

Actually, something that got to me upon further reflection, isn't it kind of pointless having a defense station on the moon? Okay, yes, both the alien harvester and the friendly sphere approach Earth from the moon, and for that matter so did the mothership in the first movie, but there are many other directions ships can come from. What if a ship approached on a vector the exact opposite of the moon's position? Yes, there are orbital defense satellites around the planet, but still, the moon can't target a ship with a planet in the way. Likewise, any fighters the moon scrambled would have to fly around Earth, making their journey that much longer and they wouldn't be much of a fast response.

 

[Paul Weaver]

They really should have charged the orbital satellites a bit earlier.

The moon is a handy place to have a canon in high earth orbit, about half the orbit can be targeted (Assuming a million mile range for the cannon), and it's protected from attack from long range (say we had a weapon with a million mile range, and the bad guys had one with a 2 million mile range, they could pick off our satelites before we could fire. With the moon we're protected by the bulk, at least half the time.

However Saturn distance really doesn't help. Even if you did have enough satellites with a million mile range -- you'd need about a trillion to to ensure a single one is in range when a ship passes through -- even then it doesn't work when your enemy appears with a wormhole (like the sphere).

That said it seems the bad guys in ID4 like gravity wells - they flew via the moon at least twice, and via saturn at least once, so putting defence structures in these places makes sense for that specific foe.

The first film didn't explain many things - like how a macbook can hack an alien spaceship (aside from deleted scenes). Entirely possible they found enough information in the ships to know that the aliens had to arrive via gravity wells, and perhaps even a specific flight path.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I've had a few hours to reflect on the movie and I still enjoyed it. As I did the first movie. One of my only major nitpicks involves the alien ship that landed in Africa that had its crew fought off by the Warlord (who was a badass, btw and would LOVE to see a prequel involving his war with the aliens). We find out that the Harvester Queens go to the planets, drill to the magma core, suck out the magma to power their ships and move off to find a new planet. In fact, we see this in the opening credits as we're moving through the galaxy, with the planet with the ginormous crater in it and debris everywhere.

So, we discover that the ship in Africa was also drilling (although not as fast, and also seemingly not as powerfully as the Harvester Queen's ship). So, if the plan all along was to drill to Earth's core, why did the 1996 invaders even bother with the City Destroyers? They could have just parked over Africa, sucked out the core, let Earth die and move along. It could be argued that the City Destroyers were used to knock out our defenses in fear that Earth would join up with the resistance movement talked about by the Good Alien Sphere, but Earth's technology was so primitive in 1996 that there would be no way any survivors COULD meet up with the Resistance.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I've had a few hours to reflect on the movie and I still enjoyed it. As I did the first movie. One of my only major nitpicks involves the alien ship that landed in Africa that had its crew fought off by the Warlord (who was a badass, btw and would LOVE to see a prequel involving his war with the aliens). We find out that the Harvester Queens go to the planets, drill to the magma core, suck out the magma to power their ships and move off to find a new planet. In fact, we see this in the opening credits as we're moving through the galaxy, with the planet with the ginormous crater in it and debris everywhere.

So, we discover that the ship in Africa was also drilling (although not as fast, and also seemingly not as powerfully as the Harvester Queen's ship). So, if the plan all along was to drill to Earth's core, why did the 1996 invaders even bother with the City Destroyers? They could have just parked over Africa, sucked out the core, let Earth die and move along. It could be argued that the City Destroyers were used to knock out our defenses in fear that Earth would join up with the resistance movement talked about by the Good Alien Sphere, but Earth's technology was so primitive in 1996 that there would be no way any survivors COULD meet up with the Resistance.

Because destroying the opposition and distracting them from your real goal is always a good idea, even if they seemingly don't have a chance of beating you. Just parking over africa is basically asking for every military in the world to join forces and attack the drill ship all at once. Probably that wouldn't achieve anything, but if there's even the tiniest chance that it would, then that's an unnecessary risk to the (presumably all important) drill ship.

 

[Jedi Marso]

One thing I will say for the ID4 movies is that despite being set on Earth in contemporary times, they do let me just turn off the 'reality switch' in my head the same way SW does. If I stopped and worried about all the little contradictions and plot holes, I'd totally hate the franchise. But I don't- I love it, cheese and all.

 

[Unicron]

While the movie doesn't have bad visuals, there's nothing that matches the memorable visuals of the first, like the exploding White House, which is probably one of the most iconic images from 90s action movies. Or my personal favourite, the ruins of New York. That's an image that always stuck with me these past twenty years. IDR has nothing as memorable or haunting as that at all.

That's true. While I liked what they did with the queen, I'd agree there weren't the same scale of stand-out visuals that helped make the first movie so memorable. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall Spiner's character in the first movie suggesting the Harvesters were potentially interested in colonization, and perhaps that's why they didn't go after the core the same way then. But my memory's far from perfect, so I could be wrong.

 

[Jedi Marso]

Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall Spiner's character in the first movie suggesting the Harvesters were potentially interested in colonization, and perhaps that's why they didn't go after the core the same way then.

That makes sense. In the first movie they were described as locusts that come and strip away every natural resource before moving on. A planet has a lot more resources to offer than just its molten core. Perhaps the original invasion (with the landed ship) was to strip the planet of all its goodies, saving the core for last. After getting whooped, a full-on harvester ship rolls in with the notion of 'screw the rest, we'll just de-core the planet, kill off this dangerous species, and call it even.'

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I suspect the harvester ships are called in when the first wave of aliens are defeated, or look like getting their asses handed to them.

 

[Jax]

It was quite the mess to be fair despite some good action scenes, nice humor and some nice homages to the original. The pacing is SO FAR OFF its unbelievable. Everything is so rushed and it feels like they are trying to cram so much when they could of just made the film a little longer. It comes off as a B Movie or a TV movie at times with some of the dialogue just plain cheesy and delivered in a very hammy way from the new cast of characters. The last line was especially laughable in a bad way from Brent Spiner to set up the 3rd movie and even the look and sound of that Sphere object was so cheap like a Syfy original movie.

The queen fight was something out of a video game final boss fight, The queen from a plot point had no need to be in the battle apart from an easy way to write the ending, the whole sequence just seemed so OTT.

The 1st film was superior in every single way.

C grade.

 

[Jedi Marso]

Yeah, I'm not sure why they felt the urgency to cut this film down to 2 hours. You spend ALL that money to make it and in the end it's down to editing and finishing off a few more CG shots. Think about the product we could have seen if they'd given it a 2.5 hour run time, cut down on the number of characters and irrelevant bylines, and used the extra time to flesh out the story and characters they DID keep. Coulda been epic. Coulda woulda shoulda.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Crap.

 

[bigdaddy]

Or if they just made it two movies like the plan was...

 

[The Nth Doctor]

No, Jedi Marso's suggestion is much more sensible. Less is more.

 

[JD]

I remembered one moment that to mention in my first post. I loved the bit where the ship is coming towards The White House, but then stops just before destroying it. I thought it was a fun little play on the fact that The White House being destroyed is one of the first movie's signature images.