Worst Science Fiction Film of All Time II: The Quickening

[JB0]

What a hot steaming pile of, well, you know what.

Pyroclastic flow?

[mechaninac]

Pyroclastic flow?

More like Pyroclastic floater... and I don't mean pumice.

[Kanedas Bike]

Pompeii was dreadful, well at least the first 20 minutes was - I can't say anything about after that...

It got worse.

It's by Paul W. S. Anderson. What do you expect?

Yeah. Honestly I didn't know who directed it before I watched it via NetFlix. I knew from jump it'd be awful but I thought that at least the special effects would be good - BUT - they weren't, they were Sci Fi original movie bad, and at times worse.

How this "movie" got a wide theatrical release is beyond me.

Pyroclastic flow?

More like Pyroclastic floater... and I don't mean pumice.

-b.

[DuelGundam2099]

It's by Paul W. S. Anderson. What do you expect?

Names in the credits have nothing to do with anything.

[Kanedas Bike]

Names in the credits have nothing to do with anything.

Except for the fact that they absolutely do.

There's enough real-world and anecdotal evidence that TALENT, SKILL and EDUCATION or lack thereof absolutely make a difference in movie making as they do in any other field or industry.

I don't want some guy or gal that has only ever flipped hamburgers to perform surgery on me any more than I want to see a movie made, produced by or staring folks with little to no creative talent, vision, training or skill.

-b.

[anime52k8]

Names in the credits have nothing to do with anything.

So an anonymous wizard just waves a magic wand and a finished master print just materializes in the studios library, and that's how movies are made

[DuelGundam2099]

I don't want some guy or gal that has only ever flipped hamburgers to perform surgery on me any more than I want to see a movie made, produced by or staring folks with little to no creative talent, vision, training or skill.

And unlike surgery watching a movie you find lackluster will not kill you.

So an anonymous wizard just waves a magic wand and a finished master print just materializes in the studios library, and that's how movies are made

More like there are many people throwing around ideas with compromises between directors, cinematographers, writers, producers, actors, musicians, artists, stuntmen, and budget; people are under the delusion that they can just point to one or two names to blame a few problems with a movie (or any similar medium) especially when they ignore the other aspects entirely. You know what those people are called? Sheeple. I don't know about you, but I prefer looking at things at a whole and be a lone wolf, you know, not being herded by some random guy that will likely grill you to fit devourous consumption.

[Kanedas Bike]

And unlike surgery watching a movie you find lackluster will not kill you.

More like there are many people throwing around ideas with compromises between directors, cinematographers, writers, producers, actors, musicians, artists, stuntmen, and budget; people are under the delusion that they can just point to one or two names to blame a few problems with a movie (or any similar medium) especially when they ignore the other aspects entirely. You know what those people are called? Sheeple. I don't know about you, but I prefer looking at things at a whole and be a lone wolf, you know, not being herded by some random guy that will likely grill you to fit devourous consumption.

Right, so just because something doesn't cause immediate death or harm it's "good" or somehow not worthy of feedback, be it positive or negative? Be serious.

And why you continue to fall back on this "sheeple" argument when more than one person shares a similar opinion. Opinion, you know that thing people form based on their own personal likes or dislikes and experiences.

If you don't want to be dismissed for what you like you should probably try not dismissing others.

Re: placing the fault, criticism or blame, like placing praise, accolades or credit often falls at the feet of those in leadership positions.

In this case, the Director of a film, who has a team (writers, actors, stuntmen, etc.) and rules to work within (producers, budget, standards and practices) as the leader of said film will, can and should hold the blame when things go bad and accolades when they go well.

There is nothing wrong with pinpointing the good or the bad about something a specific team member did, but make no mistake the buck stops and starts with those that lead or in this case, Direct.

Real World 101

-b.

[DuelGundam2099]

Right, so just because something doesn't cause immediate death or harm it's "good" or somehow not worthy of feedback, be it positive or negative? Be serious.

I said it will not kill you, do not twist my words please.

And why you continue to fall back on this "sheeple" argument when more than one person shares a similar opinion. Opinion, you know that thing people form based on their own personal likes or dislikes and experiences.

And sometimes said opinions are not properly informed.

In this case, the Director of a film, who has a team (writers, actors, stuntmen, etc.) and rules to work within (producers, budget, standards and practices) as the leader of said film will, can and should hold the blame when things go bad and accolades when they go well.

Technically the producers call the shots, otherwise the budget and advertising goes goodbye. In addition the director cannot be blamed for everything, too many factors come together so accountability should go into their respective areas.

but make no mistake the buck stops and starts with those that lead or in this case, Direct.

Producer, you mean producer.

Real World 101

Going to need a citation for this (among all your other points).

[JB0]

And unlike surgery watching a movie you find lackluster will not kill you.

I've seen some movies I'm pretty sure HAVE taken years off my life.

More like there are many people throwing around ideas with compromises between directors, cinematographers, writers, producers, actors, musicians, artists, stuntmen, and budget;

And yet, some people have more input than others, and certain patterns do emerge across a moderately large body of work.

A stuntman has only slightly more impact on the final product than I do. A director, however, has a HUGE amount of impact, being capable of hiring and firing many of those other people on your list AT WILL. And rewriting the script, in part or in whole, after the writer is through with it(though the union likely will not allow a director to take sole writing credit).

And what may be considered an anomaly with one movie becomes a clear case of a specific MEANINGFULLY influential staff member's personal preferences with some larger number of movies.

While I suppose it's POSSIBLE Micheal Bay is only hired to direct movies with lots of explosions and potty humor written into the script by chance, it's not very likely at this point in his career. Especially given eyewitness testimony as to how much he likes explosions.

Certainly, there's exceptions. David Fincher had VERY little control over Alien 3, and he almost never directed another movie because of how terrible that first experience was. But they are rare.

people are under the delusion that they can just point to one or two names to blame a few problems with a movie (or any similar medium) especially when they ignore the other aspects entirely. You know what those people are called?

Capable of pattern recognition?

Sheeple.

Oh.

I thought that was what teenagers with inflated opinions of their tastes called people who didn't share the same taste, because Linkin Park is real music never touched by a marketing exec. Shows what I know.

I don't know about you, but I prefer looking at things at a whole and be a lone wolf, you know, not being herded by some random guy that will likely grill you to fit devourous consumption.

I prefer not spending ten bucks and two hours of my life on an experience that I likely won't enjoy.

I lack the time, money, and patience to watch EVERY movie.

Therefore, some criteria are needed to filter out films I likely won't enjoy.

And if M. Night Shamalama(to pick a recurring name in the thread) has literally never directed a movie I enjoy, why should I believe THIS IS THE ONE, when experience dictates otherwise?

(This is, of course, a hypothetical example as I've only seen one Shamalama-directed movie)

[Kanedas Bike]

I said it will not kill you, do not twist my words please.

And sometimes said opinions are not properly informed.

Technically the producers call the shots, otherwise the budget and advertising goes goodbye. In addition the director cannot be blamed for everything, too many factors come together so accountability should go into their respective areas.

Producer, you mean producer.

Going to need a citation for this (among all your other points).

^LOL

How about this? I think that Pompeii sucked, because I think it sucked - the direction was poor, the acting was beyond poor, the script was week and the special effects were on par with PlayStation 1 cut screens. All of which I say are my well informed opinions because I've seen enough "good" and "bad" movies to know the difference.

And there is no "citation" for real life experience my contrarian friend, I've been in leadership roles for close to 10 years. If someone on my team makes a boo-boo, I assure you my boss comes looking for me to clean it up. Just the same as if someone on my team does an great job, my boss comes to me to make sure that their hard work is appreciated. (in either case, if the clean-up or recognition haven't already been performed)

And you telling me I mean producer, when I mean director is tad amount to what you like to cry about, people twisting or putting words in your mouth. Don't be hypocritical.

And again, like whatever movies you like because that's your right or prerogative, so don't try to bemoan people for having an opposite view.

-b.

[DuelGundam2099]

I've seen some movies I'm pretty sure HAVE taken years off my life.

Examples?

While I suppose it's POSSIBLE Micheal Bay is only hired to direct movies with lots of explosions and potty humor written into the script by chance, it's not very likely at this point in his career. Especially given eyewitness testimony as to how much he likes explosions.

Kind of a tangent, but why do people associate Bay with explosions? There are rarely much more in his movies than there are in the average Hollywood movies since the new millennium.

Certainly, there's exceptions. David Fincher had VERY little control over Alien 3

Like with Ratner and X-Men 3, yet people still think most of their issues were his fault.

because Linkin Park is real music never touched by a marketing exec. Shows what I know.

And that statement had nothing to do with anything.

And if M. Night Shamalama(to pick a recurring name in the thread) has literally never directed a movie I enjoy, why should I believe THIS IS THE ONE, when experience dictates otherwise?

What movies were they? Why did you loathe them? Why even pick out a name?

the special effects were on par with PlayStation 1 cut screens.

I would love to see the details about this because they looked perfectly fine in the trailers.

All of which I say are my well informed opinions because I've seen enough "good" and "bad" movies to know the difference.

Did you see enough movies of its genre and budget range?

And you telling me I mean producer, when I mean director is tad amount to what you like to cry about, people twisting or putting words in your mouth.

More like you gave false information and I corrected you.

[VF-15 Banshee]

Names in the credits have nothing to do with anything.

They most certainly do in Hollywood and you're a fool to suggest otherwise. Why do you think Keanu Reeves was the star of 47 Ronin? Or why they gave a lot of attention to Bryan Cranston being in Godzilla when it turned out he isn't the main character? Names have ALWAYS had power in filmmaking.

[DuelGundam2099]

They most certainly do in Hollywood and you're a fool to suggest otherwise. Why do you think Keanu Reeves was the star of 47 Ronin?

Because he fit the part and people know him.

Or why they gave a lot of attention to Bryan Cranston being in Godzilla when it turned out he isn't the main character?

I don't know who that is nor could I care. Was he Serizawa?

Names have ALWAYS had power in filmmaking.

Mostly in the 80s and 90s when star power was at its peak, nowadays stars cannot carry a movie by themselves rather their source material and advertisements do.

[Kanedas Bike]

There really is no point.

If you haven't seen Pompeii, then why are you even commenting on people's critique of it, including who directed it and others opinion of said director?

By the way, that was rhetorical - I'm done with this conversation.

-b.

[JB0]

Examples?

Signs, Best in Show, Anchorman. I'm pretty sure all three should be considered toxic substances.

Kind of a tangent, but why do people associate Bay with explosions? There are rarely much more in his movies than there are in the average Hollywood movies since the new millennium.

There's a certain craftsmanship to Bay-splosions.

Also, on-set interviews have lead to tales of his ... unusually discerning... eye towards pyrotechnics and reshooting it to get that explosion better.

Hell, even Bay knows it. He did a Verizon ad that was about 30% him blowing stuff up.

And that statement had nothing to do with anything.

Sure it did. I was mocking the very existence of the term "sheeple."

What movies were they? Why did you loathe them? Why even pick out a name?

As noted, I've only seen Signs out of Shamalama's repertoire.

I picked out a name because it makes it easier to illustrate a point without sounding like a Speed Racer parody than if I said "Director X"

Did you see enough movies of its genre and budget range?

While genre can certainly be a useful bullet point, I find over-reliance on it to be rampant. It should be a rough guide, but I often see people using it as their primary measure, often in bizarre forms.

[DuelGundam2099]

Signs, Best in Show, Anchorman. I'm pretty sure all three should be considered toxic substances.

Signs was more mediocre than bad and Anchorman was very funny. They are also not toxic substances and do not take years off your life.

Sure it did. I was mocking the very existence of the term "sheeple."

Which is sad because it is a relevant term.

It should be a rough guide, but I often see people using it as their primary measure, often in bizarre forms.

Yes because judging something using its peers is a bad idea!

[skullmilitia]

It's by Paul W. S. Anderson. What do you expect?

Pure disappointment, and I always get what I expect.

[Dynaman]

Yes because judging something using its peers is a bad idea!

No, it is a very good idea. Most people do not lack for entertainment choices - they lack the resources (usually money) to make use of all the choices available. As an example, I will NOT see another Transformers movie again, I've wasted enough time and money on the first one (and that was only a Netflix rental) when there are other options out there.

[DuelGundam2099]

I was being sarcastic with that comment, Dynaman. Also the sequels are a vast improvement over the first movie.

[JB0]

Signs was more mediocre than bad and Anchorman was very funny. They are also not toxic substances and do not take years off your life.

Signs was terrible. Mediocre is a distant mark it can only dream of reaching.

I am aware Anchorman is a controversial statement, but I find this controversy inexplicable as it wasn't funny at all and was actually pretty aggressively terrible. If it was Space Anchorman, it'd be a contender for this thread.

You can't prove they didn't cost me life expectancy, so I continue to maintain that they did.

Which is sad because it is a relevant term.

Sheeple is NEVER a relevant term.

It's derisive mockery that serves only to undermine any actual point you may have.

Yes because judging something using its peers is a bad idea!

That's why we look to see who directed a movie.

I never said genre isn't useful. Quite the opposite.

Genre's good for a rough guide, but it's not a precision tool. It's best when it's loose. If you're in the mood for something lighthearted, you go to see a comedy, not a horror film.

But then people start saying things like "I only watch fantasy movies" or "I never watch science-fiction" and any utility it has collapses as entire swathes of amazing movies are discarded because their setting may have a few things in common with some other movie.

I'm actually not sure why we use settings as genres, but I've finally accepted that I can't change the world by myself so I'm letting that one drop.

And god help me, people try to polish genre into a precise instrument, and string together adjectives until they've created something ridiculously specific that's so far beyond any utility that I can't fathom why anyone thinks it's valid.

Someone can't just go "Get in the car, we are watching a romantic post-apocalyptic pirate steampunk war drama tonight." It doesn't work that way.

...

Though I can't imagine a movie with that description attached that isn't awesome, so this hypothetical person may have a point.

But I firmly believe if a genre name is longer than one word, or if that word doesn't tell me something about the general mood of the story, something's gone wrong.

[DuelGundam2099]

You can't prove they didn't cost me life expectancy, so I continue to maintain that they did.

Except I can: Movies do not take time off your life. Prove they can or your statement fails.

Sheeple is NEVER a relevant term.
It's derisive mockery that serves only to undermine any actual point you may have.

Except it is relevant, ever heard of group thinking? Very real concept.

That's why we look to see who directed a movie.

That is a terribad idea though, it creates unneeded tension between you and whatever it is you are going to view. Just do what I do and go in with bare minimum knowledge (like genre, promo material, and a sypnosis).

[mechaninac]

Okay, I can't resist anymore... I'll bite.

Except I can: Movies do not take time off your life. Prove they can or your statement fails.

Movies cost the price of a ticket or rental fee. Money is acquired through the use of you time in a productive endeavor. Time, even small amounts, is a quantifiable portion of a person's life. Therefore, spending money, which costs time, on a piece of entertainment, plus the amount of time it takes to view said piece, amounts to a portion of your life that's been spent. If the end result is that the movie was worth the investment of the time, then it was a net positive and gain to your life; by the same token, it the movie sucks, however one defines the term, then it was a net loss of your money and time... a portion of your life (and feeling like you've been fleeced at the box office or rental can have a detrimental, albeit small, effect on your life, and it's expectancy).

Any criteria one decides to use to weed out bad movies, or anything undeserving of an investment of your time/money, is a good thing that serves a constructive purpose. It's the difference between being a discerning consumer of media, and being a sponge.

Except it is relevant, ever heard of group thinking? Very real concept.

Circular logic. Besides, it IS a snarky, insipid term used by people who'd rather marginalize and denigrate people with whom they disagree, instead of engaging in constructive and cogent debate.

That is a terribad idea though, it creates unneeded tension between you and whatever it is you are going to view. Just do what I do and go in with bare minimum knowledge (like genre, promo material, and a sypnosis).

A discriminating eye towards anything one buys, based on one's experience, tastes, is the cornerstone to being a smart, discerning consumer. The more information one has beforehand (in a movie's case: screenplay writer(s), actors, director, producers, budget, genre, etc. are all relevant) the better in order to buy the best product possible, and avoid the garbage.

Edited August 23, 2014 by mechaninac

[Kanedas Bike]

^YES

-b.

[DuelGundam2099]

The more information one has beforehand (in a movie's case: screenplay writer(s), actors, director, producers, budget, genre, etc. are all relevant) the better in order to buy the best product possible, and avoid the garbage.

And unfortunately group thinkers think the garbage lies with the people that made them, not the actual product itself, knowing the staff never helps a decision such as that.

Any criteria one decides to use to weed out bad movies, or anything undeserving of an investment of your time/money, is a good thing that serves a constructive purpose.

"Anything"? By that logic bleach should be able to cure herpes, black widow venom helps bake Christmas cookies, bricks make good boats, and mirrors can be used to defend you from napalm. You cannot just use "anything" as a guideline.

It's the difference between being a discerning consumer of media, and being a sponge.

I prefer tiger shark, it is manlier and your point still gets across with animal analogies.

Edited August 23, 2014 by DuelGundam2099

[mechaninac]

And unfortunately group thinkers think the garbage lies with the people that made them, not the actual product itself, knowing the staff never helps a decision such as that.

And you're completely missing the entire point. Those involved in the development of any product may not be the only measure of its actual quality (I certainly have not made such a proclamation), but it is indicative of its probable quality; and that's where one's personal experiences and tastes come into play... not group thinkers (shameless use of the asinine sheeple insult by other means).

And you wonder why many forum members have come to use you as punch line to their media jokes...

Edited August 23, 2014 by mechaninac

[DuelGundam2099]

And you wonder why many forum members have come to use you as punch line to their media jokes...

Oh come now, I have been aware what everyone thinks of me since RL assumed I had "psychological issues" by not wanting sex junk in my entertainment. I know what people think of me and I could not care less because I know appeasing to everyone is a fool's errand.

[areaseven]

[JB0]

And unfortunately group thinkers think the garbage lies with the people that made them, not the actual product itself, knowing the staff never helps a decision such as that.

Such a crazy idea, thinking movies are influenced by the people that make them.

Except I can: Movies do not take time off your life. Prove they can or your statement fails.

Stress kills. Bad movies are stressful to watch.

The ball's in your court now.

That is a terribad idea though, it creates unneeded tension between you and whatever it is you are going to view. Just do what I do and go in with bare minimum knowledge (like genre, promo material, and a sypnosis).

That gets back to I don't have the time to watch every movie ever released. That's not enough information for me to make intelligent use of my time.

It's also the kind of filtration that would have, as en example, resulted in me never watching Alien because "I don't like horror movies." Which is, in the general case, true. There are few horror movies that I enjoy, and it is not a genre I seek out without additional recommending factors.

If the only guide I had was "genre:horror" and "trailer:creepy music, screaming, and Sigourney Weaver busting someone's head with a fire extinguisher"... no.

Edited August 23, 2014 by JB0

[DuelGundam2099]

Stress kills. Bad movies are stressful to watch.

So does not exercising, so by that logic ALL movies kill.

It's also the kind of filtration that would have, as en example, resulted in me never watching Alien because "I don't like horror movies." Which is, in the general case, true. There are few horror movies that I enjoy, and it is not a genre I seek out without additional recommending factors.
If the only guide I had was "genre:horror" and "trailer:creepy music, screaming, and Sigourney Weaver busting someone's head with a fire extinguisher"... no.

You're missing one of the best movies out there, but if that is what floats your boat.

[JB0]

So does not exercising, so by that logic ALL movies kill.

But a bad movie kills faster because 2x the factors!

...

Someone should set up a movie theater with treadmills instead of chairs, so we can get some exercise while we watch our movies.

You're missing one of the best movies out there, but if that is what floats your boat.

Ah, but that's the thing.

I DON'T use genre as a primary filter. I've seen Alien more than once, and it's one of my favorite movies.

[DuelGundam2099]

But a bad movie kills faster because 2x the factors!

When you have physical evidence of that I might buy your statement.

[areaseven]

Fire away, Duel!

[DuelGundam2099]

I have not seen that movie. Still looks better than Razorteeth, now THAT is a legitimately awful movie.

Not to be confused with Syfy's fantastic killer eel movie Razortooth.

[areaseven]

And now for the next topic: Great Film Directors and Their First Bad Contributions.

Peter Weir. The Australian director is best known for his acclaimed films Witness, The Mosquito Coast, Dead Poets Society, The Truman Show, and Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. But in 1974, he came up with The Cars That Ate Paris.

Peter Jackson. Long before he became famous for The Lord of the Rings film franchise, this New Zealand director made his film debut in 1987 with Bad Taste.

Edited August 24, 2014 by areaseven