The Official "Oblivion" Review Thread

[Chris_Johnston]

Saw it in IMAX (my first time watching a feature film in the format) Friday night.
My biggest problem was with my eyeballs drying out, because I only blinked about once every three minutes! (Good thing I brought eye drops!)
However, I have to see it again, but this time I'm gonna make sure it's digitally-projected IMAX, because ours was 70mm film, and nowhere near the sharpness I've come to expect these days.

 

[stj]

If we insist that the derivative tag is useful, shouldn't we actually use it?

For example, if the presence of a potted plant means Wall*E is ripped off, what does it mean that Oblivion's potted plant is immediately destroyed?

Or, what does it mean that Oblivion's plot is far more like Impostor than Moon? (Impostor, a Gary Sinise movie where a heretofore unaware duplicate uses himself against the enemy.)

Or, how does the business with the ring and "seeing the future" resonate/metacomment on Love Affair/An Affair to Remember/Sleepless in Seattle?

Maybe we should try to get past the reviewers' effort to crush the movie and consider real questions instead. Why does 52 leave, just to spend three years searching for the woman who was about a hundred yards away? Was this a plausible route to a satisfying happy ending, or bad plotting for a wallow in sentimentality?

 

[ThunderAeroI]

If we insist that the derivative tag is useful, shouldn't we actually use it?

For example, if the presence of a potted plant means Wall*E is ripped off, what does it mean that Oblivion's potted plant is immediately destroyed?

It was in Wall-E as well. Or an attempt was made once the AI knew about it. The only difference in Wall-E is that the humans are on the Tet and not the planet. In fact I wounder how many humans are really left and where the aliens from the tet were. Did the AI kill them too like the Starchild in MassEffect?

Or, what does it mean that Oblivion's plot is far more like Impostor than Moon? (Impostor, a Gary Sinise movie where a heretofore unaware duplicate uses himself against the enemy.)

Or, how does the business with the ring and "seeing the future" resonate/metacomment on Love Affair/An Affair to Remember/Sleepless in Seattle?

Maybe we should try to get past the reviewers' effort to crush the movie and consider real questions instead. Why does 52 leave, just to spend three years searching for the woman who was about a hundred yards away? Was this a plausible route to a satisfying happy ending, or bad plotting for a wallow in sentimentality?

Who says 52 spent three years looking for anything. He looked perfectly happy doing his drone thing until 49 put a lock hold on him.

 

[trekkiebaggio]

I posted this in the other Oblivion thread but this one seems to have taken over. There were a couple of things I was wondering -

Spoiler: Ending

1. I'd have thought Sally would realise that 49 was in 52's craft.

2. What happens with all the other clones on Earth? Will Julia fall in love with all of them?

 

[stj]

If we insist that the derivative tag is useful, shouldn't we actually use it?

For example, if the presence of a potted plant means Wall*E is ripped off, what does it mean that Oblivion's potted plant is immediately destroyed?

It was in Wall-E as well. Or an attempt was made once the AI knew about it. The only difference in Wall-E is that the humans are on the Tet and not the planet. In fact I wounder how many humans are really left and where the aliens from the tet were. Did the AI kill them too like the Starchild in MassEffect?

The plant serves as a MacGuffin for a goodly portion of Wall*E, which is quite a difference. Also, one important theme of Wall*E is people decaying within the techonological cocoon that saves them from the immediate consequences of destroying their environment. This theme is not present at all in Oblivion. If you insist that Oblivion's potted plant rips off Wall*E, so be it. That is the script apparently. But you aren't saying anything interesting or important about Oblivion.

Or, what does it mean that Oblivion's plot is far more like Impostor than Moon? (Impostor, a Gary Sinise movie where a heretofore unaware duplicate uses himself against the enemy.)

Or, how does the business with the ring and "seeing the future" resonate/metacomment on Love Affair/An Affair to Remember/Sleepless in Seattle?

Maybe we should try to get past the reviewers' effort to crush the movie and consider real questions instead. Why does 52 leave, just to spend three years searching for the woman who was about a hundred yards away? Was this a plausible route to a satisfying happy ending, or bad plotting for a wallow in sentimentality?

Who says 52 spent three years looking for anything. He looked perfectly happy doing his drone thing until 49 put a lock hold on him.

It was 52 who said this, in narration. It was possibly 52 narrating during the whole movie, but any ambiguity on this only reinforces one of the movie's themes.

I posted this in the other Oblivion thread but this one seems to have taken over. There were a couple of things I was wondering -

Spoiler: Ending

1. I'd have thought Sally would realise that 49 was in 52's craft.

2. What happens with all the other clones on Earth? Will Julia fall in love with all of them?

49 is trained to reprogram devices as part of repairs. As when he reprograms the drone, he can use this skill to deceive Sally. Did this need to be shown?

Strictly speaking, only 49 and 52 know anything about J. Rusakova. 52's Victoria must have been out of contact or she would have tipped off Sally, making the rest of the action impossible. Did that need to be shown as well?

 

[feek61]

I enjoyed the movie, but it's long and slow pacing probably won't warrant a re-watch.

That is one of the things I really liked about it. I am so sick of action in lieu of acting and story. I really like how it gave you time to think of what was going on. Personally I wish more movies would quit having so much action so that you can have time to think about the story. Maybe I'm just getting old, lol. I fear the new JJ Trek will be more of the same; action, action, action.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Spoiler

Is it just me, or was the story basically The Matrix, with the visuals of the Portal game, with the ending of ID4 tacked on?

Haha, yes, now that you mention it! All the gizmos were just missing an big fat Aperture logo and it wouldn't have felt out of place.
Would have put the whole story into a completely new perspective.

 

[trekkiebaggio]

I posted this in the other Oblivion thread but this one seems to have taken over. There were a couple of things I was wondering -

Spoiler: Ending

1. I'd have thought Sally would realise that 49 was in 52's craft.

2. What happens with all the other clones on Earth? Will Julia fall in love with all of them?

49 is trained to reprogram devices as part of repairs. As when he reprograms the drone, he can use this skill to deceive Sally. Did this need to be shown?


Strictly speaking, only 49 and 52 know anything about J. Rusakova. 52's Victoria must have been out of contact or she would have tipped off Sally, making the rest of the action impossible. Did that need to be shown as well?

Yes and yes.

 

[Mr Light]

If only it turned out to be GLaDOS behind it in the end...!

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

If only it turned out to be GLaDOS behind it in the end...!

We would gotten cool and funny credit sequence song then

 

[InklingStar]

If only it turned out to be GLaDOS behind it in the end...!

Spoiler: GlaDOS

When I first saw "Sally" suspended in the center of the room like that, I immediately thought of GlaDOS.

 

[DarKush]

I saw it earlier today. I want to like it more than I actually do.

The positives were it was just a gorgeous film. I liked the design of the ships and technology quite a bit. Tom Cruise is ageless. He's made for these kind of roles and he puts in more solid work. The cast for the most part is good, but of course that trends a bit toward the cliche.

I thought the pacing of the film was slow. I wish there had been more action, but it took its time getting to its major twists. I wasn't expecting those twists so that was welcome. Looking back though I think the trailer gave a way a bit too much, which robbed some of the reveals of their punch.

Overall, a nice looking sci-fi film that holds together storywise much better than Prometheus for example. That being said, because of its languid pacing and not enough pow moments I doubt it's a film that I will see again.

I wonder how Oblivion would do if it had been tossed in the middle of the summer block busters? It looks like a block buster but ultimately the story doesn't feel that way. It aims for something a bit more emotional or intimate, not sure it fully reaches it for me though.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I completely agree that the trailer gave away far too much.

 

[Admiral2]

Maybe we should try to get past the reviewers' effort to crush the movie and consider real questions instead.

I went to the theater. I bought a ticket. That's all i'm required to do in support of the movie. If I'd wanted it crushed, I wouldn't have gone.

Why does 52 leave, just to spend three years searching for the woman who was about a hundred yards away? Was this a plausible route to a satisfying happy ending, or bad plotting for a wallow in sentimentality?

Oh no...the real question is why does a VTOL aerospace craft have a tail rotor when it doesn't have a top rotor to create rotational torque?

You don't care about that?

Then you care about as much as I do about romantic drama.

And Oblivion is not being singled out because it copied one or two movies. Again, I lost count listing all the movies it swiped stuff from in my head. An egregious offender deserves to be singled out and made an example of, whether you like the movie or not.

 

[stj]

Most movies are egregious offenders but they don't get singled out. Maybe that's because it's pedantic to look for ripoffs of superficial stuff? Or because some are not ripoffs but deliberate references (or even hommages?) Obviously we'll not agree that fixating on this misses the important stuff about this movie.

I wondered about the tail rotor. I don't know much about the basic principles of aircraft engineering but it didn't seem quite right. Now, if I rewatch, the rotor'll ouch when I see it. I'll blame you for that. At least we agree that the visual design was not as good as it can be.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Again, I lost count listing all the movies it swiped stuff from in my head.

Who knows? Maybe if you had spent less time making lists and more time focusing on the film, you would have had a more enjoyable experience.

 

[tighr]

And Oblivion is not being singled out because it copied one or two movies. Again, I lost count listing all the movies it swiped stuff from in my head. An egregious offender deserves to be singled out and made an example of, whether you like the movie or not.

I felt it was quite obvious that these were homages, and not ripoffs. The sheer number of references (and obviousness) I saw means that he wasn't trying to get away with anything, he was merely telling his story. Just because his story takes bits and pieces from other stories doesn't stop it from being unique.

Or, what does it mean that Oblivion's plot is far more like Impostor than Moon? (Impostor, a Gary Sinise movie where a heretofore unaware duplicate uses himself against the enemy.)

I too got an "Moon" vibe as well as the "Imposter" vibe. Actually, a lot of the film reminds me of Philip K Dick stories. The Imposter vibe hit me the most when I realized he was working for the bad guys, even though he thought he was doing good work. The "2001 Space Odyssey" bits were blatantly obvious (the ship was called the Odyssey). There are countless movies that I thought of while watching: The Time Machine (the blown-up moon), Omega Man/I am Legend (last man on Earth), Independance Day (flying up to the mothership with a bomb), Stargate (giant pyramid shaped space ship)... Even little things, like his Sky Castle having a distinct Jetson's feel to it.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Maybe we should try to get past the reviewers' effort to crush the movie and consider real questions instead.

I went to the theater. I bought a ticket. That's all i'm required to do in support of the movie. If I'd wanted it crushed, I wouldn't have gone.

Why does 52 leave, just to spend three years searching for the woman who was about a hundred yards away? Was this a plausible route to a satisfying happy ending, or bad plotting for a wallow in sentimentality?

Oh no...the real question is why does a VTOL aerospace craft have a tail rotor when it doesn't have a top rotor to create rotational torque?

To control yaw. The real problem is of balance, with only two engines balance would be a larger issue. Typically these types of designs at least have three similarly sized engines to form a triangle. That isn't any more correct than just having two but at least its more more balanced.

 

[Admiral2]

Maybe we should try to get past the reviewers' effort to crush the movie and consider real questions instead.

I went to the theater. I bought a ticket. That's all i'm required to do in support of the movie. If I'd wanted it crushed, I wouldn't have gone.

Why does 52 leave, just to spend three years searching for the woman who was about a hundred yards away? Was this a plausible route to a satisfying happy ending, or bad plotting for a wallow in sentimentality?

Oh no...the real question is why does a VTOL aerospace craft have a tail rotor when it doesn't have a top rotor to create rotational torque?

To control yaw. The real problem is of balance, with only two engines balance would be a larger issue. Typically these types of designs at least have three similarly sized engines to form a triangle. That isn't any more correct than just having two but at least its more more balanced.

Yeah, but you can control yaw with a simple rudder, like on a Harrier or an Osprey, two VTOL aircraft that would have the same balance problems. Using a tail rotor to do it just adds more moving parts and more maintenance and repair problems.

Who knows? Maybe if you had spent less time making lists and more time focusing on the film, you would have had a more enjoyable experience.

I said I liked the movie in my first post. Read back-thread more...

I wondered about the tail rotor. I don't know much about the basic principles of aircraft engineering but it didn't seem quite right. Now, if I rewatch, the rotor'll ouch when I see it. I'll blame you for that. At least we agree that the visual design was not as good as it can be.

We can both blame the director for that. i think it was in one of the behind the scenes SyFy promos where i saw him say he wanted the craft to combine the best things about a certain type of helicopter and a fighter. I think he picked the wrong model chopper.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I said I liked the movie in my first post. Read back-thread more...

Pffff! As if "facts" could stop me from throwing accusations around!