AvP getting ripped to pieces

[Cthulhudrew]

Actually, in the first movie there is something that suggests they only hunt in extreme heat - at least as far as humans know.

As I recollect from my Predator lore, it seems to me that it wasn't so much that they *had* to hunt in hot places, as they *choose* to do so for the simple fact that they seek out places of conflict- and places where there is a lot of heat tend to generate conflict among people (ie, the heat lowers their patience level, etc.) Seems to me that was the theory behind Predator 2- the high heat in Los Angeles combined with an already volatile gangland situation and caused tensions to explode- and gave the Predator plenty of gun happy targets to play with.

Anyway, haven't seen AVP yet- not sure I'm going to, but from what I've read here and elsewhere- it's probably about what I expected of the movie. Think I'll follow Rangerwickett's advice and not go, since I'm not expecting to be entertained. Keep my $9 for something else.

 

[Acid_crash]

I think one of the biggest complaints I have see on this thread is that the setup to the fights was too long, and that people wanted their fighting NOW!!!

So, when did all of you get so impatient? I'm sure all of you liked Alien, Aliens, and Predator, right? To me, one of the things that made those movies so great is that they did NOT get to the aliens/predators IMMEDIATELY. They did build up the setting/scenes, let the predator take out one human here, one there...they didn't even show the Alien in the first movie until over half way through the movie... so why aren't you all now complaining about how much of a waste of time that all was. After all, you wanted immediate action.

I think the director was trying to go back to the way the first Alien and Predator movies were filmed and not show the aliens/predators immediately, but try and slow things down initially, lead us along with a quick shot here and there, and then give us the action.

Some of you need to just take a breath, relax, and realize that you don't need immediate action. I guess it's just the way this society is...everything has to be faster, sleeker, more expensive, better, immediate.

I went and saw this movie, I enjoyed it, thought the fights were cool. If I have a gripe, I think that he handled the beginning too quickly. It was, satelite sees heat/girl climbing mountain of ice/gets on helicopter/goes to antartica/meets nervous guy/go to temple...and no real connection between the people either with each other and with the audience. That is probably my only gripe. Everything else made up for it.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Predators come to hunt when it was extremly hot, not that they hunted when it was hot. This MAY mean it was a space travel thing, location of earth to unknown routes.

 

[wedgeski]

I haven't seen the flick yet, but I will. I thought the trailer looked okay and I'll basically watch Lance Henriksen in anything.

I like this discussion though, and it's one I've had with myself many times. The problem is this: everyone has to decide what they want out of their money. There is a world of difference between using your money as a bludgeon to force Hollywood to make more so-called 'good' or 'worthy' films (in which case the only movies you see are those that thousands of other people have already taste-tested for you and declared 'good'), and being happy to plonk it down for a minimal level of entertainment. I'm in the latter category. If I think there will be something in the film that I will enjoy, I will usually go to the flicks to enjoy it. AvP is a good example. I will never 'expect' it to live up to 'Alien' (my favourite film ever, as it happens), or 'Aliens' (somewhere in my top ten), because I'm pretty sure from the start that it won't, given the people involved and their track record. This is not to say that I *know* it won't, because that is a smug attitude and I like being surprised ('Terminator 3', for example, was much better than it should have been). However, I am confident that it will have a few aliens in, and predators, and that they'll duke it out. That'll be cool. I'm also reasonably sure that there will be a few competent special effects, and even a thrill or two. Sounds good. Here's my six quid, thank you very much.

Every now and then, something wonderful happens. A couple of years ago, I paid my money (£5.50 then, as I recall) and walked into a film called 'The Fellowship of the Ring'. I walked out of that experience thinking that I would gladly have paid fifty pounds for that film. That I got it so cheaply seems like a wonderful bargain. Same a year later, and the same again a year after that. Less than twenty quid for some of the most mesmerising eight or nine hours of my life. I'll take two thanks.

Personally, I'm positive that, overall, I get good utility out of my cinema budget. There are very few films that I feel cheated out of my money on. But, and this is probably the point of all this rubbish, I do not feel that Hollywood owes me anything whatsoever. This is in the same way that, for example, I don't feel that the Foo Fighters owe me another CD as good as 'One by One', or that id software owe me another game as good as 'Doom 2', or that Margaret Weis owes me another Raistlin book, and so on. The creators put their works on the shelf and offer me the chance to purchase them. Just because I do doesn't make me some kind of silent partner in their endeavours. No-one put a gun to my head, as has been said a gajillion times probably.

The silent contract between people who create works like these, and people who consume them, reads: 'I agree to risk this small amount of money on the chance that I might be amazed.' It does not read, as some people seem to think, 'I demand to be amazed, or I want my money back.'

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think one of the biggest complaints I have see on this thread is that the setup to the fights was too long, and that people wanted their fighting NOW!!!

So, when did all of you get so impatient? I'm sure all of you liked Alien, Aliens, and Predator, right? To me, one of the things that made those movies so great is that they did NOT get to the aliens/predators IMMEDIATELY. They did build up the setting/scenes, let the predator take out one human here, one there...they didn't even show the Alien in the first movie until over half way through the movie... so why aren't you all now complaining about how much of a waste of time that all was. After all, you wanted immediate action.

I think the director was trying to go back to the way the first Alien and Predator movies were filmed and not show the aliens/predators immediately, but try and slow things down initially, lead us along with a quick shot here and there, and then give us the action.

Some of you need to just take a breath, relax, and realize that you don't need immediate action. I guess it's just the way this society is...everything has to be faster, sleeker, more expensive, better, immediate.

.

Well I don't think people go to see a movie called Alien VS Predator to see deep conversation or anything more than Aliens fighting Predators, that's that what the title of the movie is about anyway. If the movie takes over an hour to get to the fighting then I would understand someone being a little dissapointed. I would have expected it to be like one of the old Hulk vs Thing issues of the FF where the brawl begins on page 2 and ends on page 23.

But I haven't seen it so maybe it is an action romp. But it appears that it falls into the schlock catagory from what I've been reading so I'll wait for the cable showing.

 

[Desdichado]

Well I don't think people go to see a movie called Alien VS Predator to see deep conversation or anything more than Aliens fighting Predators, that's that what the title of the movie is about anyway. If the movie takes over an hour to get to the fighting then I would understand someone being a little dissapointed. I would have expected it to be like one of the old Hulk vs Thing issues of the FF where the brawl begins on page 2 and ends on page 23.

But I haven't seen it so maybe it is an action romp. But it appears that it falls into the schlock catagory from what I've been reading so I'll wait for the cable showing.

Oddly enough the movie you describe would have fallen into the schlock category much more easily than the movie that was actually made.

 

[Desdichado]

The silent contract between people who create works like these, and people who consume them, reads: 'I agree to risk this small amount of money on the chance that I might be amazed.' It does not read, as some people seem to think, 'I demand to be amazed, or I want my money back.'

Words of wisdom, and well written to boot. Can't get any more insightful than that.

 

[buzzard]

The silent contract between people who create works like these, and people who consume them, reads: 'I agree to risk this small amount of money on the chance that I might be amazed.' It does not read, as some people seem to think, 'I demand to be amazed, or I want my money back.'

Maybe some people think like you alledge, but I don't. My opinion is that if I'm going to spend money on a movie, I don't want to have to cringe at bad acting, bad writing, or plot holes that most aircraft carriers could fit through.

However, I don't demand my money back. I never expect that. I understand that I take a risk of a movie being bad when I spend my money. This makes me more careful about what I spend my money on.

For example, I was damned close to walking out of Van Helsing. That movie had me cringing through large portions. I never, even once, considered asking for my money back.

Am I willing to take the risk of major cringing in AvP? Nope. Maybe I'll NetFlix it in a couple of months, but I won't dump real money on it.

buzzard

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I'll just wait for it to hit video and see it for free. I have a hookup with my friendly local video store.

 

[Arnwyn]

so why aren't you all now complaining about how much of a waste of time that all was. After all, you wanted immediate action.

I think the director was trying to go back to the way the first Alien and Predator movies were filmed

I think, then, that if this were the intent, then the director might have failed. I think it might be possible that the related complaints about the action don't have anything to do with the movie-goers' "patience" - I think it might have to do with bad filmmaking.

Just a possibility you might want to consider.