Independence Day 2? - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chicago Redeye says it would've made more sense for Hiller and Whitmore's kids to be an item since they were so close in the previous flick, but it's wasted on Hemsworth, lol.
 
LostSon88 said:
As they do for every movie nowadays...
Click to expand...

Well Rotten Tomatoes is plastered on Fandango, Flixster and nearly everywhere else nowadays. Hell, movies even put it on their bluray covers. RT has commercialized the "Review" to a new level. I don't like that, personally.

I understand people like being informed, but seeing a % score next to a movie you're buying tickets for is bound to influence alot of people before they even see it. Subconsciously or consciously.

I like going in blind and it's near impossible to nowadays.
 
The thing that I absolutely hate about RT is that everyone reads it wrong. Ask people what BvS got out of 10 and they'll tell you with absolute conviction 2/10. When critics gave it **/**** or 5/10. Then you have times where all critics give a movie 3 stars and it shows up as 100%. And that wasn't the first movie that's happened to. RT is fine, if you read it right.
 
Blackman said:
I mean I don't care if people react to critics stuff. I like critics honestly. They've saved me for a lot of crap. I don't get why people hate critics so much. I don't get what that does for people

But for this I don't see why people care with this project
Click to expand...

Some people only hate them when it doesn't help give validation to a film they like or not. Same with box office.
 
Okay, is it just me or in the last couple of days does googling "Movie Name Rotten Tomatoes" not bring you to the movie's tomatometer page but instead other RT pages?
 
Blackman said:
Don't know. Don't really care. They could be a concern to the studio but I don't see why they should be to anyone else. I really am baffled by people worrying about the RT response.

I mean I get some reasons why people get concerned with RT scores with stuff like X-Men, DC, Marvel, etc. because there have been times in the past that critics generally liked the movies. So if the movie has a bad RT score then it's more worrying.

But even Independence Day barely has a fresh rating. Roland Emmerich only has 2 movies (the last one 16 years ago) that cracked a fresh rating and they both sit at 61%. Why did people expect this to be any different? They don't like the director's work. They barely like the first ID. It's kinda silly to worry about reviews.

They're hiding it from critics, ok...nothing I can do about that. If I go into the theater and I at least like the action and the characters don't annoy me, then when it comes to this movie series I'm fine.

I don't expect greatness from the ID series and I don't get why people do. It's a fun as hell, entertaining ride. That's what the first one was and while I don't expect this to be as good, if it is fun I'm satisfied.

Now if all the reviews come out and say things like: The CGI is bad, the action isn't good, if you like the first one you'll hate this one, the characters are as bad as in Transformers 2, then I'll worry. Either way I'm seeing it this weekend

EDIT: Besides there are films with good reviews I dislike, there are films with bad reviews that I do like. I can't be pressed until I see it myself and I say: Well I agree or disagree with critics.
And this isnt one of those "screw the critics what do they know things." I generally have no problem with critics. How does the saying go: "Everybody is a critic" I'm just saying I didn't expect critics to like this movie and I don't see why anyone else did
Click to expand...
Talking about reviews is not worrying about reviews. People with a mindset of, "I am going to see it anyways" seem to really dislike that people actually like to read and watch reviews for both entertainment and knowledge purpose. Expecting or hoping for a good film worth spending your money on is not some insane idea.

When studios do this kind of stuff, it makes it clear they think their movie sucks. Which in and of itself is a rather bad sign, no matter the intentions of the movie.
 
Gold Samurai said:
Looks like the viral campaign went too far

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/independence-day-resurgence-makes-a-905768


Turn your street into an alien war zone. Some streets looked too similar to 9/11
Click to expand...

Not to sound insensitive, but I think that's amazing! If it is able to accurately show the disaster sites as things happened that would be great! Not in an entertaining sense, but if a movie viral can replicate disasters for real.... Might be slow on the uptake and we already have and know this, imagine how this can aid disaster relief teams in being able to make calculated decisions to help with relief. If you know what buildings are going to get hit and how they will get hit, you can make a more calculated plan to save the maximum number of lives that you can. Unsure how accurate it is or if I'm reading too much into it but the positive things they may have actually stumbled upon sounds great to me for relief efforts.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
Talking about reviews is not worrying about reviews. People with a mindset of, "I am going to see it anyways" seem to really dislike that people actually like to read and watch reviews for both entertainment and knowledge purpose. Expecting or hoping for a good film worth spending your money on is not some insane idea.

When studios do this kind of stuff, it makes it clear they think their movie sucks. Which in and of itself is a rather bad sign, no matter the intentions of the movie.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything was wrong with using the critics as a gage or talking about reviews. In fact in another post I said that I like critics and that they saved me money. There is no problem with reading/using reviews.
I'm saying in the case of IDR that it's silly to worry about critics especially if you like the first movie. This isnt a movie aiming for greatness. And I usually hate this defense but, I think it really fits here. If this was Avengers, X-men or most of these major franchises I would be worried.

They're not screening this for critics so that means the movie is bad?... OK. I've been following movies long enough now to know what that means. But the first one is a bad movie too but it's fun to watch. That's what a lot of people including myself think of it as. So saying IDR is bad is like saying water is wet. Like why would I be surprised. If this was a different creative team I would be worried, but it's Emmerich coming back to do Emmerich things
Again if most critics are saying this fails as a "bad but fun" level kinda like how Jeremy Jahns said, then I would be worried

I'm just very confused why people were hoping for a fresh rating.
 
Last edited:
i am pretty much sitting this one out unless I hear a lot of people here enjoyed it .
I listened to the novelization on audible.
After it was over, I just wasn't feeling it.
 
Last edited:
I've seen the movie. Enjoy my ramblings

It's not very good. None of the new characters are particularly relatable or fun to watch. The story is a retread with a twist but without any of the charm. The CGI is great (except for some murky green screen) but it doesn't save the movie. Just like the first movie, this one doesn't have constant action going on. That's okay, if it weren't for the fact that the slow scenes are boring. Half of the movie is spent in those cliché dark war rooms. In fact, most of the movie is dark. The score is barely there, except when the theme comes up at the end.

The movie takes place in a more advanced version of 2016 which is an interesting idea (we used the alien technology to our advantage) but it takes the movie so far into sci-fi territory that the color palette and set designs are very stale. It doesn't feel like the world we saw in the first movie. The only people who keep us grounded in that world are the returning cast members. Goldblum has a healthy chunk of screentime but he doesn't do much of anything in that time. There's a new comic relief character that is cringe-worthy to watch. Emmerich creates "drama" by having characters make nonsensical decisions. Oh, and do you like that "we have to fly out of here, the door is closing and we JUST gut out in the nick of time" trope? It's used a hundred times here.

It surprised me how nonchalantly the movie treated this disaster. The movie pokes so much fun at itself (mostly through Goldblum and his in-movie father) that it self-detonates. The stakes are gone. We get obvious callback scenes with speeches that aren't nearly as convincing as the presidential one from '96 and old catch phrases are forcibly resurrected.

Lastly... this movie has the most obvious set-up to a sequel I have ever seen. Sadly for Fox, I don't think people will be clamoring to see more. I know the words are used to death but... this was an unnecessary sequel that nobody will remember à la Genisys.

Is the movie absolutely irredeemable? No, if you liked the first one, by all means go watch this. It's only 2 hours long.
 
Greens said:
I've seen the movie. Enjoy my ramblings

It's not very good. None of the new characters are particularly relatable or fun to watch. The story is a retread with a twist but without any of the charm. The CGI is great (except for some murky green screen) but it doesn't save the movie. Just like the first movie, this one doesn't have constant action going on. That's okay, if it weren't for the fact that the slow scenes are boring. Half of the movie is spent in those cliché dark war rooms. In fact, most of the movie is dark. The score is barely there, except when the theme comes up at the end.

The movie takes place in a more advanced version of 2016 which is an interesting idea (we used the alien technology to our advantage) but it takes the movie so far into sci-fi territory that the color palette and set designs are very stale. It doesn't feel like the world we saw in the first movie. The only people who keep us grounded in that world are the returning cast members. Goldblum has a healthy chunk of screentime but he doesn't do much of anything in that time. There's a new comic relief character that is cringe-worthy to watch. Emmerich creates "drama" by having characters make nonsensical decisions. Oh, and do you like that "we have to fly out of here, the door is closing and we JUST gut out in the nick of time" trope? It's used a hundred times here.

It surprised me how nonchalantly the movie treated this disaster. The movie pokes so much fun at itself (mostly through Goldblum and his in-movie father) that it self-detonates. The stakes are gone. We get obvious callback scenes with speeches that aren't nearly as convincing as the presidential one from '96 and old catch phrases are forcibly resurrected.

Lastly... this movie has the most obvious set-up to a sequel I have ever seen. Sadly for Fox, I don't think people will be clamoring to see more. I know the words are used to death but... this was an unnecessary sequel that nobody will remember à la Genisys.

Is the movie absolutely irredeemable? No, if you liked the first one, by all means go watch this. It's only 2 hours long.
Click to expand...
When I listened to the novelization, the sequel set up really bothered me.
I expected something like that, but the set up was pretty blatant.
 
Greens said:
I've seen the movie. Enjoy my ramblings

It's not very good. None of the new characters are particularly relatable or fun to watch. The story is a retread with a twist but without any of the charm. The CGI is great (except for some murky green screen) but it doesn't save the movie. Just like the first movie, this one doesn't have constant action going on. That's okay, if it weren't for the fact that the slow scenes are boring. Half of the movie is spent in those cliché dark war rooms. In fact, most of the movie is dark. The score is barely there, except when the theme comes up at the end.

The movie takes place in a more advanced version of 2016 which is an interesting idea (we used the alien technology to our advantage) but it takes the movie so far into sci-fi territory that the color palette and set designs are very stale. It doesn't feel like the world we saw in the first movie. The only people who keep us grounded in that world are the returning cast members. Goldblum has a healthy chunk of screentime but he doesn't do much of anything in that time. There's a new comic relief character that is cringe-worthy to watch. Emmerich creates "drama" by having characters make nonsensical decisions. Oh, and do you like that "we have to fly out of here, the door is closing and we JUST gut out in the nick of time" trope? It's used a hundred times here.

It surprised me how nonchalantly the movie treated this disaster. The movie pokes so much fun at itself (mostly through Goldblum and his in-movie father) that it self-detonates. The stakes are gone. We get obvious callback scenes with speeches that aren't nearly as convincing as the presidential one from '96 and old catch phrases are forcibly resurrected.

Lastly... this movie has the most obvious set-up to a sequel I have ever seen. Sadly for Fox, I don't think people will be clamoring to see more. I know the words are used to death but... this was an unnecessary sequel that nobody will remember à la Genisys.

Is the movie absolutely irredeemable? No, if you liked the first one, by all means go watch this. It's only 2 hours long.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your review, Greens, if you don't mind, just answer me this. does the movie end on a cliffhanger to hook the third one? I know Emmerich was planning this to be "part 1" of a two part story or something. If it ends on a "to be continued..." note I'll be peeved.
 
I'm confused on how and why people are saying they're "hiding" it from the critics when critics are issuing out reviews and have been since Tuesday .....
 
DarthSkywalker said:
Well if they aren't a concern, why hide the movie from them?
Click to expand...

Because its a Roland Emmerich movie. With his track record with critics its understandable that they would want to hold back the reviews as long as possible.

I dont take this as a bad sign. It just tells me that this is probably a typical Roland Emmerich film with all the typical shortcomings of an Emmerich film which is perfectly fine with me.

But as Kyle points out, reviews started coming out earlier in the week so the studio must not care too much about what critics think.
 
I have to admit that the meta-joke of 'they like to go after the monuments' is sorta weird. If it were a silly movie then whatever. But if there is stakes involved, and it's serious, why make that joke when there's thousands of people dying in front of you..for the second time.
 
Octoberist said:
I have to admit that the meta-joke of 'they like to go after the monuments' is sorta weird. If it were a silly movie then whatever. But if there is stakes involved, and it's serious, why make that joke when there's thousands of people dying in front of you..for the second time.
Click to expand...

Some people react to stressful situations with nervous humor. Goldblum's character did that sort of thing in the first film.
 
Greens said:
I've seen the movie. Enjoy my ramblings

It's not very good. None of the new characters are particularly relatable or fun to watch. The story is a retread with a twist but without any of the charm. The CGI is great (except for some murky green screen) but it doesn't save the movie. Just like the first movie, this one doesn't have constant action going on. That's okay, if it weren't for the fact that the slow scenes are boring. Half of the movie is spent in those cliché dark war rooms. In fact, most of the movie is dark. The score is barely there, except when the theme comes up at the end.

The movie takes place in a more advanced version of 2016 which is an interesting idea (we used the alien technology to our advantage) but it takes the movie so far into sci-fi territory that the color palette and set designs are very stale. It doesn't feel like the world we saw in the first movie. The only people who keep us grounded in that world are the returning cast members. Goldblum has a healthy chunk of screentime but he doesn't do much of anything in that time. There's a new comic relief character that is cringe-worthy to watch. Emmerich creates "drama" by having characters make nonsensical decisions. Oh, and do you like that "we have to fly out of here, the door is closing and we JUST gut out in the nick of time" trope? It's used a hundred times here.

It surprised me how nonchalantly the movie treated this disaster. The movie pokes so much fun at itself (mostly through Goldblum and his in-movie father) that it self-detonates. The stakes are gone. We get obvious callback scenes with speeches that aren't nearly as convincing as the presidential one from '96 and old catch phrases are forcibly resurrected.

Lastly... this movie has the most obvious set-up to a sequel I have ever seen. Sadly for Fox, I don't think people will be clamoring to see more. I know the words are used to death but... this was an unnecessary sequel that nobody will remember à la Genisys.

Is the movie absolutely irredeemable? No, if you liked the first one, by all means go watch this. It's only 2 hours long.
Click to expand...

It seems to me like you didn't think this was even that "fun"
Did you like the first one?

Marvolo said:
Because its a Roland Emmerich movie. With his track record with critics its understandable that they would want to hold back the reviews as long as possible.

I dont take this as a bad sign. It just tells me that this is probably a typical Roland Emmerich film with all the typical shortcomings of an Emmerich film which is perfectly fine with me.

But as Kyle points out, reviews started coming out earlier in the week so the studio must not care too much about what critics think.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
They probably screened this film to a select group of international critics and the trades.

I've talked to other reporters and it's the same deal, they were only offered the a 6/24 AM screening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Independence Day 2? - Part 2
4 5 6
Replies
141
Views
19K
TheVileOne
TheVileOne
T
Pacific Rim 2 - Part 1
26 27 28
Replies
697
Views
72K
Spider-Fan
Spider-Fan
T
Disney/Pixar's The Incredibles 2 - Part 1
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
10K
Hunter Rider
Hunter Rider
T
  • Poll Poll
Gravity - Part 1
12 13 14
Replies
348
Views
12K
dark_b
dark_b
T
  • Poll Poll
Oblivion - Part 1
4 5 6
Replies
146
Views
8K
Iceman
Iceman

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,558 (members: 23, guests: 2,535)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,266
Messages
22,074,964
Members
45,875
Latest member
kedenlewis

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"