Independence Day: Resurgence **SPOILERS FROM POST 266 ONWARD**

eviltimeban

^ the "virus" was simply him changing the 1s to 0s and the 0s to 1s in the alien's binary code. He was able to connect as they had the alien space craft, which was "switched on" and connected to the mothership. Makes sense (in a movie way of course).

Duggy747

Deleted User wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in deleted scenes from the previous movie explain why they were able to interface? I'm not sure why it was removed, really.

Yea, a deleted scene (haven't seen it) is supposed to show Goldblum figuring out that the now-powered up ship they had at Roswell was using the same kind of code that he managed to decipher the countdown from earlier in the film. So he worked from there on his Macbook.

Krudler used to always bring that virus scene up, whatever happened to that guy?

p to the e

I feel humbled today. Some people can go through their entire life and never even begin to answer that important question; what is the worst film you have ever seen? Well today I can answer that.

This steaming pile of dog **** is called Independence Day: Resurgence. Don't get me wrong I have seen terrible films before but they're usually forgotten within a short amount of time never to be whispered about again. It's not that it's bad, it's offensively bad. This geriatric masturbatory aid of a film clings to you like a cancer and leaves you wasted away and begging for it to end.

First things first is the unsubtle attempt to claw as much money out the Chinese market as possible. The good old lads of the People's Republic (sure aren't they great craic altogether) are shown/mentioned as intricate cogs in Earth's defences when in reality all they actually would want is to define a new "close encounter of the 8th kind" i.e. eat an alien.

Several oriental stars also thread the boards here most notably Angelababy (no, me neither) who, let's be honest, is the most Western looking Easterner I've ever seen. She must be Chinese but not too Chinese.

The younger stars of the film (Hemsworth, Usher et al.) can't really be blamed for this testicle tumour. They will take what roles they can get as long as they don't have to blow the producer¹. But there's actors of genuine pedigree here that should really know better.

Goldblum (the world's finest hand actor) does his best but he can't help but convey his true sentiments of a quick cash grab.

Bill Pullman looks downright embarrassed throughout and looks like he's wondering where it all went wrong.

The last two times I saw Charlotte Gainsbourg she was cutting off her bits with a scissors in Lars Von Trier's "Anti Christ" and getting the box rode off her in "Nymphomaniac". This girl has form. When not hinting at incestuous relationships with her father she stars in controversial art house films. Who the hell had dirt on her to force her to be in this JimmySaville of a film?

"But wait", you say, "there must be something you liked about the film?". Well that's like asking me my favourite genocide, the Holocaust or the Holodomor? If there's one positive to take it's that Will Smith had better sense than to appear in this midnight toe stub.

To paraphrase myself, it's not that it's bad, it's annoyingly bad.

¹ On a side note Mae Whitman (her?) was never even asked to reprise her role but instead passed over for the more conventional pretty, and Keira Knightly clone, Maika Monroe.

homerun_homer

Terrible film. Just thinking about the stupidity of Jeff G's dad surviving on that boat and then later not spotting the HUGE ship flying over about to attack because he reunited with his son.

Thargor

Wedwood wrote: »

Haven't seen the movie yet, but considering the first beloved movie concluded with a triple whammy of the aliens being defeated by suffering a Windows virus, a nuclear explosion that destroyed the mothership, but our heroes survived in the alien fighter and Randy Quaid flying his biplane up a flying saucer laser gun, I'll reserve judgement till I see the new film.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Actually, it was a Mac. I know... The irony.

It wasnt his biplane he flew up there either, the USAF put out a call for pilots, he was flying a modern fighter.

Mitch Connor

Thargor wrote: »

It wasnt his biplane he flew up there either, the USAF put out a call for pilots, he was flying a modern fighter.

Was going to point that out too.

I'm an alternative ending they had it was his crop dusting bi-plane he used. Thankfully they went with the ending we got.

MilesMorales1

p to the e wrote: »

I feel humbled today. Some people can go through their entire life and never even begin to answer that important question; what is the worst film you have ever seen? Well today I can answer that.

This steaming pile of dog **** is called Independence Day: Resurgence. Don't get me wrong I have seen terrible films before but they're usually forgotten within a short amount of time never to be whispered about again. It's not that it's bad, it's offensively bad. This geriatric masturbatory aid of a film clings to you like a cancer and leaves you wasted away and begging for it to end.

First things first is the unsubtle attempt to claw as much money out the Chinese market as possible. The good old lads of the People's Republic (sure aren't they great craic altogether) are shown/mentioned as intricate cogs in Earth's defences when in reality all they actually would want is to define a new "close encounter of the 8th kind" i.e. eat an alien.

Several oriental stars also thread the boards here most notably Angelababy (no, me neither) who, let's be honest, is the most Western looking Easterner I've ever seen. She must be Chinese but not too Chinese.

The younger stars of the film (Hemsworth, Usher et al.) can't really be blamed for this testicle tumour. They will take what roles they can get as long as they don't have to blow the producer¹. But there's actors of genuine pedigree here that should really know better.

Goldblum (the world's finest hand actor) does his best but he can't help but convey his true sentiments of a quick cash grab.

Bill Pullman looks downright embarrassed throughout and looks like he's wondering where it all went wrong.

The last two times I saw Charlotte Gainsbourg she was cutting off her bits with a scissors in Lars Von Trier's "Anti Christ" and getting the box rode off her in "Nymphomaniac". This girl has form. When not hinting at incestuous relationships with her father she stars in controversial art house films. Who the hell had dirt on her to force her to be in this JimmySaville of a film?

"But wait", you say, "there must be something you liked about the film?". Well that's like asking me my favourite genocide, the Holocaust or the Holodomor? If there's one positive to take it's that Will Smith had better sense than to appear in this midnight toe stub.

To paraphrase myself, it's not that it's bad, it's annoyingly bad.

¹ On a side note Mae Whitman (her?) was never even asked to reprise her role but instead passed over for the more conventional pretty, and Keira Knightly clone, Maika Monroe.

Who?

Kirby

I had the same reaction. I'm pretty sure he's talking about the child actress who played the presidents daughter in the original.

R e F

Did people honestly like the first film anyway? Having just watched it, I wasn't blown away to say the least.

Cantstandsya

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Who?

Some nobody who played a 5 year old in the first movie. For some reason people are bothered that they didn't call her back for the sequel (while not caring that whoever played Will Smith's son wasn't called back either).

MilesMorales1

Cantstandsya wrote: »

Some nobody who played a 5 year old in the first movie. For some reason people are bothered that they didn't call her back for the sequel (while not caring that whoever played Will Smith's son wasn't called back either).

Its an arrested development reference, in response to the one he posted in his original rant :pac:

FunLover18

Cantstandsya wrote: »

Some nobody who played a 5 year old in the first movie. For some reason people are bothered that they didn't call her back for the sequel (while not caring that whoever played Will Smith's son wasn't called back either).

The reason people were annoyed is because Mae Whitman has continued acting and is quite good in things like Arrested Development, Parenthood and The DUFF howeverthe suspicion is that she wasn't recast due her the fact that while she is pretty, she's no "pin up" girl unlike Maika Monroe who was cast instead. I wasn't particularly annoyed about it myself but it was a questionable decision and having seen the film I can safely say that Mae Whitman would have been just as good. It wasn't exactly a very taxing role.

Drumpot

Shock as Hollywood studio chooses eye candy to try and bolster sales .... Yeh, I never thought I would see the day when the cats at Hollywood HQ would get so shallow....

KingBrian2

Just watched the movie. Thought it was a good showing. Hope they make sequels, continue the franchise.

R e F

R e F wrote: »

Did people honestly like the first film anyway? Having just watched it, I wasn't blown away to say the least.

I think that's the important part - you're watching it now, instead of when it was first released, so you're not getting the full effect of the timing of when it was released in '96. A lot of it doesn't hold up well, but their choice of using a lot of physical effects, props, and whatnot, made it last a lot longer.

Plus it was one of the first times we got this new generation of actor in the likes of Will Smith.

Sleepy

Myself and Mrs Sleepy brought the kids last weekend. I didn't think it was that much worse than the original tbh though it missed Will Smith and under-used Bill Pullman: it sorely lacked an equivalent to his "we will not go quietly into the night" scene, sure there was a small nod made to it but it was nowhere near as good which in part, I think, came down to the scoring. We watched the original the night before going along and it made me realise just how much the score had to do with the punch the air feel good sense of the movie. This time around, the score just didn't have as much emotional impact.

It's been mentioned already but the lack of suspense hurts it a bit too.

That said, our 10 year old absolutely loved it and we found it enjoyable enough nonsense. The set-up for a sequel appealed to the sci-fi fan in me but I'm not sure I can see this being successful enough to make that happen, or the Earth involved in a galactic war plot being all that appealing to the general movie-going audience. It might be a bit too SyFy for many...

eviltimeban

Sleepy wrote: »

It might be a bit too SyFy for many...

I feel this is the case with this one - it was the realism of the first one (at least, for the first half of the movie) that appealed to audiences. And then the action part was just fun, didn't take itself seriously.

This movie is very sci-fi - the moon base, all the "new technology". It makes us lose our ability to associate with it.

As for Mae Whitman, how interesting would an "indie" cast have been! With Jesse Eisenberg, Frances McDormand as the president...

eviltimeban

eviltimeban wrote: »

I feel this is the case with this one - it was the realism of the first one (at least, for the first half of the movie) that appealed to audiences. And then the action part was just fun, didn't take itself seriously.

This movie is very sci-fi - the moon base, all the "new technology". It makes us lose our ability to associate with it.

As for Mae Whitman, how interesting would an "indie" cast have been! With Jesse Eisenberg, Frances McDormand as the president...

I think this is a great point - it is set in our current time, but features flying everything and moon cannons and crap. I get that it is because of the use of alien technology and yada yada, but it gets a bit lost where, in the midst of flying machines and moon cannons, someone takes out a mobile phone of our time.

Bacchus

eviltimeban wrote: »

I feel this is the case with this one - it was the realism of the first one (at least, for the first half of the movie) that appealed to audiences. And then the action part was just fun, didn't take itself seriously.

This movie is very sci-fi - the moon base, all the "new technology". It makes us lose our ability to associate with it.

Funny reading that. It's something I thought would be the big challenge in making this movie way back when it was in production... I even have the posts to prove it :pac:

Bacchus wrote: »

It's a tricky one to follow up and is one instance where I think they'd be best off sticking close to the formula and not try and stick a hybrid dinosaur in there to make it "different". Human tech surely must have been advanced by the alien tech but I'd still like to see it set in a world not too different to our own. That was one of the great things about ID, it took a snapshot of our world with our tech and war machines and added aliens. If we're all technologically advanced for ID2, then it's no longer relatable to the real world and it's just another sci-fi invasion movie with everyone firing lasers at each other. Obviously though the world will have to have changed due to the events in ID but I just hope that is primarily from a military point of view and we don't have colonies living on Mars going around on jet packs.

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm not saying that ID was an airtight plot. I'm just saying that part of the appeal was seeing "the real world" get invaded and blown up by vastly superior aliens. So, for the sequel I think they have a tricky task in balancing what made ID appealing and creating the post ID world. It's trickier too because most of the major landmarks are already blown up! In my mind it should be an almost post 9/11 world on a global scale (without getting too political and losing the fun) - i.e. the world is still spinning, civilisation is just getting back on it's feet (as you menioned too) but there is the terror of the aliens returning. Technology should be more advanced than what we have now (particularly military) but I'd rather not see a human space armada or moon bases etc.

I really enjoyed it, not on the same scale as I enjoyed ID but it hit a lot of nostalgia buttons and the visuals/action were impressive. I even liked how they expanded the universe and there's this bigger war happening. However, it did lose the "relatable factor" that the original had. The original followed the invasion starting from "modern day" life and it had so much tension. This though had moon bases, satellite arrays with lasers, a rebuilt white house, laser guns, a floating sentient orb that holds the key to even more technology... it was all quite sci-fi and sterile. I enjoyed it but I can see how a lot of people would fail to connect with this world.

Cantstandsya

FunLover18 wrote: »

The reason people were annoyed is because Mae Whitman has continued acting and is quite good in things like Arrested Development, Parenthood and The DUFF howeverthe suspicion is that she wasn't recast due her the fact that while she is pretty, she's no "pin up" girl unlike Maika Monroe who was cast instead. I wasn't particularly annoyed about it myself but it was a questionable decision and having seen the film I can safely say that Mae Whitman would have been just as good. It wasn't exactly a very taxing role.

Seems like a fair enough reason to me. It's a dumb popcorn movie so they wanted a better looking actor to help sell it. Looks count (far more than acting ability) when you want to star in summer blockbusters. I am sure lots of less good looking but better actors could have played all the male roles too and I am equally sure that the guy who played Dylan in the original would have taken the role if offered (even if he's not been acting since the original I don't think he could have done a worse job than the bloke who took over the role).

Don't really care either way, sure for fans of the original it would have been better if the original actors returned for the roles but it makes sense why they chose better looking alternatives.

Sudden Valley

I was not that much a fan of the original movie but having watched it on tv last week it was suprising how much better it was rthe sequel. Pullman, Smith and Goldblum make the original film interesting, while I can't think of one new cast or any of the returning cast from the original that comes out well from this film. Strangley the CGI also looks worse in the new movie compared to the original - though perhaps that was because the original used CGI sparingly. Another very disappointing reboot to an old movie.

silverharp

an Irish Youtuber "computing forever" did a review of the movie and made the comment that it felt like he was watching a videogame walkthrough and it was just missing the boss health bar in the corner. it was just a blancmange of special effects at times

MilesMorales1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoV1Xr-QyZE

Moviebob on point.

Nervous Wreck

silverharp wrote: »

an Irish Youtuber "computing forever" did a review of the movie and made the comment that it felt like he was watching a videogame walkthrough and it was just missing the boss health bar in the corner. it was just a blancmange of special effects at times

What a stupid comment to make. I don't know where people get these ideas. Watching a video game walk through would be much more engaging! :P

Slydice

Right so, film lowered to "when I get around to it"

Fysh

I caught this tonight. I'm not a massive fan of Roland Emmerich's more recent films, but I liked Stargate and ID4 well enough when they were first released.

As watch-once entertainment goes, Resurgence was grand. Some nice bits of design crop up as part of the whole "world in which humans have adapted the alien technology" aspect, but it doesn't get explored in any depth so don't expect much there. The story is more or less what you'd expect; visually it's mostly good though there are a few monents of ropey CGI. The main thing that I thought was disappointing was the clunky delivery and so-so performances (particularly from the younger cast). Because someone had mentioned it upthread, I kept an ear on the score and was a bit nonplussed at it - it doesn't really sell the drama at a lot of points where that would help, most notably during Bill Pullman's speech.

It's grand enough if you want an undemanding couple of hours of invading aliens and things exploding, but keep your expectations in check - this is not a film that breaks any new ground...

StudentDad

I watched this yesterday with my wife and sorry to say it was awful. No character development, the story was irrelevant and the characters utterly forgettable. At one point I wanted the Harvesters to win the film was that bad.

After the initial opening sequence and the setting up of the moon base gun, the film just nosedived. No suspense, no nothing. I couldn't have cared less about the characters and the few interesting bits in the storyline were just dropped.

They had the ingredients for a good film, obviously had the budget, but the end result is a total mess of a film. It makes Star Ship Troopers II look good in comparison!

SD

syklops

Fysh wrote: »

but keep your expectations in check - this is not a film that breaks any new ground...

Sequels rarely do and sequels made 20 years after the original never do.

SB_Part2

I thought it was terrible. It made me really appreciate the original. I couldn't have cared less if all of them had died. No character development at all.

P_1

Pretty bad truth be told, at least it had the nostalgia factor going for it i guess

Parachutes

Was disappointed coming out of this even though my expectations of it were low enough.

The premise is fantastic but the delivery just wasn't there. From the marketing it really looked like it was all about the infusion of alien and human technology but in the actual film it was very surface level and wasn't given the depth necessary. I also thought the crashed alien ship and band of rebel aliens holding out in Africa was a really interesting concept but was used as little more than a cheap plot device to keep the story moving along.

Also I couldn't help but thinking that we have spent years harvesting this advanced extraterrestrial tech but decided it was okay to overlook the shielding technology that made them so hard to beat in the first place?! Plot hole anyone?

The marketing also made it look like an actual war with the aliens we could win with their technology but this time they just had bigger and better ships, weapons etc. So just like the first film so? We apparently spent 20 years preparing and being united to face them but they annihilated us in 10 minutes, kind of defeats the point of the entire film really!

I know this was supposed to be a summer blockbuster and not a serious science fiction flick but it lacks the magic the first film had, you were invested in the characters. This time they seemed like cardboard cut outs. It's completely lacking a second act. If they want to turn this into a franchise (which they clearly do) some universe building was desperately needed here but it was virtually non existent.

Bacchus

Parachutes wrote: »

The premise is fantastic but the delivery just wasn't there. From the marketing it really looked like it was all about the infusion of alien and human technology but in the actual film it was very surface level and wasn't given the depth necessary. I also thought the crashed alien ship and band of rebel aliens holding out in Africa was a really interesting concept but was used as little more than a cheap plot device to keep the story moving along.

It'd be cool to see a spin off movie of this ground war.

Parachutes wrote: »

Also I couldn't help but thinking that we have spent years harvesting this advanced extraterrestrial tech but decided it was okay to overlook the shielding technology that made them so hard to beat in the first place?! Plot hole anyone?

They did adapt the shield tech though. They trapped the big bomb inside the shield that was being used to protect the base. It did come across that the shield tech was less developed so at least the avoided that plot hole.

Parachutes wrote: »

The marketing also made it look like an actual war with the aliens we could win with their technology but this time they just had bigger and better ships, weapons etc. So just like the first film so? We apparently spent 20 years preparing and being united to face them but they annihilated us in 10 minutes, kind of defeats the point of the entire film really!

Yup, agree with that. I guess they were going for "we never had a chance" but it just killed all the tension that we were so obviously and spectacularly outgunned. Mashing the fire button on the boss level to take down shields that just survived a mega bomb was what it came down to.

Fysh

Ah lads, if you're going to pick holes in a film about aliens which try to conquer the earth with ships that are almost as big as the planet yet magically don't cause hugely destructive gravitational disruptions you're not going to end up anywhere happy

I think that the disjointed feeling in the film is due to trying to lift from a variety of influences that don't stitch together easily - the lunar sequences felt like they'd drawn on Moon for the visuals, whereas the crashed ship in Africa bits had felt very District 9. Meanwhile the stuff in the USA felt like a weird mix of the original Independence Day and the sort of shinier-CGI sci-fi-action film standard (Oblivion, the 2012 Total Recall remake, etc). But it didn't feel like a cohesive world.

I'd have liked to know more about how they adapted the tech, etc, and ideally about the ground war in Africa, but This Ain't That Film, sadly.

The OH reckons that this was an attempt to kindle a new Starship-Troopers-esque franchise, and that the Independence Day name was used because it was an easy and available property to use as a franchise-starter. Not a bad theory, as far as it goes.

bradolf pittler

How did Will Smith's missus go from a stripper in the 1st film to a doctor in this 1????????

MilesMorales1

bradolf pittler wrote: »

How did Will Smith's missus go from a stripper in the 1st film to a doctor in this 1????????

20 years is a long time innit.

silverharp

bradolf pittler wrote: »

How did Will Smith's missus go from a stripper in the 1st film to a doctor in this 1????????

that was a it of an immersion breaker and roll eyes moment.

Yea.. 20 years is more than enough time to become a doctor, surely?

To be honest, it felt like a lot of this movie was relying on the nostalgia factor.

silverharp

actually they seem to describe her as a hospital administrator which wouldn't necessarily be a doctor

“Dylan has now grown up and so have I,” says Fox. “My character is no longer working the pole, which is a beautiful thing. She’s going to be a hospital administrator, so she’s not stripping for tips. OK, so you guys will be happy to hear that. So she’s a hospital administrator and she’s in there saving lives, and doing good things.”

"You guys will be happy to hear that".

Gets killed off pretty early into the movie.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

"You guys will be happy to hear that".

Gets killed off pretty early into the movie.

yeah , it was like sh1t she agreed to be in the movie.....ok I have an idea :pac:

Dravokivich

SB_Part2 wrote: »

I thought it was terrible. It made me really appreciate the original. I couldn't have cared less if all of them had died. No character development at all.

Kinda humming and hawing about your character development comment. I think the main focus of this movie was about bringing on the main characters from the original movie. But they've brushed over a core focal point of the previous movie (which I feel is humanity being compelled to work together) by bringing us straight into some sort of utopia where we are to take it for granted that all's well... except or that camp in Africa.

syklops

bradolf pittler wrote: »

How did Will Smith's missus go from a stripper in the 1st film to a doctor in this 1????????

Is that really the biggest plot hole you could find? Plus, do you know how much a stripper earns?

p to the e

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Its an arrested development reference, in response to the one he posted in his original rant :pac:

Thank you for getting that.

MilesMorales1

p to the e wrote: »

Thank you for getting that.

Rgb.ie

Seen this last night

For me, it was akin to a straight to DVD sequel. Really enjoyed the first one all those years ago and recently watched it but this was awkward.

Forced humour was cringe .. Maybe I expected too much

Harry Palmr

Looks like this will get beached at about 350-370m dollars worldwide.

Riddle101

Just back from the cinema. I actually thought it was decent. I don't know how I would compare it to the first movie which I really enjoyed. It was better than I expected and I wasn't disappointed. I will admit though that the humor did seem a little forced, but I was ok with Judd Hirsch/Julius Levinson's scenes because he has charm I think.

KingBrian2

Riddle101 wrote: »

Just back from the cinema. I actually thought it was decent. I don't know how I would compare it to the first movie which I really enjoyed. It was better than I expected and I wasn't disappointed. I will admit though that the humor did seem a little forced, but I was ok with Judd Hirsch/Julius Levinson's scenes because he has charm I think.

Yeah I liked it also. Not bad, certainly no original but it had a lot going for it.

Christy42

Loved the original and liked the reboot. It suffered from a lack of Will Smith but was never going to be as good as the first.

The alien tech was cool and would to see that explored in some extra material (books etc.). The decision to have Dr. Okun still alive helped as Data does a great job of the humour required for the role. I liked the world building element though I agree this wasn't the best place to show it all. I think the world was well put together (though why the rest of the world didn't help the Africans fight them seems off).

The plot made about as much sense as the first and still the theme of global unity means America needs to save the day (we got a bit more help from non Americans in this one at least). However it had some decent humour and decent action in it which was what I hoped for.

For people complaining about the plot holes: you are aware that in the first one the day was saved by a virus from a mac and the grand plan was to ping tiny missiles off a spaceship the size of a city? I loved the first one but not for the plot. And having Chinese writing and a few Chinese people in it at least stopped the entire thing from being American. Seems realistic that if we get global unity a few things will be influenced by the country that has 1 billion people in it.

Overall not an Oscar winner but if you wanted that you wouldn't step close to a cinema this time of year.

TerrorFirmer

For the first few minutes I was really afraid that I was witnessing the birth of an absolute turkey. Thankfully, it picks up and to be fair, overall it entertains well enough throughout and has some excellent visuals that go a long way towards holding your interest.

Everything about the film is sub-standard though. Dreadful script, acceptable but passionless acting, no stand-out scenes or dialogue exchanges, no memorable nor strong characters. Someone said it was like a direct to DVD sequel, and that nails it on the head exactly. Absolutely everything about the movie, save for the visual effects, is below par.

Yes, the original was cheesy as hell and a highly questionable script, but it has much better characters, dialogue and direction - as well as a real sense of charm. ID2 tries too hard in every field - tries to shoehorn in too many nods to the original, tries to develop too many pointless plots that serve only to facilitate aforementioned shoehorning, tries way to hard to up the ante in terms of scale, and the end result is that the movie suffers badly. It's like someone got a draft script and wrote words like 'More lasers', 'More ships', 'Make 10x bigger', 'Insert joke here' in red pen all over it.

ID2 is definitely watchable and not a total waste of time but falls way short of what it should, and could very easily, have been. I've seen the first movie loads of times and always end up watching it when it's on TV. ID2, once was definitely enough.