Battle: Los Angeles

[Overmind One]

I dont like it when I can notice it.

But i love shaky cam Just when its used right though...

Right now i'm in the mood for mindless pew pew so i think i might enjoy it, even if i academically dislike the story/plot/holes/whatever. It's a matter of expectations IMO.

Revenue is looking decent for the movie so far, it'll make back what it spent + more at this rate which is saying alot for what's mostly getting negative reviews..

I notice a bit of shaky cam in most all the new stuff now. But usually only on rewatches. But when they do it like they did in season 1 of SGU, it looks like they just taped the camera on a bobble head and set it off whilst filming.

 

[Aragon101]

I notice a bit of shaky cam in most all the new stuff now. But usually only on rewatches. But when they do it like they did in season 1 of SGU, it looks like they just taped the camera on a bobble head and set it off whilst filming.

View attachment 3505

Shaky cam is meant for either POV shots or documentary shots or action shots.

NOT STANDING AROUND ARGUING OR JUST TALKING!!!!!

 

[Bluce Ree]

Shaky cam is meant for either POV shots or documentary shots or action shots.

NOT STANDING AROUND ARGUING OR JUST TALKING!!!!!

Perhaps we're ignoring the possibility that the camera man was trying desperately to keep in his laughter as he filmed episode after mindless episode of SGU thinking to himself, "Who did they blow to get this piece of junk on the air?"

 

[Illiterati]

Perhaps we're ignoring the possibility that the camera man was trying desperately to keep in his laughter as he filmed episode after mindless episode of SGU thinking to himself, "Who did they blow to get this piece of junk on the air?"

If he wasn't using a shaky-cam, then he needs to find a better rig to hold the damned thing while he's shooting.

I can't stand the faux-documentary shaky-cam style if I'm not watching a documentary (and it had better be appropriate to the subject, too).

 

[Overmind One]

In Human, they had shaky cam IN HYPERSPACE!

If he wasn't using a shaky-cam, then he needs to find a better rig to hold the damned thing while he's shooting.

I can't stand the faux-documentary shaky-cam style if I'm not watching a documentary (and it had better be appropriate to the subject, too).

In the episode "Human", they actually used shaky cam for a scene of the Goa'uld shuttle in HYPERSPACE. So, are they trying to say that some dude was floating in the hyperspace conduit filming the ship in "documentary-style"? Just LOL!

 

[EvilSpaceAlien]

In the episode "Human", they actually used shaky cam for a scene of the Goa'uld shuttle in HYPERSPACE. So, are they trying to say that some dude was floating in the hyperspace conduit filming the ship in "documentary-style"? Just LOL!

That was actually in Subversion.

 

[Overmind One]

That was actually in Subversion.

Absolutely correct... Couldnt place the exact episode, but it was the Goa'uld shuttle. At least they didnt do it with Destiny in hyperspace. But they have done it with the shuttles. Surprisingly, the only instances when it actually made sense to have the camera wavering was the "floaty cam" of the kinos filming things/people. But the floaty cam was smoother than the shaky cam IMO.

 

[mzzz]

I found the whole shaky cam business to make up for the lack of 'realness' to the actual content, kinda like how some people 'dress smart' cause they lack real smarts, and in the end, they succeed, all they do is 'appear real' but doesn't convey 'realness', 'appear smart' but doesn't convey 'intelligence'

 

[Joelist]

Okay, so far we have Bruce who really disliked it. However the film is popular and some reviews are saying it's good (there is also an issue out there with certain reviewers panning the film because it shows the military - especially the Marines - in a positive light).

I think we need more people seeing it to make a more informed decision overall.

 

[Mr. A]

Okay, so far we have Bruce who really disliked it. However the film is popular and some reviews are saying it's good (there is also an issue out there with certain reviewers panning the film because it shows the military - especially the Marines - in a positive light).

I think we need more people seeing it to make a more informed decision overall.

Yeah, where's Aragon?

 

[Aragon101]

Might go watch it tonight, but more likely tomorrow night. I'm hearing mixed reviews myself.

I'll take notes and review with as little bias as possible, but Michelle Rodriguez might make it hard for me.

*shifty eyes*

 

[Joelist]

Okay, I liked it rather a lot.

Don't go into the film expecting to dissect its science and such - it is very straightforwardly not that type of film. It is much closer in form and spirit to "Blackhawk Down" or "Aliens" than anything else (more Blackhawk Down). The Marines are very well portrayed in the film, and the film is really about them.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Okay, I liked it rather a lot.

Don't go into the film expecting to dissect its science and such - it is very straightforwardly not that type of film. It is much closer in form and spirit to "Blackhawk Down" or "Aliens" than anything else (more Blackhawk Down). The Marines are very well portrayed in the film, and the film is really about them.

Why do I feel like I'm reading an SGU fan's raving about SGU?

Please, PLEASE don't compare this movie to Blackhawk Down or Aliens, neither in form nor spirit. Those are movies in a completely different league. In fact, they're *movies*, box office hits with good writing, well developed characters and a solid story. Battle: LA was like attending a big screen video game demo.

I suppose it has its likeable moments but the entire movie, to me, was a crock. It's not even about dissecting the science, it's just that some things you couldn't get past a child. Like, for instance, how they were able to blow up a drone with a *hand grenade* that was on the ground it hovered above about 5 feet yet they're dominating the skies against US military fighter planes.

I found that even Stormship Troopers was more consistent. More enjoyable, too.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Might go watch it tonight, but more likely tomorrow night. I'm hearing mixed reviews myself.

I'll take notes and review with as little bias as possible, but Michelle Rodriguez might make it hard for me.

*shifty eyes*

It's worth a laugh and an hour or so of mindless fun.

 

[Joelist]

Why do I feel like I'm reading an SGU fan's raving about SGU?

Please, PLEASE don't compare this movie to Blackhawk Down or Aliens, neither in form nor spirit. Those are movies in a completely different league. In fact, they're *movies*, box office hits with good writing, well developed characters and a solid story. Battle: LA was like attending a big screen video game demo.

I suppose it has its likeable moments but the entire movie, to me, was a crock. It's not even about dissecting the science, it's just that some things you couldn't get past a child. Like, for instance, how they were able to blow up a drone with a *hand grenade* that was on the ground it hovered above about 5 feet yet they're dominating the skies against US military fighter planes.

I found that even Stormship Troopers was more consistent. More enjoyable, too.

You know it is possible for other people to have opinions different than your own? And as they are opinions there is no claim to objective truth being laid out.

IN MY OPINION (which is subjective) the film IS more like Blackhawk Down in form and spirit than anything else. It is really centered on the Marines and is not intended to be a "complete" science fiction tale. If you approach as one and start working the science (physics like in your example) then it has issues. However, take the film as what it intends to be and IMHO it is not bad.

 

[Bluce Ree]

You know it is possible for other people to have opinions different than your own? And as they are opinions there is no claim to objective truth being laid out.

IN MY OPINION (which is subjective) the film IS more like Blackhawk Down in form and spirit than anything else. It is really centered on the Marines and is not intended to be a "complete" science fiction tale. If you approach as one and start working the science (physics like in your example) then it has issues. However, take the film as what it intends to be and IMHO it is not bad.

I'm not criticizing or dismissing your opinion of the movie. I'm objecting to its comparison to Blackhawk Down and Aliens. If I were to say, "it was so much like Citizen Kane", I'd probably knock myself down a few points because the comparison is just ludicrous. IMO, comparing Battle: LA to Blackhawk Down is like comparing Peewee Herman's Big Adventure to Jurassic Park.

Nobody has criticized the science, so, I'm not sure why you went there twice. However, if you see a tank get blown up by a bow & arrow, that's just stupid by basic common sense. I commented that a hand grenade blew up a drone, hovering about 5 feet above it, to pieces yet they're able to defeat squad after squad of fighter jets. That's not a criticism of the science, it's a criticism on how they made the seemingly invincible enemy way too fragile to have such a strong upper hand.

 

[Aragon101]

okay, watching it now. Will review when I get home.

 

[Joelist]

I'm not criticizing or dismissing your opinion of the movie. I'm objecting to its comparison to Blackhawk Down and Aliens. If I were to say, "it was so much like Citizen Kane", I'd probably knock myself down a few points because the comparison is just ludicrous. IMO, comparing Battle: LA to Blackhawk Down is like comparing Peewee Herman's Big Adventure to Jurassic Park.

Nobody has criticized the science, so, I'm not sure why you went there twice. However, if you see a tank get blown up by a bow & arrow, that's just stupid by basic common sense. I commented that a hand grenade blew up a drone, hovering about 5 feet above it, to pieces yet they're able to defeat squad after squad of fighter jets. That's not a criticism of the science, it's a criticism on how they made the seemingly invincible enemy way too fragile to have such a strong upper hand.

The way you are expressing it sounds like criticising the physics. Plot wise, they may have made the enemy a bit too invincible at the outset requiring them to tone them down later on in. But again that really isn't where this film is coming from. Strangely, it isn't so much a story of aliens invading Earth as it is a story of Marines in combat - the opponents happen to be aliens. That is why I said it hearkens to Blackhawk Down in spirit and form, as Blackhawk Down was far more about the military men and their courage than about the politics and such of the situation in Mogadishu. Likeiwse Battle:LA is far more about the unit of Marines and their courage than it is about the alien attack.

 

[Aragon101]

The way you are expressing it sounds like criticising the physics. Plot wise, they may have made the enemy a bit too invincible at the outset requiring them to tone them down later on in. But again that really isn't where this film is coming from. Strangely, it isn't so much a story of aliens invading Earth as it is a story of Marines in combat - the opponents happen to be aliens. That is why I said it hearkens to Blackhawk Down in spirit and form, as Blackhawk Down was far more about the military men and their courage than about the politics and such of the situation in Mogadishu. Likeiwse Battle:LA is far more about the unit of Marines and their courage than it is about the alien attack.

Having just seen the movie, Yes. Very much so.

For the few minutes we see the characters before the action and pacing step up, we learn enough about them to know that they have lives out of being soldiers. They are NOT 2 dimensional as some claim, they just aren't wholely rounded and developed characters because the story is about how they develop throughout the invasion, not how they've gotten to the point they are (with the exception of Nantz)

The writing has been complained about, but i found most of it pretty realistic. Gallows humor and desensitization to violence makes perfect sense to me. Who were the marines who freaked out? The complete greenhorns who haven't seen combat. Who were more cool headed and making wise/cold comments? The vets.

I'll write up a proper review tomorrow night, but i find battle LA to be a B+ movie with the budget of an A movie. Simple story is NOT a fault, it's just a simple story. Overall i highly enjoyed it, but i wouldn't compare it to something like Aliens which was a much more complicated story and as such, required much 'better' writing.

Oh and the taking out a drone with a grenade thing? He used a grenade to set off a gas station. Gas stations work by keeping giganto**** tanks of gas underneath, which when aerosolized (as blowing up a gas station pump would do) would explode and become a giant fragmentation grenade. It wasn't the grenade that killed it, it was the concrete slamming into it from a ruptured tank of exploding gas. It made perfect sense to me even if it was 'convenient'.

And yes. Michelle Rodriguez is as hot as ever IMO, though most of her lines were pretty stilted. No matter, i could forgive that given that she was the 'token' female character.

 

[Bluce Ree]

The way you are expressing it sounds like criticising the physics. Plot wise, they may have made the enemy a bit too invincible at the outset requiring them to tone them down later on in. But again that really isn't where this film is coming from. Strangely, it isn't so much a story of aliens invading Earth as it is a story of Marines in combat - the opponents happen to be aliens. That is why I said it hearkens to Blackhawk Down in spirit and form, as Blackhawk Down was far more about the military men and their courage than about the politics and such of the situation in Mogadishu. Likeiwse Battle:LA is far more about the unit of Marines and their courage than it is about the alien attack.

I understand what you're saying but I still feel the backdrop has a lot of influence on the story. The story being about the marines and the conflict with which they're dealing may be central to the movie but the conflict and perceived gravity of it surrounding the struggle needs some substance. I felt that this movie lacked substance. The camaraderie was a bit contrived and the whole CO vs older vet bit was too cliche.

In terms of action, substance and quality, I found this movie to be more like House of the Dead.