Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel - Page 100

Alex · 06-10-2011, 10:27 PM

Super 8 is entertaining enough (though it isn't going to stick with me very long).

But I'm going to have to kick Abrams in the balls if he doesn't get over his lens flare fetish right quick.

And I wouldn't have minded at least one line of dialog to explain

Spoiler:

Also, the Rubik's Cube didn't appear in the US until February 1980 (the movie takes place in June '79) so that reference was a bit out of place and such an obvious thing that I wonder if it was an intentional anachronism.

alphabassettgrrl · 06-10-2011, 10:51 PM

I'm with you on the stupid lens flare. Bothered me during Star Trek very much. Likely to bother me in Super 8.

innerSpaceman · 06-11-2011, 06:07 AM

I've heard a bit about the Rubik's Cube mistake, but where in the film does it say the action takes place in 1979? Not there. Sorry, but if it's in the production materials, but not in the movie - then the time period is not nailed down at all.

The movie takes place in a general time period of late '70's, early '80's - and Abrams nailed the cinematographic look and the pacing of the Speilberg films this movie so plainly salutes. It's been noted, quite correctly, to be a mashup of elements from Close Encounters, Jaws, E.T. and The Goonies.

Um, The Goonies?? Yeah, it's got a lot in common with that movie - which, um folks, is not a Spielberg film any more than Super 8 is (he was executive producer on Goonies, and had a story credit; he's a producer on Super 8).

Super 8 is about a thousand times better than The Goonies, imo, but doesn't nearly reach the glory of any of those Steven Spielberg movies named. No matter ... it's a charming and entertaining film. Well-paced, well-acted (the two lead kids are great), mushy in all the right places, thrilling in many others.

I've heard complaints the ending is a bit of a let-down, but I thought the whole thing was by-the-book from start to finish. The sci-fi plot is the barest of McGuffins and so what? I was not disappointed with the obvious finale in such an obvious homage to films of 30 years ago.

I'm with Alex in that Super 8 likely won't be staying with me in anything remotely the way the early Spielberg films did. But I thoroughly enjoyed it ... and the train wreck was ultra rad.

Alex · 06-11-2011, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I've heard a bit about the Rubik's Cube mistake, but where in the film does it say the action takes place in 1979? Not there. Sorry, but if it's in the production materials, but not in the movie - then the time period is not nailed down at all.

It's there in the movie. On the head stone mom's date of death is given as February 1979 and the events of the movie take place (per the title after the funeral scene) four months later. Also, during another scene Walter Cronkite is on the TV reporting on Three Mile Island (which was April 1979 though this is less conclusive since you could always say he was doing some type of follow up).

The movie definitely sets itself in June 1979. Further support (though again not at all conclusive on its own), "My Sharona" was released in June 1979.

Not that the Rubik's Cube thing is that big of a deal. It was just something that caught my attention because I thought by then the movie, though still date uncertain at that point was definitely more '70s feeling and I was wondering if I was wrong about when Rubik's Cubes first hit.

innerSpaceman · 06-11-2011, 10:22 AM

Spoiler:

I stand duly corrected about the time period. Ooops. In that case, I think the Rubik's Cube is a lazy error that should have been avoided. But what really took me out of the time period, almost right away, was one of the kids saying "whatever" with a clear '90's inflection as one of his first lines.

That kind of stuff bugs me. Oh, it's ALL over X-Men: First Class, which is horribly lazy about its early 60's time period in just about every way.

But I suppose things like that creep in, and it's rare period piece that's totally free of anachronisms. Super 8 sure isn't bad in that regard. It in no way detracts from its considerable charms.

It was undoubtedly easier capture the era of the late '70's/early 80's when Speilberg made his films IN that time period - - but one of his greats of that day, Raiders of the Lost Ark, does not - to me at least - reveal any jarring anachronisms of it's pre-WWII period setting.

And all in all, what I take away from Super 8 is that Abrams is no Spielberg, and he should not try to be. But his obvious affection for the source material of this and his last film (Star Trek) does work in his favor in establishing a fantastic mood and overall feeling that serves him well in these nostalgia projects.

I'd like to see him move on to something more forward looking though.

JWBear · 06-11-2011, 09:46 PM

Whatever you do, DO NOT watch Titanic II. Trust me on this. It's an hour and a half you will never get back.

RStar · 06-11-2011, 10:55 PM

Saw Super 8 tonight. Loved it! I thought it was even better than I expected it would be. The only thing I could complain about was that stupid lens flair. It's something that good photographers and film makers avoid, for good reason. Alex, please kick JJ Abrams in the balls for me too, won't you?

That and the odd fact that Zach Mills got so little screen time. He's a pretty good actor, and you'd hardly know he was in this film. Most of the time he only had single word lines.

The bit after the end of the movie is great:

Spoiler:

BarTopDancer · 06-11-2011, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

Whatever you do, DO NOT watch Titanic II. Trust me on this. It's an hour and a half you will never get back.

Wait. They made a sequel? The damn boat sinks, what else is there?

Moonliner · 06-12-2011, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Wait. They made a sequel? The damn boat sinks, what else is there?

Zombies!

flippyshark · 06-12-2011, 07:51 AM

Titanic II takes place in 2012, and is a "history repeats itself" story. It's from the "Mockbuster" studio, Asylum, which tells me everything I need to know. (They're the ones who made such knock-offs as "Snakes On A Train" and "Trans-morphers." These direct-to-video features are beyond pointless, not even entertaining in the so-bad-it's-good way.)

06-10-2011, 10:27 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Super 8 is entertaining enough (though it isn't going to stick with me very long). But I'm going to have to kick Abrams in the balls if he doesn't get over his lens flare fetish right quick. And I wouldn't have minded at least one line of dialog to explain Spoiler: why, after 25 years they were moving an alien and its magic spaceship cross country and together Also, the Rubik's Cube didn't appear in the US until February 1980 (the movie takes place in June '79) so that reference was a bit out of place and such an obvious thing that I wonder if it was an intentional anachronism. Last edited by Alex : 06-10-2011 at 10:54 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

06-10-2011, 10:51 PM	#2
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	I'm with you on the stupid lens flare. Bothered me during Star Trek very much. Likely to bother me in Super 8. __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

06-11-2011, 06:07 AM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I've heard a bit about the Rubik's Cube mistake, but where in the film does it say the action takes place in 1979? Not there. Sorry, but if it's in the production materials, but not in the movie - then the time period is not nailed down at all. The movie takes place in a general time period of late '70's, early '80's - and Abrams nailed the cinematographic look and the pacing of the Speilberg films this movie so plainly salutes. It's been noted, quite correctly, to be a mashup of elements from Close Encounters, Jaws, E.T. and The Goonies. Um, The Goonies?? Yeah, it's got a lot in common with that movie - which, um folks, is not a Spielberg film any more than Super 8 is (he was executive producer on Goonies, and had a story credit; he's a producer on Super 8). Super 8 is about a thousand times better than The Goonies, imo, but doesn't nearly reach the glory of any of those Steven Spielberg movies named. No matter ... it's a charming and entertaining film. Well-paced, well-acted (the two lead kids are great), mushy in all the right places, thrilling in many others. I've heard complaints the ending is a bit of a let-down, but I thought the whole thing was by-the-book from start to finish. The sci-fi plot is the barest of McGuffins and so what? I was not disappointed with the obvious finale in such an obvious homage to films of 30 years ago. I'm with Alex in that Super 8 likely won't be staying with me in anything remotely the way the early Spielberg films did. But I thoroughly enjoyed it ... and the train wreck was ultra rad.
	Submit to Quotes

06-11-2011, 10:22 AM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Spoiler: not to mention the professor in the truck who caused the wreck, and impossibly survives it I stand duly corrected about the time period. Ooops. In that case, I think the Rubik's Cube is a lazy error that should have been avoided. But what really took me out of the time period, almost right away, was one of the kids saying "whatever" with a clear '90's inflection as one of his first lines. That kind of stuff bugs me. Oh, it's ALL over X-Men: First Class, which is horribly lazy about its early 60's time period in just about every way. But I suppose things like that creep in, and it's rare period piece that's totally free of anachronisms. Super 8 sure isn't bad in that regard. It in no way detracts from its considerable charms. It was undoubtedly easier capture the era of the late '70's/early 80's when Speilberg made his films IN that time period - - but one of his greats of that day, Raiders of the Lost Ark, does not - to me at least - reveal any jarring anachronisms of it's pre-WWII period setting. And all in all, what I take away from Super 8 is that Abrams is no Spielberg, and he should not try to be. But his obvious affection for the source material of this and his last film (Star Trek) does work in his favor in establishing a fantastic mood and overall feeling that serves him well in these nostalgia projects. I'd like to see him move on to something more forward looking though.
	Submit to Quotes

06-11-2011, 09:46 PM	#6
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Whatever you do, DO NOT watch Titanic II. Trust me on this. It's an hour and a half you will never get back. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

06-11-2011, 10:55 PM	#7
RStar Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Me & Manyard hangin out! Posts: 5,433	Saw Super 8 tonight. Loved it! I thought it was even better than I expected it would be. The only thing I could complain about was that stupid lens flair. It's something that good photographers and film makers avoid, for good reason. Alex, please kick JJ Abrams in the balls for me too, won't you? That and the odd fact that Zach Mills got so little screen time. He's a pretty good actor, and you'd hardly know he was in this film. Most of the time he only had single word lines. The bit after the end of the movie is great: Spoiler: Seeing the kids' movie durring the credits was a great idea! I loved that! __________________ Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup! www.StarTownGifts.com
	Submit to Quotes

06-12-2011, 07:51 AM	#10
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	Titanic II takes place in 2012, and is a "history repeats itself" story. It's from the "Mockbuster" studio, Asylum, which tells me everything I need to know. (They're the ones who made such knock-offs as "Snakes On A Train" and "Trans-morphers." These direct-to-video features are beyond pointless, not even entertaining in the so-bad-it's-good way.)
	Submit to Quotes