Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ZmaN on November 17, 2005, 09:30:25 pm
-
check out this movie!
www.aeonflux.com
it looks SOO good... the story seems like it will shape up nicely, and the actress is HOT!
-
Charlize Theron is gorgeous, ill go just for her(just like Italian Job)
-
I'm a big fan of the original animation so I got excited when I found out there was a movie in the works. The trailer doesn't bode well though. Altogether too light and generic for my liking.
-
Charlize Theron is gorgeous, ill go just for her(just like Italian Job)
OH YEAH!!!!!!!
shes a hottie!
-
Meh...they think some nice SFX and a hottie actress makes a good movie..
Holywood..why am I not surprised?
-
Look at the above comments. The hottie part works, and without some nice SFX, you couldn't call it a movie when you lack a story.
-
They call Solaris a movie.....
-
They call Solaris a movie.....
You deserve to die for even mentioning that godawful piece of cod.
-
I'm fairly picky insofar as finding films I find truly worthy of having been made, but I generally like all movies that make even the least amount of sense and show the tiniest amount of skill or wit. Even if the story sucks, I can still appreciate things like direction and lighting.
But Solaris just made me feel like I was watching an episode of the Twilight Zone so advanced in it's cinematography that it'd actually managed to have some invisible force reach out of the screen and punch me in the balls repeatedly for two hours.
I felt like I'd just watched the cinematic equivelant of the Holocaust. It was as if they'd taken all my memories of all the films I'd ever watched, torn my ear-hole open and physically raped that part of my brain with a 14-inch penis.
-
Did anybody else think that Solaris had EXACTLY the same plot as "Sphere" by Michael Crichton, just in space?
(In Sphere it was an alien artifact crashed under the ocean thousand of years ago, in Solaris it was a planet, other wise, it was prety much the same story, even had some of the same plot twists. Atta way to steal the plot from an already failed movie based on a marginally popular book)
On the topic of Aeon Flux though, it looks pretty interesting, even if it has no story, it has enough of a set up for some interesting action...
EDIT: Sorry about the name confusion ZylonBane, it has been a while since I read the book.
-
Sphere made sense.
Solaris was just stupid, until the very end where - near as I can figure - they went "OMG! YOU WERE NEVER REAL!".
At that point I just felt like killing myself.
-
I actually watched Solaris through a second time to try and figure that ending out. It makes no sense, and came out of no-where, no foreshadowing, no viable setups, hell, not even anything to suggest it ever had time to happen!
God I hate that movie...
EDIT: If I knew where the rage smilie was there would be about 70 of them here
-
Did anybody else think that Solaris had EXACTLY the same plot as "Sphere" by Stephen King, just in space?
Michael Crichton! Since when does King do science fiction?
No, I mean good science fiction.
-
Tommy Knockers was pretty good.
-
Atta way to steal the plot from an already failed movie based on a marginally popular book)
Solaris was based on the Russian movie Solaris, based on the Russian novel Solaris. Which by far outdates and outtrumps "Sphere."
...and the twist at the end in the plot isn't "he was never real!!!111" it's that he decides to stay on the station and crash on the planet. Where he 'lives' his days on the planet. (whether or not he's still human or a figment of the planet is a mystery) It's pretty much based on some deep pseudo-philosophical stuff about "well she's not real because she's based on my memories... well even if she was real my view of her is colored by those memories... ahh screw it this jelly planet version is just about the real thing because of this... HONEY I'M HOME!"
It's more like 2001 in nature.
-
Hmmm... It seems I've made an ass of myself 3 time in one day...
Time to stop posting and go back to lurking untill I know engough to return.
-
So what you're saying is that Solaris is stupid....
-
Solaris was based on the Russian movie Solaris, based on the Russian novel Solaris. Which by far outdates and outtrumps "Sphere."
...and the twist at the end in the plot isn't "he was never real!!!111" it's that he decides to stay on the station and crash on the planet. Where he 'lives' his days on the planet. (whether or not he's still human or a figment of the planet is a mystery) It's pretty much based on some deep pseudo-philosophical stuff about "well she's not real because she's based on my memories... well even if she was real my view of her is colored by those memories... ahh screw it this jelly planet version is just about the real thing because of this... HONEY I'M HOME!"
It's more like 2001 in nature.
I'm always intrigued by the frequent use of such terms as "pseudo-philosophical." It seems very difficult to produce a work that will be acknowledged as genuinely philosophical.
Now, I admit that I have not seen the Russian film, nor have I read the novel, (Stanislaw Lem was Polish, not Russian), so I have no basis for comparison, but I didn't think the recent film was bad at all. Even allowing for poor interpretation, I certainly got the impression that Lem wrote far more substantial science fiction than most of what constitutes the genre, which would probably explain its marginal popularity.
-
There's quite a bit of substantial SF, most people ignore it though.
-
Charlize looks pretty hot in black hair.. I still think Uma kicked more ass though.
I've never really understood these movies that make you think to the point of insanity to figure out the endings. I'd rather watch Solaris over 2001 any day, and I'm talking about Andrei Tarkovsky's version, the old one, and for that to happen, I better be really bored. 2001's ending, which I STILL do NOT understand to this very day... I mean, wtf? What do I learn from that ending? Big black rectangles are bad? I'll grow really old in a white room? At least with Solaris, I could understand that ending a lot better. Other movies like.. Donnie Darko (?purge?), Altered States (drugs are bad, mmkay?), I mean, my god. I want my two hours of my life back!
-
2001's ending, from what I remember, is HAL and Dave merging with the Monolith to become higher life-forms or somesuch.
Donnie Darko is real simple: He's God/Jesus.
-
2010 was easyer to understand, they left out the philisophical crap and just turned jupiter into a star. the last part of 2001 that made sence was hal's deactivation. after that it all just goes into oblivion. i cant even remember the end to solaris, i think i got bored and worked on a model. as for the aeon flux movie, having only seen a handfull of episodes, i might go see the movie. it has to be totally bizare or i wont be satisfied.
-
Guys guys, were looking too deep into this, two words: Charlize Theron
(http://car4print.com/upload/images/G88118_b.jpg)
-
I really wish I knew and cared enough about the original Aeon Flux cartoon to dismiss the movie as a Hollywood abomination intended to appeal to great unwashed masses. Unfortunately, I've never seen the original, so my sense of ourtrage can only be a very vague and general one.
The odd thing is that they actually dressed Aeon up for the movie. She's much more scantily clad in the cartoon.
-
Stanley Kubrick did not intend for people to "understand" 2001. It is a highly visceral work of art, and the closest thing to a theme in it is the primal terror of the human being in the face of the unknown. The best thing you can do is let the sensory experience wash over you.
That film needed no sequels. I sort of pretend that 2010 doesn't exist.
-
1. Personally, I think this movie looks to be kinda ****ty. Not in regards to the story (what I remember of it) but the style.
2. Solaris lost me about 3 minutes in. The rest of the movie was me wondering what the **** was going on, and who the **** these people moving around on my T.V. were.
3. Sphere scared the **** outta me. Or maybe it was just my inherent fear of the ocean...meh, either way, it struck me as a not bad/fairly good movie.
-
- Sphere was awesome because it leaves you with about a thousand questions that you don't really want to know the answers to.
- Charlize Theron is ****en smoken hawt - but far too clothed to be Aeon.
- The film seems very Serenity-ish in it's styling, when it should be more Dark City.
-
I read sphere back in 8th grade, and understood it, way back before the movie was released. When I saw the movie, I was let down, probably because I interpreted the story a little different than the book. Plus, most of Chricton's movie adaptations from his books leave me with an empty feeling.
Guys guys, were looking too deep into this, two words: Charlize Theron
Now take that pic and put black hair on her. (no, dont do it in mspaint...)
HOT. That's about the only reason why I'd see it.
-
2001's ending, from what I remember, is HAL and Dave merging with the Monolith to become higher life-forms or somesuch.
Once again, your understanding couldn't be more wrong. HAL was deactivated, and the monolith turns into a stargate which transports Dave off to the Intergalactic Space Baby Transformation Clinic.
The novel (NOT "novelization") makes this all much more clear.
And the reason they de-skimpified Aeon Flux's costume for the movie is because Charlize Theron doesn't have the body for it. She's horribly miscast.
-
2001's ending, from what I remember, is HAL and Dave merging with the Monolith to become higher life-forms or somesuch.
Once again, your understanding couldn't be more wrong. HAL was deactivated, and the monolith turns into a stargate which transports Dave off to the Intergalactic Space Baby Transformation Clinic.
The novel (NOT "novelization") makes this all much more clear.
And the reason they de-skimpified Aeon Flux's costume for the movie is because Charlize Theron doesn't have the body for it. She's horribly miscast.
miscast in what way?
shes got some body from what I see!!!
hottie!
EDIT: And I dont like her with blond hair, black looks SOO much better on her, makes her look emo (i think)...
is it naturally blond on her? (i know it aint naturally black)
-
black looks SOO much better on her, makes her look emo (i think)...
:wtf: Emo is not the word you're looking for. Seriously.
-
miscast in what way?
shes got some body from what I see!!!
Yeah, woo zMAn, some body. Unfortunately it's the wrong kind of body. Aeon is supposed to have a gymnast's body, for all the running and jumping and contorting she does (gigantic cartoon breasts notwithstanding).
-
Once again, your understanding couldn't be more wrong. HAL was deactivated, and the monolith turns into a stargate which transports Dave off to the Intergalactic Space Baby Transformation Clinic.
That's pretty much what happened, good way of describing it.
The movie was more a case of conveying images or sequences in the book, it wasn't meant to make total sense on its own. The movie is more of a visual journey.
As for Solaris; I've read that the original is far superior but I thought that the new version was thought provoking. Why does a movie have to have only one outcome? I prefer movies that leave the interpretation to the viewer.
-
Wait, they wrote a novel about the 2001 movie?
How in the **** could that be any more of a redundant pursuit?
Oh and Aeon doesn't so much have the body of a gymnast, as the body of a malnourished skeleton (with ginormous cartoon hooters).
-
The novel was written as a companion to the film. Kubrick did the film while Clarke wrote the novel. I personally don't see the point of a book for a movie that is based so heavily on images and sounds. That work just can't exist in another form and still be the same piece.
-
Bleh.
That is all.
-
Wait, they wrote a novel about the 2001 movie?
How in the **** could that be any more of a redundant pursuit?
Wow anon, you're really missing on all cylinders today. 2001 the movie and the novel were created more-or-less simultaneously, in a collaboration between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke (the extremely famous science fiction author). As a result, the movie is not based on the novel nor is the novel based on the movie. They're parallel expressions of the same idea. BOTH works are regarded as classics of their respective mediums.
Interestingly, the 2010 novel was written as a sequel to the 2001 movie (the book and movie differed in certain minor factual details).
-
Meh, I never paid much attention to the whole 2001 series and associated 'stuff'.
The whole 'similar but slightly different parallel universes' thing didn't exactly enamour me to investigate the series.
-
Yeah, woo zMAn, some body. Unfortunately it's the wrong kind of body. Aeon is supposed to have a gymnast's body, for all the running and jumping and contorting she does (gigantic cartoon breasts notwithstanding).
The body of a gymnast is, say, Sailor Uranus from Sailor Moon. Not Aeon. That's just the body of someone who's ****ed up.
-
Nonetheless, it's not the body of Charlize Theron. And get this bull****--
THERON REDESIGNS SKIMPY SUPERHEROINE COSTUME
Hollywood star Charlize Theron forced movie bosses to change her costume
design for forthcoming movie "Aeon Flux" -- after deciding her character's
original outfit was too revealing.
When Theron saw the superheroine's skimpy crime-fighting outfit of a bikini,
thigh-high boots and shoulder pads, she decided to add trousers to the
outfit.
The 29-year-old star admits, "When you're playing with aspects of sexuality,
certain things have to be hidden. That's what my mother always used to tell
me.
"I wanted to stay as true as possible to the original character, but didn't
feel the need to go as far with the costume."
The sci-fi movie, based on the comic book adaptation, is due to be released
in the autumn.
Stupid prima-donna.
-
That's like Alec Guiness going "Screw this sci-fi bull**** - I'll fight him with a katana!"
-
i really dont think such skimpy low cut costumes is necessary... i mean its hot and all, but not for a movie, IMO...