Battlefield Earth: Part Duh

Gn2Dlnd · 07-05-2005, 11:30 AM

Sacred = semantics. I originally wrote "untouchable," but it felt a bit - Indian.

Yes we have a new "visual lexicon." But it shouldn't include Tom Cruise covered in the dust of people vaporized around him - analogous to people covered in the dust of those vaporized around them on 9/11. That is the exact point in the film when my stomach started to turn. Hogan's Heroes used Nazis, Mel Brooks uses Nazis. Nazis did horrifying things and we like turning them into buffoons. However, we don't use the ovens in our summer blockbuster monster movies.

Schindler's List, The Pianist, The Diary of Anne Frank (and yes, I thought the parody on South Park was hilarious and offensive), are ways for us to document the atrocities visited upon the Jews during World War II. They serve to elevate the audience. War of the Worlds is a summer blockbuster monster movie. The various documentaries and remembrances, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" (which was shocking in its non-use of images from the actual impact of the planes), even the kind of dumb episode of "Third Watch" that interviewed cast members about their experiences on that day, serve to document and help us wrap our brains around what happened on September 11, 2001.

I've got a bug up my ass when it comes to 9/11. I can't be the only person who wasn't turned into a flag waving xenophobe, stayed gay, didn't figure out how to make billions off the "war," or buy an SUV who considers 9/11 to be the most horrifying day of my life thus far.

So, I agree with Miss Eliza on everything except the idea that nothing from 9/11 should be sacrosanct. Some images should. And "the mere mention of tragic events" do not send me into a swoon, but Crazy Tom covered in people dust does piss me off.

There were plenty of non-9/11 thing in the film that I disliked, but by the time I was deciding that it was a lousy movie, I had already been pissed off. Every bad director choice that came after that point was being seen through a filter of "well, fvck you too!," and "what's the next disgusting thing you're going to show me?"

All in all, I can't say I disliked the film, so much as I hated it.

If I, who has never owned one, know that you're not supposed to put meat into a composter, why doesn't Speilberg?

How is it that any of these people are able to breathe in a landscape covered in rotting blood and guts?

Why do the aliens constantly have to be dumping some sort of liquid (urine? bile? alien diarrhea?) everywhere?

If you've departed from the source material enough to have your aliens be "sleeper cells," and you've demonstrated their ability to zap you with their evapo-ray, why do they need to send the snake-eye down into the basement to find more meat? As one poster on another board put it, "They suddenly start going door-to-door like Jehova's Witnesses."

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-05-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

And "the mere mention of tragic events" do not send me into a swoon, but Crazy Tom covered in people dust does piss me off.

Movies have always used current fears to move audiences. Radiation is my favorite. There are plenty of popcorn movies that showed images of towns destroyed by the effects of nuclear weapons...or more "abstractly", destroyed by creatures created by radiation...and all after the absolute horror of Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Were they immoral in playing towards what people wanted to be frightened/thrilled by?

If you're going to condemn anyone making money off of tragedy, you better make a trip to Staples for some more pencils and paper. If you're going to say "I'll decide what's an appropriate way to make money off of tragedy" then that's your prerogative, but I can't possibly understand where the line can be drawn.

You know who I hated after 9/11? Those that made music ABOUT 9/11, ABOUT New York. Those that sold flags and bumper stickers that said "We will never forget." Those in the media that.......ok, I always hate the media. Making money by pointing directly AT the event is a sad thing in my book. But hey, we wanted to buy flags, so someone has to sell them, right? So I hold no grudges against them either.

There are plenty of people who think it's horrible that we have movies that depict people dying in any way, because we're capitalizing on fears, making death seem trivial, blah blah. Dude, people are always going to want to be thrilled/frightened, and death is IT. I feel the same way about 9/11 fears.

Quote:

Why do the aliens constantly have to be dumping some sort of liquid (urine? bile? alien diarrhea?) everywhere?

Because it's gross and cool.

As for other plot-holes etc, um, yeah. Long live the silly popcorn movie.

07-05-2005, 11:30 AM	#1
Gn2Dlnd Parmmadore Jim Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Casita del Queso Posts: 3,810	Sacred = semantics. I originally wrote "untouchable," but it felt a bit - Indian. Yes we have a new "visual lexicon." But it shouldn't include Tom Cruise covered in the dust of people vaporized around him - analogous to people covered in the dust of those vaporized around them on 9/11. That is the exact point in the film when my stomach started to turn. Hogan's Heroes used Nazis, Mel Brooks uses Nazis. Nazis did horrifying things and we like turning them into buffoons. However, we don't use the ovens in our summer blockbuster monster movies. Schindler's List, The Pianist, The Diary of Anne Frank (and yes, I thought the parody on South Park was hilarious and offensive), are ways for us to document the atrocities visited upon the Jews during World War II. They serve to elevate the audience. War of the Worlds is a summer blockbuster monster movie. The various documentaries and remembrances, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" (which was shocking in its non-use of images from the actual impact of the planes), even the kind of dumb episode of "Third Watch" that interviewed cast members about their experiences on that day, serve to document and help us wrap our brains around what happened on September 11, 2001. I've got a bug up my ass when it comes to 9/11. I can't be the only person who wasn't turned into a flag waving xenophobe, stayed gay, didn't figure out how to make billions off the "war," or buy an SUV who considers 9/11 to be the most horrifying day of my life thus far. So, I agree with Miss Eliza on everything except the idea that nothing from 9/11 should be sacrosanct. Some images should. And "the mere mention of tragic events" do not send me into a swoon, but Crazy Tom covered in people dust does piss me off. There were plenty of non-9/11 thing in the film that I disliked, but by the time I was deciding that it was a lousy movie, I had already been pissed off. Every bad director choice that came after that point was being seen through a filter of "well, fvck you too!," and "what's the next disgusting thing you're going to show me?" All in all, I can't say I disliked the film, so much as I hated it. If I, who has never owned one, know that you're not supposed to put meat into a composter, why doesn't Speilberg? How is it that any of these people are able to breathe in a landscape covered in rotting blood and guts? Why do the aliens constantly have to be dumping some sort of liquid (urine? bile? alien diarrhea?) everywhere? If you've departed from the source material enough to have your aliens be "sleeper cells," and you've demonstrated their ability to zap you with their evapo-ray, why do they need to send the snake-eye down into the basement to find more meat? As one poster on another board put it, "They suddenly start going door-to-door like Jehova's Witnesses." __________________ Does anyone still wear a hat?
	Submit to Quotes