Unpopular Sci-fi/ Fantasy movie opinions!

[Checkmate]

Dictatorships are no more worse than any other form of government. More prone to abuse that most, yes. Likely to be obtained forcibly, sure. But those are all separate from a dictatorship itself.

All the captain did was accept a preprogrammed action that had already been decided by a formerly democratic government. He didn't put a gun to anyone's head. He didn't force everyone to get off the ship once it landed. He didn't demand everyone give up the life they had become accustomed to. The ship itself didn't spotaneously explode into a million pieces, stranding everyone on Earth.

They chose to do those things of their own free will. They could have just as easily stay on board and continue "living" their old lives if they so chose to. They just actually had a choice now.

 

[Neroon]

I have before, so didn't want to echo myself.

Oops.. sorry about that.

 

[Myasishchev]

^I wouldn't expect everyone to have read them, and was happy to answer--I just didn't want to see like I was hung up on it, which I think I come across as on certain things sometimes.

Dictatorships are no more worse than any other form of government.

Ani? Little Ani Skywalker?

More prone to abuse that most, yes. Likely to be obtained forcibly, sure. But those are all separate from a dictatorship itself.

No, they're not; that's why it is worse. Being "more likely to be worse" does indeed make something inherently worse. Here's why--the removal of checks and balances and the replacement of the rule of law by the rule of men makes a system prone to abuse and prone to mistake; grave missteps, either of intent or stupidity, cannot be reliably reevaluated or quickly corrected in the context of a dictatorship, and human nature precludes any length of time passing without a grave misstep by any individual decisionmaker.

All the captain did was accept a preprogrammed action that had already been decided by a formerly democratic government. He didn't put a gun to anyone's head. He didn't force everyone to get off the ship once it landed. He didn't demand everyone give up the life they had become accustomed to. The ship itself didn't spotaneously explode into a million pieces, stranding everyone on Earth.

They chose to do those things of their own free will. They could have just as easily stay on board and continue "living" their old lives if they so chose to. They just actually had a choice now.

That's a reasonable extrapolation from the film, to be sure. On the other hand, an equally reasonable extrapolation is that the ship was used as a power source to energize a terrestrial city, population caps were abandoned, and the tiny ark-tribe was eventually pressured into surrendering their disproportionately energy-intensive conveniences on the basis that the millions of extra humans needed to repurpose the reactor.

If the ark-tribe was presented with a choice to leave and separate itself from the nativists--which is unlikely, because the fat cows surely would know they would die without recourse to the high technology and controlled environment of the ship--the film should have made a better point of it.

We aren't even told if the ship CAN leave. A gravity well is a hell of a thing. And just because it did once doesn't mean it can again.

Also, as I pointed out in another thread, from the plot to the very art design, WALL-E is a deep homage at best and a ripoff at worst of Harvey Kurtzman's and Wally Wood's MAD Magazine cover-version of E.M. Forster's "The Machine Stops," entitled, appropriately enough, "Blobs!" A sixty year old story, based on an eighty year old story, masquerading and accepted as timely social commentary is--as indicated--somewhat insulting.

 

[Gaith]

Dictatorships are no more worse than any other form of government.

Ani? Little Ani Skywalker?

Article 21:
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

----------

Men in Black II, while merely average, is better than the first, in part because it's shorter.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

It's kind of a shame that porno is often left out of aesthetic discussions.

Conclusion: The BBS needs a Pornography and Erotica forum.

I dunno. I'm already so distracted by the other forums that I rarely make it to any of the actual Trek forums anymore. Institute this and the rest of the BBS might never see me again.

For those who dislike CGI, I'll point out that pornography still principally relies on practical effects work.

Myasishchev, where have you been all these years. I'm only just now starting to recognize your posts and they're some of the funniest shit I've ever read here!

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I'd rather watch an entertaining overactor (Shatner! Bruce Campbell) than a dull underactor (William Hurt, Sam Worthington). That may be a unpopular movie opinion right there.

I've seen William Hurt give some godawfully dull performances. No A-lister has ever done less to "earn" his paycheck than William Hurt in the 2000 Dune miniseries. However, I've liked Sam Worthington in everything I've seen him in so far. (I liked him in Avatar & Terminator Salvation. I haven't seen Clash of the Titans yet.) He's one of those tough leading men that can give a performance with not much going on on the outside but lots going on on the inside.

But generally, I agree with you there.

6. Death Race is better than Death Race 2000

Agreed. It's got less social commentary but is bloody brilliant on the kick-butt action front.

 

[Davros]

T2 sucked
Voyager was better than DS9
Doctor Who is better than Star Trek

 

[Checkmate]

Dictatorships are no more worse than any other form of government.

Ani? Little Ani Skywalker?

Do you even know what a dictatorship actually means? It just means a government ruled by one person, but does not rule out advisors, listening to the citizens, and etc.. It's a very broad term. A monarchy is a dictatorship. Anyone who owns the majority of votes in a corporation is a dictator. The captain of a ship is a dictator. The head of your household is a dictator. etc.

That's a reasonable extrapolation from the film, to be sure. On the other hand, an equally reasonable extrapolation is that the ship was used as a power source to energize a terrestrial city, population caps were abandoned, and the tiny ark-tribe was eventually pressured into surrendering their disproportionately energy-intensive conveniences on the basis that the millions of extra humans needed to repurpose the reactor.

If the ark-tribe was presented with a choice to leave and separate itself from the nativists--which is unlikely, because the fat cows surely would know they would die without recourse to the high technology and controlled environment of the ship--the film should have made a better point of it.

We aren't even told if the ship CAN leave. A gravity well is a hell of a thing. And just because it did once doesn't mean it can again.

So wait. You're bitching about the movie because of bullshit you're pulling straight out of your ass? Well, in that case, have at it you psychotic loon.

If we're just going to make random crap up, well, every movie ever made by man involves a crazed dictator hellbent on destroying freedom and... whatever the fuck you're ranting on about.

 

[Deckerd]

I think you're forgetting where you are Checkmate. Also even if you were where you think you were, your attack is a bit like a rottweiler savaging a da Vinci sketch.

 

[Checkmate]

Sorry. I'll try to use more unnecessary words in the future.

 

[Neroon]

So wait. You're bitching about the movie because of bullshit you're pulling straight out of your ass? Well, in that case, have at it you psychotic loon.

If we're just going to make random crap up, well, every movie ever made by man involves a crazed dictator hellbent on destroying freedom and... whatever the fuck you're ranting on about.

Infraction for flaming, comments to PM, and so on

 

[Myasishchev]

Myasishchev, where have you been all these years. I'm only just now starting to recognize your posts and they're some of the funniest shit I've ever read here!

Do you even know what a dictatorship actually means? It just means a government ruled by one person, but does not rule out advisors, listening to the citizens, and etc.. It's a very broad term. A monarchy is a dictatorship. Anyone who owns the majority of votes in a corporation is a dictator. The captain of a ship is a dictator. The head of your household is a dictator. etc.

Dude, what? A captain is not a dictator. A captain obeys laws, and his or her subordinates are not required and indeed are enjoined against carrying out an order contrary to the law. The term is sometimes used as a metaphor, to indicate that compliance with legal orders is not optional, but it is not a literal use of the term.

Monarchies are also not by necessity dictatorships--the UK and Spain are democracies. An absolute monarchy may be, and it suffers from many of the defects of a dictatorship--ask Louis XVI. And Louis-Philippe Orleanais. And Nikolay II.

A majority stockholder is also subject to the law and cannot do retarded things that would injure the rights of her fellow stockholders.

And the heads of my household are myself and my girlfriend--neither one of us is a dictator, even if one of us thinks she is, and I admit this highlights the problems inherent in democracy.

Hitler and Stalin were dictators. Kim and Assad are dictators. Sulla and Caesar were dictatores. Are we noticing any common themes in their governments? Hint: it's rule of men, not rule of law.

You have an interesting argument about dictatorship not being inherently bad, but it falters in the context of human nature. If we were speaking of the elohim instead, I might be more willing to accept the premise that just because something could be abused, it won't be.

So wait. You're bitching about the movie because of bullshit you're pulling straight out of your ass?

No, I'm bitching about the movie because deciding upon the implications of the ambiguous ending requires one to decide whether or not people are even allowed to live on the ship. The film itself doesn't say, even though this is critical information. But beyond that...

Well, in that case, have at it you psychotic loon.

...I'd love to have it explained to me how the proposition "human beings fuck and increase their population and place greater strain on their resources" is invented from whole cloth.

If we're just going to make random crap up, well, every movie ever made by man involves a crazed dictator hellbent on destroying freedom and... whatever the fuck you're ranting on about.

No, most movies about stuff like that comprehend that one of their themes is contempt for democracy. Watchmen, for example, while it leaves the ultimate fate of the Earth up in the air, never forgets that Ozymandias has done all of this by fraud and mass murder against the human race. The captain in WALL-E is of course not such a scumbag; he's merely an ignorant fool, as the movie takes great pains to show us (in a more or less funny matter, granted).

See, that's the key criticism: WALL-E doesn't seem to realize that it's about one uneducated man making decisions for thousands or millions, perhaps the whole remainder of the human race; or even realize its ending is morally and factually ambiguous.

It's like the Matrix movies in this regard, a little--but even they acknowledged the possibility that life on the inside is better than the meager existence in Zion. WALL-E never imagines that it's an open question.

 

[scnj]

WALL-E never imagines that it's an open question.

Possibly because it's a family film that sets out to entertain as opposed to a commentary on different forms of government and how their citizens are affected.

I said that it was one of my favourite sci-fi movies of the decade because it managed to entertain me. I know it doesn't necessarily have the deepest storyline, but it's a fun film. Honestly, given the choice between something like WALL-E and something like Schindler's List, I'd pick WALL-E every time.

 

[DevilEyes]

- Alien 3 is an excellent movie

- Joss Whedon's writing is not as great as it's made out to be, and the dialogue can be very annoying

- I like Stargate Universe much better than Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

Doctor Who is better than Star Trek

Come on! No one's going to disagree with that...

 

[Myasishchev]

WALL-E never imagines that it's an open question.

Possibly because it's a family film that sets out to entertain as opposed to a commentary on different forms of government and how their citizens are affected.

I realize this is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but WALL-E crossed the line from "diverting kids' fare with something for adults" when it decided it wanted to be a social comment. They had a message, so I feel it's not too much to ask that the message be coherent and aware of its own implications.

But, children's entertainment and the post-apocalypse rarely mesh well, though, so I will give them an E for effort.

I was actually going to mention the Incredibles as a positive example, but I forgot that no one mentions any lingering emotional effects from all the human beings Violet and Bart Allen or whatever his name was killed.

Even so, that was less jarring than the last act of WALL-E. The lack of concern for the well-being of children forced to take lives is tangential to the very coherent themes of individuality, libertarianism and lack of accountability in tort.

But the theme of "responsibility for the environment"--indeed, more an injunction than a theme--is central to WALL-E's story. "Go," they say, "right now, and take that responsibility, by using whatever means necessary, and never compromise or even pretend to give a damn what other people believe."

Joss Whedon's writing is not as great as it's made out to be, and the dialogue can be very annoying

Yes. I more-or-less count myself a fan, but I'm always a little bothered by the cloying dialogue myself. Worse, every character uses the same cloying dialogue, rarely exposing their own voice, which would be facile except for the fact that he's a television writer and actors with actual different voices are speaking his dialogue. And indeed, his comics kind of suck.