View Full Version : Live, Die, Repeat/Edge of Tomorrow Review
Saw it last night. Think Groundhog Day meets Aliens. They don't spend any time developing the characters, so you don't really care what happens to them, and they ignore a bunch of things that leave you scratching your head (strong suspension of disbelief required), but there's solid acting, great CGI, cool action scenes, and some funny stuff also. It seems to suffer the same problems most modern US movies, especially sci fi, suffers: all the makings of a great movie that just don't come together to make it so. I'd give it a B.
BTW, the near future, they are still using 5.56. Guess there's just nothing better. :cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw61gCe2oqI
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-30-14, 07:42
It got in the 90%s for the Rotten Tomato ratings- usually the sign of a pretty good movie or some arty disaster.
5.56? Is that why the Aliens keep winning?
It got in the 90%s for the Rotten Tomato ratings- usually the sign of a pretty good movie or some arty disaster.
5.56? Is that why the Aliens keep winning?
One of various head scratchers in this movie. It's not a bad movie, but not memorable. The Bill Paxton character was the best part and they should have used him more. Bill in a much better movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrjFuTbl_SA
I thought the whole point was the weapons were insufficient, the equipment was poorly designed, the soldiers poorly trained, poorly conceived tactics, all propagated by a politicized military public relations team and "wins" that were manipulations by the enemy.
From an evolutionary standpoint, any successful weapons platforms would have been neutralized by the enemy, and hence never pursued. Those supposed anachronisms were intentional, and even integral to the plot. I'm not saying it's a perfect movie, but I do think a lot of the details did a good job of folding over each other neatly. However one thing bugged me, at the very beginning when Cruise meets the general, it cuts to him and his jacket is unbuttoned in the middle, cuts away and cuts to him and it's properly buttoned. Ruined the ENTIRE movie for me.
I thought the whole point was the weapons were insufficient, the equipment was poorly designed, the soldiers poorly trained, poorly conceived tactics, all propagated by a politicized military public relations team and "wins" that were manipulations by the enemy.
From an evolutionary standpoint, any successful weapons platforms would have been neutralized by the enemy, and hence never pursued. Those supposed anachronisms were intentional, and even integral to the plot. I'm not saying it's a perfect movie, but I do think a lot of the details did a good job of folding over each other neatly. However one thing bugged me, at the very beginning when Cruise meets the general, it cuts to him and his jacket is unbuttoned in the middle, cuts away and cuts to him and it's properly buttoned. Ruined the ENTIRE movie for me.
All good points, but other than the mech suits, we have better weapons today it seems. I thought there were a few too many places the suspension of disbelief had to be employed to enjoy it, but still worth a view for sci fi/action fans.
JBecker 72
10-30-14, 08:28
One thing that got me was when Blunt said she received blood and lost the power. How would she know the power was lost?
Why did they change the name of the movie from the theater release to the DVD/Blu-Ray release... Odd
Why did they change the name of the movie from the theater release to the DVD/Blu-Ray release... Odd
The (silly, IMO) tagline "Live Die Repeat" was there even at theatrical release. I don't understand the increased push of the tagline.
sinlessorrow
10-30-14, 09:40
It should have been called "all you need is kill"
Voodoo_Man
10-30-14, 09:45
Saw it in the theaters, I am a fan, this has a good plot line and I left the theater wishing there was more.
montanadave
10-30-14, 09:56
Saw it in the theaters, I am a fan, this has a good plot line and I left the theater wishing there was more.
You're referring to the movie . . . or Emily Blunt?
Voodoo_Man
10-30-14, 10:12
You're referring to the movie . . . or Emily Blunt?
good catch ;)
Doc Safari
10-30-14, 10:22
BTW, the near future, they are still using 5.56. Guess there's just nothing better. :cool:
Once upon a time, every sci fi weapon had to be a ray gun of some kind. That all changed at some point and even sci fi flicks started showing characters firing machine guns and the like. What happened?
I seem to remember some years ago reading an interview in STARLOG magazine or some other publication where the interviewer came right out and asked an SME on military "death ray" weapon development if traditional firearms would ever be replaced as front line weapons. The SME, in so many words, indicated that firearms would never be replaced by hand-held ray guns because "bullets are cheaper."
I wish I could remember the source of that interview. I seem to recall reading it in a magazine in the 1980's: long before the internet or any other electronic news media. I'd have to try to locate a hard copy if that were possible.
BTW, I thought the name of the movie was "Edge of Tomorrow?"
montanadave
10-30-14, 10:33
Once upon a time, every sci fi weapon had to be a ray gun of some kind. That all changed at some point and even sci fi flicks started showing characters firing machine guns and the like. What happened?
I seem to remember some years ago reading an interview in STARLOG magazine or some other publication where the interviewer came right out and asked an SME on military "death ray" weapon development if traditional firearms would ever be replaced as front line weapons. The SME, in so many words, indicated that firearms would never be replaced by hand-held ray guns because "bullets are cheaper."
I wish I could remember the source of that interview. I seem to recall reading it in a magazine in the 1980's: long before the internet or any other electronic news media. I'd have to try to locate a hard copy if that were possible.
BTW, I thought the name of the movie was "Edge of Tomorrow?"
Perhaps what we need is a coal-fired ray gun. Cuz let's face it, we're gonna need to shoot off a whole lotta coal-fired ray guns before "cosmic warming" becomes a significant issue.
Actually, 5.56 in the future is better because it comes in CLIPS instead of MAGS...
BTW, the near future, they are still using 5.56. Guess there's just nothing better. :cool:
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-30-14, 12:14
I thought the whole point was the weapons were insufficient, the equipment was poorly designed, the soldiers poorly trained, poorly conceived tactics, all propagated by a politicized military public relations team and "wins" that were manipulations by the enemy.
From an evolutionary standpoint, any successful weapons platforms would have been neutralized by the enemy, and hence never pursued. Those supposed anachronisms were intentional, and even integral to the plot. I'm not saying it's a perfect movie, but I do think a lot of the details did a good job of folding over each other neatly. However one thing bugged me, at the very beginning when Cruise meets the general, it cuts to him and his jacket is unbuttoned in the middle, cuts away and cuts to him and it's properly buttoned. Ruined the ENTIRE movie for me.
Were yuo upset that he didn't strip all the way down???
Eurodriver
10-30-14, 12:28
I haven't seen a movie in theater in a long time. People are rude and it's expensive as hell. Is this out on DVD yet or still in theaters? I'd like to see it.
Were yuo upset that he didn't strip all the way down???
lol
Once upon a time, every sci fi weapon had to be a ray gun of some kind. That all changed at some point and even sci fi flicks started showing characters firing machine guns and the like. What happened?
I seem to remember some years ago reading an interview in STARLOG magazine or some other publication where the interviewer came right out and asked an SME on military "death ray" weapon development if traditional firearms would ever be replaced as front line weapons. The SME, in so many words, indicated that firearms would never be replaced by hand-held ray guns because "bullets are cheaper."
I wish I could remember the source of that interview. I seem to recall reading it in a magazine in the 1980's: long before the internet or any other electronic news media. I'd have to try to locate a hard copy if that were possible.
BTW, I thought the name of the movie was "Edge of Tomorrow?"
All good, and I fully expect we'll be using propellent driven projectiles of some kind or another in hand held weapons for a long time, but I'd be pretty surprised if we had mech suits as they did, various advanced weapons, etc but 5.56 still the bullet used. I guess we'll see in 10-20 years or so which seems about the time frame this movie takes place.
One thing that got me was when Blunt said she received blood and lost the power. How would she know the power was lost?
There was lots of that. SPOILER ALERT WARNING:
Getting some blood on you of the alpha gave you as connection to the central mind and getting a transfusion made it leave? Talk about lame/strong suspension of disbelief required there. They couldn't have done better then that? They were really lazy in various areas that prevented it from being a great movie. Would have been much better at the very least that the unit all convinced the Master Sgt. (Bill Paxton) it was legit and he went with them being the most entertaining character in the entire movie. Bunch of cool stuff and funny one liners missed there.
Finally, the very end, why did he go back to the very beginning (flight into meet the general) vs where he left off as was supposed to the effect every time?
Etc, etc.
JBecker 72
10-30-14, 13:49
Finally, the very end, why did he go back to the very beginning (flight into meet the general) vs where he left off as was supposed to the effect every time?
I gave that some thought and what I came up with was he died well before any other time. It was early morning as opposed to later in the day. And since he received blood, thus losing the power, when he killed the 2nd Alpha he regained the power at a different time and it bumped him back even earlier.
Now what really gets me at the end, is if they killed the Omega, and then he died, how did he come back at all? I would have thought destroying the whole system would put an end to the time loop.
I gave that some thought and what I came up with was he died well before any other time. It was early morning as opposed to later in the day. And since he received blood, thus losing the power, when he killed the 2nd Alpha he regained the power at a different time and it bumped him back even earlier.
Now what really gets me at the end, is if they killed the Omega, and then he died, how did he come back at all? I would have thought destroying the whole system would put an end to the time loop.
Good point! Just lazy film making in favor of tons of CGI knowing most movie goers unable or unwilling to use critical thinking skills. Hence, the state of the vast majority of current movies put out by major studios. I'd go as far as a B+ on this movie, but no higher.
JBecker 72
10-30-14, 15:12
I just think they wanted to end on a positive note. The hero and heroine make it out alive rather than simply die and the movie ends.
MountainRaven
10-30-14, 15:15
One thing that got me was when Blunt said she received blood and lost the power. How would she know the power was lost?
Maybe she felt/sensed it? Maybe her scientist pal was able to deduce it?
Once upon a time, every sci fi weapon had to be a ray gun of some kind. That all changed at some point and even sci fi flicks started showing characters firing machine guns and the like. What happened?
I seem to remember some years ago reading an interview in STARLOG magazine or some other publication where the interviewer came right out and asked an SME on military "death ray" weapon development if traditional firearms would ever be replaced as front line weapons. The SME, in so many words, indicated that firearms would never be replaced by hand-held ray guns because "bullets are cheaper."
I wish I could remember the source of that interview. I seem to recall reading it in a magazine in the 1980's: long before the internet or any other electronic news media. I'd have to try to locate a hard copy if that were possible.
BTW, I thought the name of the movie was "Edge of Tomorrow?"
This is interesting to me, as in Warhammer 40,000, one of the reasons stipulated for the promulgation of lasguns (laser rifles, basically) is the simplicity of the technology. Particularly as compared to, say, the technology involved in making boltguns or bolters (think handguns, subguns, and assault rifles that fire 25mm and 40mm grenades. And 'heavy bolters' which fire something probably more like a 60mm mortar... out of a crew-served machine gun) - which are standard issue for the elite of the elite (senior officers, Adeptus Astartes 'space marines') and the wealthy (Inquisitors, Adepta Sororitas 'sisters of battle') and the chief projectile weaponry of humanity.
Actually, 5.56 in the future is better because it comes in CLIPS instead of MAGS...
Considering how much ammunition they burn through, they would have to be CLIPS of MAGS.
I haven't seen a movie in theater in a long time. People are rude and it's expensive as hell. Is this out on DVD yet or still in theaters? I'd like to see it.
It has been on DVD/Blu-Ray for a couple of weeks, now, in the US.
All good, and I fully expect we'll be using propellent driven projectiles of some kind or another in hand held weapons for a long time, but I'd be pretty surprised if we had mech suits as they did, various advanced weapons, etc but 5.56 still the bullet used. I guess we'll see in 10-20 years or so which seems about the time frame this movie takes place.
What got me was that he was asking for 5.56... but I was pretty sure the suits had SCAR-Hs attached to them.
There was lots of that. SPOILER ALERT WARNING:
Getting some blood on you of the alpha gave you as connection to the central mind and getting a transfusion made it leave? Talk about lame/strong suspension of disbelief required there. They couldn't have done better then that? They were really lazy in various areas that prevented it from being a great movie. Would have been much better at the very least that the unit all convinced the Master Sgt. (Bill Paxton) it was legit and he went with them being the most entertaining character in the entire movie. Bunch of cool stuff and funny one liners missed there.
Finally, the very end, why did he go back to the very beginning (flight into meet the general) vs where he left off as was supposed to the effect every time?
Etc, etc.
We're talking about an organism that has the ability to literally turn back time, can pretty much only turn it back more-or-less exactly 24 hours (which is just weird, if you think about it - they're aliens, even if they set time back one day, wouldn't it be one day where-ever they're from and not the arbitrary day of earth?). So compared to that, gaining their power through accidental transfusion and losing through accidental transfusion is pretty minor to me.
As for the stronger effect? Well, he did kill the Omega and pretty much literally bathed in its blood.
The bit I didn't understand was why the Omega was still dead when he went back again. I was hoping to get a good twenty minutes of him trying to convince the general to launch a short-range ballistic missile into the Louvre. And then they bomb the Louvre, the invasion kicks off, the Mimics are in disarray or dead, Tom Cruise's character gets to report from the front-lines of the Normandy invasion (which actually goes well), roll credits.
I also don't understand is why they're called Mimics. What are they supposed to be miming?
I watched it not expecting much and thought it was just OK. Not a Cruise fan but he has been in a few very good movies; this was not one of them.
WickedWillis
10-30-14, 17:23
It should have been called "all you need is kill"
I agree, just like the novel, but the Libs axed that after Sandy Hook.
WickedWillis
10-30-14, 17:24
This was a fantastic action/sci-fi film and I loved it.
Moose-Knuckle
10-30-14, 17:55
Recently just saw this after it was finally released on Blu Ray, I am a fan of Tom Cruise's science fiction movies. I enjoyed it but I can see how it wasn't very popular. People don't want to have to think too much they just want to be given a story. Emily Blunt was smoke'n the scene where she is doing Yoga in the hangar . . . WOWSERS!!!
One thing that got me was when Blunt said she received blood and lost the power. How would she know the power was lost?
I think they explained that a little- how she knew. May have had something to do with the visions or such. Can't quite remember.
All good, and I fully expect we'll be using propellent driven projectiles of some kind or another in hand held weapons for a long time, but I'd be pretty surprised if we had mech suits as they did, various advanced weapons, etc but 5.56 still the bullet used. I guess we'll see in 10-20 years or so which seems about the time frame this movie takes place.
Well, it WAS actually a 7.62, but.... :p
What irked me was not so much the weapon/round used- it was the way the suits were designed.
Now... (SPOILER ALERT)
.... per the description of the suits being rushed into use, and "able to be used with minimal training" that explains some of the issues, ie, why they would simply hardmount a 5.56/7.62 pre-existing weapon right to the frame, why some of them seemed a little hacked together, or different versions, some more refined than others, and so on.
Now I get that this is more "near future" than full-on scifi, but...the thing that ruined it all for me.... was the Source water bladder hose on Cruise's suit... with no mouthpiece.
FAIL!
And it really would have been nice to see a little more imagination for a main weapon other than "bolt a cut-down SCAR to a battlesuit".
I gave that some thought and what I came up with was he died well before any other time. It was early morning as opposed to later in the day. And since he received blood, thus losing the power, when he killed the 2nd Alpha he regained the power at a different time and it bumped him back even earlier.
Now what really gets me at the end, is if they killed the Omega, and then he died, how did he come back at all? I would have thought destroying the whole system would put an end to the time loop.
Exactly- you blew the thing up. Game over.
That being said, the way I read the ending was that it was a complete re-set into an alternate reality where they win *because* the Omega now doesn't exist to exert C&C over the aliens. Versus the original reality- he wakes up over and over at the barracks on D-day, because at that point, the reality is the Omega exists, and per the story line NO MATTER what he does, they lose because it exists to exert control over the aliens. Everything they do (SPOILER ALERT)....
....always leads to a trap, right? The beach, farmhouse, dam- it's always a trap and they always lose because the Omega exists.
With no Omega to think and plan this overall strategy for the aliens (it learns from past "days" too, remember?), then the original plan (invasion) is no longer a trap, and succeeds because the Omega is not there to plan to counter it.
Hence why Cruise ends the movie back at the opening scene in the chopper as a ranking officer- instead of the reality he experienced with the Omega in play, the alternate reality is, without the Omega he never ends up in the situation that led to the events of "the day".
Or something like that... :laugh:
I just think they wanted to end on a positive note. The hero and heroine make it out alive rather than simply die and the movie ends.
Exactly. They went for the suspenseful "did they make it?" scene at the end of every action movie since the dawn of time, except that... this movie did not work with that sort of ending.
Aside form the obvious plot hole above, this movie just didn't feel like the "happy ending" type.
And I think it would have made more of an impression if they really did die. I mean, half the point of the story is, no matter what you do, you can't save everyone and still win- cue the scene with the "balls out" guy, right? The only way to win, is to die- hence the "live die repeat" tagline...
....
This is interesting to me, as in Warhammer 40,000, one of the reasons stipulated for the promulgation of lasguns (laser rifles, basically) is the simplicity of the technology. Particularly as compared to, say, the technology involved in making boltguns or bolters (think handguns, subguns, and assault rifles that fire 25mm and 40mm grenades. And 'heavy bolters' which fire something probably more like a 60mm mortar... out of a crew-served machine gun) - which are standard issue for the elite of the elite (senior officers, Adeptus Astartes 'space marines') and the wealthy (Inquisitors, Adepta Sororitas 'sisters of battle') and the chief projectile weaponry of humanity. .....
It helps that the Bolters fire reactive-explosive (and occasionally semi-guided) ammo, and are generally ridiculously ornate, hence the added cost... ;)
The commonality and ease of production of the Lasgun is a tradeoff for generally mediocre killing power.
Which of course in our current reality is reversed- the projectile weapons are "meh" whereas a lasergun would be damn near on omnipotent weapon.
This comment actually brings me back to my previous gripe about the design of the suits. I get the whole "exoskeleton" thing, BUT if it makes you that much stronger, AND since they actually have advanced enough tech to have those nifty little auto-deploying shoulder guns, then... why a SCAR-H recalibered in 5.56?
We have current tech for explosive rounds. Why not give them a bigger caliber in-built main weapon?
Or go caseless with it, and then you can use any type of rounds you want in a nice fastshooting "machine-gunny-thing" , using the "suspension of disbelief" method employed so often in the rest of the movie....
.....I also don't understand is why they're called Mimics. What are they supposed to be miming?
I wondered that myself. The back story for the aliens was so pathetically mediocre, it wasn't even funny.
Per the actual "battle scenes" I was really hoping for more of them fighting in the suits. A little to rushed overall of a movie to get a full feel for it, IMO.
And why the hell is the Blunt's character so badass? She's never *really* introduced, let alone how she would have even recognized what Cruise's character was living when they met on the beach.
The movie should have opened right into a ridiculously badass opening battle scene at the battle of Verdun with Blunt's character. Kind like what Cruise's character started doing once he knew what was going to happen before it happened. Just running around clobbering aliens like crazy (like the news reports mention her doing...).
And I would have gotten more into why she carried that blade- it actually looked a bit like a section from one of the dropship props.... That would have made for an interesting scene, to have her go FMB on a bunch of aliens with a section of prop, which of course, the ending propaganda shot when the battle is over is her standing there with the pop-sword ( then cut from that right into the news/ explanation scenes of what the aliens are and why/how we're fighting them), which of course then ties into her lore for the rest of the movie....
This way,(SPOILER ALERT?)...
...when she meets Cruise on the beach right before she gets blown up, you know how she recognizes what's going on and then says "find me when you wake up".
Oh, also, did anyone get the impression this was simply a mashup of "40 first dates" and "pacific rim"?
:laugh:
sinlessorrow
10-31-14, 00:36
Oh, also, did anyone get the impression this was simply a mashup of "40 first dates" and "pacific rim"?
:laugh:
Its based off a book from Japan. Though it differs the main idea of the plot and the enemies is the same.
Its based off a book from Japan. Though it differs the main idea of the plot and the enemies is the same.
I liked the Japanese ending better.
A Tom Cruise action / sci fi movie with glaring plot holes and multiple hijacked themes...I'll pass.
When it makes it's way to TV I'll give it a look. Did a little research into the plot and there is a lot of rolleyes material. I bet they thought that whole "Alpha" and "Omega" thing was impossibly clever.
I enjoyed this one, as a sci-fi kind of guy. I do think it's crazy they changed the name of the movie between theatres and home release.
Plumber237
10-31-14, 06:13
I liked the Japanese ending better.
Absolutely, I still enjoyed the movie though...the ending being a happy one, re-doing the timeloop thing, doesn't really make sense.
Voodoochild
10-31-14, 08:06
"Now what really gets me at the end, is if they killed the Omega, and then he died, how did he come back at all? I would have thought destroying the whole system would put an end to the time loop."
Because the Omega is the one that controls the time loop not the Alpha and there is more than one Omega. Did you not understand that?
JBecker 72
10-31-14, 09:25
I don't remember them discussing more than 1 omega.
I thought it was pretty good and actuallyfound myself laughing in quite a few spots
ramairthree
10-31-14, 10:24
So Bill Paxton has been killed by a Terminator, Alien, Predator,
and one of the
whatevers in this movie?
I liked the Japanese ending better.
Well yeah... (SPOILER ALERT) the main character got laid by the full metal bitch. Everyone is happy when the kain dude gets some.
"Now what really gets me at the end, is if they killed the Omega, and then he died, how did he come back at all? I would have thought destroying the whole system would put an end to the time loop."
Because the Omega is the one that controls the time loop not the Alpha and there is more than one Omega. Did you not understand that?
That was the idea of killing the Omega, the time looping stopped with the death of the single controlling Omega. Where did you get multiple Omega's from?
Voodoochild
10-31-14, 12:55
Pretty sure there was more than 1 Omega. And the loop at the end happened because he (tome cruise) inherited the Omegas power from its blood at the end. So the loop ended (or did it) with Cruise.
MountainRaven
10-31-14, 15:54
At one point bolters were being mass produced by a technologically sophisticated atheistic culture. They were just another piece of technology. And they were still limited to the elite and wealthy. It was only after the Horus Heresy that technology became an object of religious adoration.
And I question the hammer of God-death ray theory of handheld directed energy weapons.
And Blunt's 'sword' was made from a helicopter rotor (they mention this in one of the special features on the DVD).
Moose-Knuckle
10-31-14, 16:03
So Bill Paxton has been killed by a Terminator, Alien, Predator,
and one of the
whatevers in this movie?
This is correct, in Edge of Tomorrow he was killed by a Mimic.
And let's not forget that he was the USCG Air Traffic Controller in Commando . . .
Maybe she felt/sensed it? Maybe her scientist pal was able to deduce it?
Cruise's character was able to tell as well. I am guessing they can sense it after they get used to it.
This is interesting to me, as in Warhammer 40,000, one of the reasons stipulated for the promulgation of lasguns (laser rifles, basically) is the simplicity of the technology. Particularly as compared to, say, the technology involved in making boltguns or bolters (think handguns, subguns, and assault rifles that fire 25mm and 40mm grenades. And 'heavy bolters' which fire something probably more like a 60mm mortar... out of a crew-served machine gun) - which are standard issue for the elite of the elite (senior officers, Adeptus Astartes 'space marines') and the wealthy (Inquisitors, Adepta Sororitas 'sisters of battle') and the chief projectile weaponry of humanity.
Imperial guard and other lesser citizens of the Imperium are unworthy of the most holy bolter. They use Lasguns not just because they are easy to produce but also require almost no maintenance. Energy packs can be recharged from almost any energy source, even by putting them in a fire (Although that will damage them)
On the note of Lasguns. Q:What do you call a Lasgun with a flashlight on it? A: Twin Linked. :D
As for the Movie. I enjoyed it a lot. The wife and I went in expecting little and came out loving it. Although I could have gone for more Emily Blunt. :D
They changed the name because the title was actually blamed for lack of interest in the movie. It is very generic and just didn't garner much attention. You don't want a forgettable title. So they hoped that changing the name would help with home movie sales.
On the note of Lasguns. Q:What do you call a Lasgun with a flashlight on it? A: Twin Linked. :D
Never gets old.
For Halloween, a guardsmen costume would be legit if it was made of cardboard.
Never gets old.
For Halloween, a guardsmen costume would be legit if it was made of cardboard.
Haha so true.
By the way Koshin, empty your PM box! :D
MountainRaven
11-01-14, 01:28
Never gets old.
For Halloween, a guardsmen costume would be legit if it was made of cardboard.
Pfft.
All you need is a t-shirt, cargo pants, a loose grasp on reality, and a fervent faith in the God-Emperor.
Add a flashlight with a pistol grip and a chainsaw, and you can be an NCO! Add a peaked cap and you can be an officer!
Pfft.
All you need is a t-shirt, cargo pants, a loose grasp on reality, and a fervent faith in the God-Emperor.
Add a flashlight with a pistol grip and a chainsaw, and you can be an NCO! Add a peaked cap and you can be an officer!
And tanks. Lots and lots of tanks.
http://gon.cdn.on.net/screenshots/a/0/7499/2011-01-12/drive-me-closer_-i-want-to-hit-them-with-my-sword.png
At one point bolters were being mass produced by a technologically sophisticated atheistic culture. They were just another piece of technology. And they were still limited to the elite and wealthy. It was only after the Horus Heresy that technology became an object of religious adoration.
And I question the hammer of God-death ray theory of handheld directed energy weapons.
And Blunt's 'sword' was made from a helicopter rotor (they mention this in one of the special features on the DVD).
Yes- I read (well, working through) the Horus Heresy books too... :p
But I always figured the most holy bolter got to such a revered status/rarity, more because of where they came- a lot of those weapons have been around since the heresy, and you can have your friendly chapter Librarian tell you exactly who held it and when. Same with some of the armor, weapons and other such tech.
Still working through the Heresy series, but it will be interesting to find out exactly what happened to make the Imperium so technologically stagnant.
In the beginning when it talks about them face punching every aliens species as they conquer the galaxy, it mentions them capturing enemy tech for tech Mechanicus to study. Fast forward a bit after the Heresy, and suddenly they're all like "ZOMG ALIENS! BURN EVERYTHING!!!"
What?
Per energy weapons- I question their god-like abilities myself- I was going purely off what current speculation says they should be capable of someday.
See- the rotor sword is exactly why they needed a different opening sequence, per my previous. :)
Then it wouldn't have to be explained in some obscure special feature.
Never gets old.
For Halloween, a guardsmen costume would be legit if it was made of cardboard.
Pfft.
All you need is a t-shirt, cargo pants, a loose grasp on reality, and a fervent faith in the God-Emperor.
Add a flashlight with a pistol grip and a chainsaw, and you can be an NCO! Add a peaked cap and you can be an officer!
Ouch.
:laugh:
Why did they change the name of the movie from the theater release to the DVD/Blu-Ray release... Odd
Exactly! I felt stupid when I had to ask the clerk where it was.....and he took me to the rack it was right there in front.
I enjoyed the movie at home, and watched it a second time to figure out some of the things I was confused about. I'm sure it would've been a fun movie to watch in theaters because of the special fx, if you don't mind some of the plot holes and repeating story line.
Its a fictional scifi movie; people shouldn't try to make sense of everything. That's why its called fiction.
Exo-suit tech is attainable, but as seen in the movie to be primitive and still needs major improvement (lacks operator protection). Weapons, well that remains to be discussed. We still use 5.56NATO as the universal standard today although better calibers are available, for certain reasons political or practical. If our soldiers all carried 300WinMag or 50BMG, they'd have to carry an enormous amount of ammo or have support people re-supplying them with ammo (like in Matrix3) on the battlefield.
I enjoyed the movie at home, and watched it a second time to figure out some of the things I was confused about. I'm sure it would've been a fun movie to watch in theaters because of the special fx, if you don't mind some of the plot holes and repeating story line.
Its a fictional scifi movie; people shouldn't try to make sense of everything. That's why its called fiction.
Exo-suit tech is attainable, but as seen in the movie to be primitive and still needs major improvement (lacks operator protection). Weapons, well that remains to be discussed. We still use 5.56NATO as the universal standard today although better calibers are available, for certain reasons political or practical. If our soldiers all carried 300WinMag or 50BMG, they'd have to carry an enormous amount of ammo or have support people re-supplying them with ammo (like in Matrix3) on the battlefield.
Good fiction makes sense. It being fiction is not an excuse to make sub par movies or ignore basic plot lines, develop characters, etc. That's often the difference between a good movie vs a great movie, and so forth.
Good fiction makes sense. It being fiction is not an excuse to make sub par movies or ignore basic plot lines, develop characters, etc. That's often the difference between a good movie vs a great movie, and so forth.
Who decides good fiction???
Is the movie Inception good/great fiction? Because there are some glaring holes in that movie, but that movie was amazing.
Like who decides that one minute in the real world is 1hour in the dream world?? and so forth..
Who decides good fiction???
Is the movie Inception good/great fiction? Because there are some glaring holes in that movie, but that movie was amazing.
Like who decides that one minute in the real world is 1hour in the dream world?? and so forth..
Same people who decide "good" anything, viewers, reviewers, readers, etc. Not everyone will agree, and no Inception was not a great movie due to it's various glaring holes for me.
Ground hog day with 5.56. http://screenrant.com/edge-of-tomorrow-ending-spoilers-time-travel/
I have a soft spot for time travel stories, especially from reading Heinlein back in the day.
http://screenrant.com/edge-of-tomorrow-ending-spoilers-time-travel/
I thought it was great and I went in with low expectations. Not *great* at a Blade Runner level, but entertaining and with more depth than the average sci-fi movie. Most of my geeky fiends, smart guys who are well versed in sci-fi and will nit pick the shit out of movies, thought it was a great too. Almost any time travel movie can be picked apart if you really want to, I didn't think there was anything above and beyond what's typical for the genre.
OTOH, I watched the new X-Men movie (Days of Future Past) and that I thought was juvenile with issues I could not overlook. I'm sure some folks enjoyed that and would dismiss my complaints. To each his own, I suppose.
Definitely one of the better time travel films with a more interesting approach. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughter House Five is one of my favorites for TT.
When they are driving with the trailer behind, doesn't he know there is a alien in the trailer, since he has run through that time line several times? He could have shot it through the trailer before if came out.
MountainRaven
11-10-14, 00:02
When they are driving with the trailer behind, doesn't he know there is a alien in the trailer, since he has run through that time line several times? He could have shot it through the trailer before if came out.
That would weaken his later deception about, "This is as far as we've ever come."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.