# Rate The Chronicles of Riddick (No CoR spoilers, some Pitch Black spoilers)



## Kai Lord (Jun 7, 2004)

Just watched the first 10 minutes of this on TNT.  Looks quite silly but I'll check it out at the theater.

_Edit: only edited the title.--Dinkeldog_


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 7, 2004)

I'll let you know on Friday night.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jun 7, 2004)

I'm looking forward to it.  I picked up the new _Pitch Black _ DVD and was pleasantly surprised to find a free ticket to _Chronicles of Riddick _ within.  It is the kind of movie I'd go see regardless, but free makes it even better.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 8, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'll let you know on Friday night.



Me too, but I had to get this poll in before Krug posted his, and the 10 minute preview seemed like a good enough excuse.  Nothing against Krug, I just don't like that his polls don't allow you to see who voted what.

I want to _know_ who's giving some of these movies scores of perfect 10....


----------



## Crothian (Jun 8, 2004)

It looks like a fun ride of a movie


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 8, 2004)

Did anyone else watch the first 10 minutes?  It looks like its going to be wall to wall special effects and action.


----------



## MarauderX (Jun 8, 2004)

Nothing like 'advance' screenings...


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 8, 2004)

MarauderX said:
			
		

> Nothing like 'advance' screenings...



Wow, its as good as Return of the King, The Empire Strikes Back, and Raiders of the Lost Ark?  Amazing!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 8, 2004)

This weekend... 

I have a feeling this will be a big hit, sticking around more than four weeks!


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 8, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Wow, its as good as Return of the King, The Empire Strikes Back, and Raiders of the Lost Ark?  Amazing!




That's not how movie ratings should be compared. RotK is not a sci-fi action adventure. If it were a sci-fi action adventure, it would have been a terribly bad one. Likewise, comparisons between CoR and RotLA are also misguided. They are different types of movies. Apples and oranges.

Now, comparing CoR to TESB is sensible. They're at least nominally the same genre. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if CoR was at least as good as TESB. But, then again, I thought the Jimmy Neutron movie was better science fiction than The Phantom Menace.


----------



## Album Cover X (Jun 8, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Me too, but I had to get this poll in before Krug posted his, and the 10 minute preview seemed like a good enough excuse.  Nothing against Krug, I just don't like that his polls don't allow you to see who voted what.
> 
> I want to _know_ who's giving some of these movies scores of perfect 10....




And who cares if someone gives it a 10 or 1 for the matter... Are you going to confront those who do??? Let's all organize a mob and burn down people's houses who disagree with us...

It's just a movie... and a poll rating it is nothing but a collection of people's _opinions_... keyword here being opinions... A movie is made to make money and to entertain... sometimes they miss on one or both accounts... But if someone enjoys a movie should we really be here to belittle them???

I liked Pitch Black... and I'll probably go see Chronicles at some point... Its not supposed to be Shakespeare... 

Crothian had it 100% right... "a fun ride of a movie"... If it meets that target then so be it...


----------



## Villano (Jun 8, 2004)

At first, I was a bit taken aback by the trailer.  It didn't even look like it was set in the same universe as Pitch Black.  As I saw more and more of the film, however, it began to grow on me.  Now, I'm really looking forward to it.   

Besides, I got a free ticket in my Pitch Black dvd, so it's not like I've got anything to lose.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 9, 2004)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> That's not how movie ratings should be compared.



Sure it is.  



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> RotK is not a sci-fi action adventure.



So what.  Its a movie.  The Academy Awards don't award "Best sci-fi action adventure" they award the best picture, period.  So does every critic who has a "Top 10" list, and, well anybody else who casually rates or scores movies in general.

Return of the King didn't win because it was a better fantasy film than Mystic River, it was just a better film.

ROTK, Raiders, ESB, and The Godfather are all different genres, and compare similarly to each other in terms of quality, so if Riddick is a perfect 10 then it should as well.  Whether its sci-fi or not is irrelevant.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 9, 2004)

Album Cover X said:
			
		

> And who cares if someone gives it a 10 or 1 for the matter... Are you going to confront those who do??? Let's all organize a mob and burn down people's houses who disagree with us...



Chill out dude.  Its fun to see how similar the tastes of others are compared to our own.



			
				Album Cover X said:
			
		

> But if someone enjoys a movie should we really be here to belittle them???



Depends on the movie.


----------



## Album Cover X (Jun 9, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Chill out dude.  Its fun to see how similar the tastes of others are compared to our own.
> 
> Depends on the movie.





Its all good. I probably took your post in the wrong way in hindsight. Honestly, after I clicked the 'submit reply' button I didn't give this thread a 2nd thought. I agree its fun to compare tastes; I guess the way you said "I want _know_ who these people" are came across to me in a bitter way. 

Hey I'm sure there are people out there who even like _Gigli_. I haven't met any of them yet. But I just didn't want potential voters to think they were gonna get ambushed for saying good things or voting this or any other movie a "10".


----------



## Angcuru (Jun 9, 2004)

Hmm...I liked Pitch Black even though I never saw the entire thing.  Free Ticket in DVD, you say?  Then I must make with the purchasing.  Save $8 and pick up good movie, good deal.


----------



## Tewligan (Jun 9, 2004)

Album Cover X said:
			
		

> But if someone enjoys a movie should we really be here to belittle them???



Yes. That's why God created the internet.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 9, 2004)

Saw it tonight, definitely a very cool sci-fi/fantasy action flick. Note that it's definitely a fantasy flick, too, with spirits and foretold futures and such. I'd be hard-pressed to compare it to anything as it's very much its own film, but there were definitely vibes of Alien/Aliens, Starship Troopers, Pitch Black, Final Fantasy, and Bond films.

Some very cool effects, particularly the way that ships and such distorted the air around them. The overall plot was nicely constructed to both allow this film to stand alone and to still both tie into Pitch Black _and_ be completely set up for the sequel(s).

Tons of action, some good sci-fi and fantasy, and only a few plot holes. I give it an 8 out of 10, and recommend it if you like action.

(It was a bit more violent than I like, but it wasn't terribly gory. I wouldn't recommend it for young kids, but parenting tastes vary widely.)


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 9, 2004)

Double-posting to note that while I've never played Warhammer 40k, some of the stuff (the necros and stuff) certainly remind me of what I _have_ seen. Definitely some gaming tie-ins.

Also that Riddick (the character) really kicks ass.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jun 9, 2004)

Just wanted to chime in and support Kai Lord with his poll...I agree that it can be nice to see "who" voted in what way.  Sometimes you discover that you have similar taste to someone else, and it's nice to see what they thought...

Looking forward to Riddick...will be seeing it this weekend.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 9, 2004)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> Hmm...I liked Pitch Black even though I never saw the entire thing.




Not seeing the whole thing probably improves the film. That way you don't realize how much of the plot of _Pitch Black_ doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 9, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Chill out dude.  Its fun to see how similar the tastes of others are compared to our own.




If you don't goad people, they won't have any need to chill out.

Seeing as how the first person to give the movie a 10 got a snide comment in return, Album Cover X's concerns were well justified.


----------



## Villano (Jun 9, 2004)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> Hmm...I liked Pitch Black even though I never saw the entire thing.  Free Ticket in DVD, you say?  Then I must make with the purchasing.  Save $8 and pick up good movie, good deal.




The "ticket" like a gift certificate good for a movie admission.  It's only usable in participating theatres (for up to a $10.50 ticket).  It looks like all major theatre chains accept it, but, if you want to check for small, local theatres in your area, go to: www.hollywoodmoviemoney.info




			
				Tewligan said:
			
		

> Yes. That's why God created the internet.




No, Al Gore created the internet.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 9, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> If you don't goad people, they won't have any need to chill out.
> 
> Seeing as how the first person to give the movie a 10 got a snide comment in return, Album Cover X's concerns were well justified.



Well its a good thing you're here to call attention to this very serious issue.  Album Cover and I might not have cleared that up several posts before yours if you hadn't.


----------



## Aaron L (Jun 10, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Not seeing the whole thing probably improves the film. That way you don't realize how much of the plot of _Pitch Black_ doesn't make any sense.






Really?   Please, enlighten this poor fool, the movie makes complete sense to me.


----------



## SynapsisSynopsis (Jun 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Wow, its as good as Return of the King, The Empire Strikes Back, and Raiders of the Lost Ark?  Amazing!




I gave it a 9, since, if these were my points of comparison, and of them all I only liked Raiders of the Lost Ark, then that would give CoR necessarily a high score.  Of course if I was comparing it to movies _I_ think are good, it would probably be a 5 or a 6.


----------



## Wombat (Jun 10, 2004)

Well, a friend of mine who is finishing up his 3-D animation degree, was given advance-showing tickets by a friend of his in the trade.  

So four of us went.

This is not a Wombat film.  The other three enjoyed it mightily, but, just for comparison, I also didn't like the Predator films, T-3, and a number of other sci fi violence-driven, special effects-laden films.  OTOH, it was slightly better than I expected, so I gave it a 3.  

If the others were allowed to vote, they'd probably rate it between 7 and 8.  There was a lot of technical discussion of special effects that I did not follow...


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2004)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Really?   Please, enlighten this poor fool, the movie makes complete sense to me.




Well, for starters: what do the alien creatures in the movie eat when there aren't any humans to munch on? The planet is otherwise devoid of all life, so what is their normal source of food when a crew of hapless humans doesn't happen to fall from the sky? (More to the point, how did creatures that die in sublight evolve on a planet with three suns?)

When one of the kids goes missing, why do they look for him in a bulidng that 
they have the blast the locks open to get inside? How did the characters think the kid get in to such an apparently inaccessible structure?

When they figure out that an eclipse is coming, realizing that the predatory creatures only come out at night, does anyone bother to advance the model to figure out how long it will be until the sun comes up again? No. Why not? One would think that was a pretty vital piece of information.

And the whole ending sequence with Fry and Riddick made no sense whatsoever.

About half the things Riddick does make no sense, but I suppose you can explain that because he's psychotic. But on the other hand, about half the things the _other_ characters do make no sense either (like why, when surrounded by thousands of ravenous predators, do they decide to take a break).


----------



## Strithe (Jun 10, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, for starters: what do the alien creatures in the movie eat when there aren't any humans to munch on?




Answer: Each other.  About mid-film there's a scene where the characters realize that the creatures' blood is literally raining down on them as the beasts start tearing into each other.




			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The planet is otherwise devoid of all life, so what is their normal source of food when a crew of hapless humans doesn't happen to fall from the sky? (More to the point, how did creatures that die in sublight evolve on a planet with three suns?)




Early in the movie the crash surviors wander up to the bones of some vast herd of large creatures.  I assume they were what the monsters ate before they were wiped out.  Quite clearly the aliens evolved underground and only emerged to feed on surface creatures.  I agree the ecology is very shaky, but it makes more sense than the life cycle of the creatures from the "Alien" movies (Able to reproduce inside human hosts in spite of evolving somewhare in deep space?  Super-acid for blood?).  In any case, the particulars of the aliens life cycle in "Pitch Black" isn't really all that important to the plot, since the movie isn't really about them.

I never really look for a lot of explanations in movies anyway (there's not enough time).  Besides, I am willing to give up a little logic in a genre that asks me to accept faster-than-light travel, flying dragons, and magic that actually works.




			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> About half the things Riddick does make no sense, but I suppose you can explain that because he's psychotic. But on the other hand, about half the things the _other_ characters do make no sense either (like why, when surrounded by thousands of ravenous predators, do they decide to take a break).




I always love the arm-chair critics that talk about how "stupid" characters behave in action or horror movies.  Considering how most people fall apart under stressful real-world situations the illogical behaviour of the characters in Pitch Black is quite believable.  Just take a look at what happens when there's a power failure or natural disaster: it doesn't take much of a push for looting, riots, and even worse to happen.  If everyone was capable "keeping it togehter" when disaster strikes, we wouldn't be spending all that tax money on police officers, firefighters, and soliders.  And even these trained professionals can panic if they are poorly-led or faced with situations they weren't properly prepared for.

In Pitch Black, you have a bunch of "fat civillians" expecting a placid low-budget cruise to their destination.  They wake up to find that the most of the ship's crew and passengers are dead from a crash caused by a freak metor shower, and that they crash-landed far off-course on an inhospitable world.  To make things worse, they have as their travelling companion an escaped felon with a history of violence.  If they didn't behave irrationally or panicky at any further stress, the movie would have definitely made no sense.

Why did they stop for a rest?  By the looks of them, all of them except the bounty hunter (who is strung out on drugs) probably never lifted anything heavier than a beer can their whole lives.  Now they're dragging a bunch of batteries, lights, torches, etc., on a sled across sand.  Considering that most people in today's world get winded climbing a flight of steps I'd say that makes perfect sense they'd take a break.

Meanwhile, the sole surviving crew member, who should be providing leadership, is herself trying to deal with the fact that only the slain engineer's actions stopped her from ejecting all the passengers in her fit of hysteria.

The whole point of the movie that the only one who actually keeps his head IS Riddick.  The survivors are in the awkward position of having to rely on the person they most feared at the beginning.  The whole time the viewer is wondering why this thug is helping these people:  Is it self preservation (after all, the civvies make good decoys)?  Is he simply just hanging around to watch these people die (he is psychotic, remember)?  Or is it because deep down he has some spark of humanity left?  If anything, that is the only part of Riddick's behavior that "doesn't make any sense."  It also 

Pitch Black does have a number of flaws (like why the creatures inexplicably break off their attack near the end), and is certainly not the greatest movie ever made.  However, it is very good for a relatively small budget production that essentially re-hashed a lot of sci-fi cliches.


----------



## Villano (Jun 10, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, for starters: what do the alien creatures in the movie eat when there aren't any humans to munch on? The planet is otherwise devoid of all life, so what is their normal source of food when a crew of hapless humans doesn't happen to fall from the sky? (More to the point, how did creatures that die in sublight evolve on a planet with three suns?)




Since the creatures are subterranean, the sun(s) may not factor much into it.  After all, whole species of fish, salamander, etc. evolve without ever seeing the light.   Of course, _they_ don't explode in the sun, but this is a sci-fi movie, so, if we can accept that the Alien has acid blood that can eat through several feet of metal, that isn't much of a stretch.   

I, too, wondered what they ate.  If it wasn't for the bones on the surface, I'd argue that most of the life on the planet existed underground.  Probably, most of the life does exist below the surface (the only other life forms we see are the glow worms).    

On the other hand, we only see a small portion of the world.  It's quite possible that these things only inhabit a small area.  Sure, they come out and rampage every 22 years, but they may not exist all over the world.  Think of the ants that run amuck in Africa.  They lay waste to everything, but only in certain areas.  Life in the rest of Africa goes on.




> When one of the kids goes missing, why do they look for him in a bulidng that they have the blast the locks open to get inside? How did the characters think the kid get in to such an apparently inaccessible structure?




Two possible reasons.  The kid sneaked in while Riddick was examining that building.  It's possible that he either saw him or, after seeing the other kid hanging out on top of it, put two and two together.

OTOH, don't forget that Riddick wanted to get in there earlier and is also a sociopath.  He may not have known or cared where the kid was.  He just wanted in the room.




> When they figure out that an eclipse is coming, realizing that the predatory creatures only come out at night, does anyone bother to advance the model to figure out how long it will be until the sun comes up again? No. Why not? One would think that was a pretty vital piece of information.




I didn't like or understand the model at all.  It was pretty much a plot device.   



> And the whole ending sequence with Fry and Riddick made no sense whatsoever.




Are you talking about how she got out of the cave and to him while leaving the others behind?  Yeah, that is a big problem.  

Another fault I had with the film was that this colony was wiped out 22 years ago.  It's a mining colony, it had to report to someone.  If anyone came looking, they'd definitely find out what happened (look how long it took the crash survivors to encounter the creatures and they weren't outright investigating anything).  If others knew, you'd think there'd be a big "Stay the hell away from this planet" warning that everyone would be aware of.

Lastly, the biggest problem I had was the "only works when in sunlight" solar technology.  Okay, that's just stupid!  They could have explained it away by saying that the battery in the car was damaged or didn't have time to recharge properly or something.    

With all that out of the way...I actually enjoy the film.  As far as bad science or questionable writing, this film comes out ahead of many other sci-fi action flicks (the Godzilla remake, anyone?).  I even bought the DVD.  


EDIT:  I seem to have posted at the exact same time as Strithe.  We covered most of the same points, too.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 11, 2004)

Well, the creature can't just eat each other; the energy to live has got to come from somewhere. It's more likely that there's an entire ecosystem underground. Probably, the surface is blasted by too intense light for too much time to start evolution there. And that's assuming that most of the planet is a desert, which is the kind of Star Wars simplification which would hardly apply to reality. After all, the only planet we know for sure has advanced life IRL presents all sort of wildly different climates and morphologies. Maybe the monsters evolved somewhere else and migrate through the tunnels, or something like that. They aren't any more implausible than _Alien_s.

 "Only works in sunlight" isn't completely stupid. The eclypse only comes for some time every 22 years. So the planet is bathed in sunlight for, what, 99.9% of the time? And no clouds either. Why should the vehicles have batteries, since they would never be used? Batteries are costly, bulky, and not terribly reliable after such a long time.

 I agree, though, that it is unlikely that the colony's destruction wasn't discovered in 22 years. There _are_ good explanations, but none that is so evident that it didn't need be shown in the movie.


----------



## Villano (Jun 11, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> "Only works in sunlight" isn't completely stupid. The eclypse only comes for some time every 22 years. So the planet is bathed in sunlight for, what, 99.9% of the time? And no clouds either. Why should the vehicles have batteries, since they would never be used? Batteries are costly, bulky, and not terribly reliable after such a long time.




It was too much of a plot convention for me.  Films like this don't stand up to intense scrutiny and including something that forces you to think of the logic behind it doesn't help.   For example, you have solar powered vehicles that only work in sunlight.  This means that they wouldn't work at night.  The planet has 3 suns.  This doesn't mean that there's never any night, but let's assume that there isn't.  Now you have a mining colony set up on a planet that experiences perpetual daylight.  Not exactly the best condition for human beings, let alone people doing labor.  So, whatever they're looking for on that planet must be pretty important to subject people to this enviornment.  This then leads up back to the 22 year missing colony.

Simply saying that the battery is drained and didn't have time to recharge avoids all that.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 11, 2004)

I may be wrong, but I recall quite clearly that they explicitly said that the planet was in perpetual daylight (save for once every 22 years). And if whatever was being mined is really important, maybe the guy who founded the colony took care to keep it secret (thus explaining the lack of discovery). Hey, it would be cool if in one of the next Riddick movies, it turned out that the colony was looking for something related to their plot! Are they set before or after pitch black? After, I suppose?


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 11, 2004)

*Pitch Black vs. Chronicles of  Riddick*

First, let me make it clear, I have not seen the Chronicles of Riddick. 

I liked the first movie well enough, and when I heard that they were making a movie called " Riddick " about Riddick's past, I thought, " Hey, that sounds kind of interesting. " 

Fast forward. The movie is renamed " Chronicles of Riddick ", it is instead set in the future, and it is an end of the world/evil alien induced apocalypse story... huh? What I liked about Pitch Black was that it was an anti-hero's film... but I get a " hero-needed " impression from the sequel. For some reason, the character doesn't feel like he fits the idea to me... A low-key character vs. a high-key situation... Just doesn't have me interested at all.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 11, 2004)

Wow, I know the thread said no spoilers about the Riddick movie, but someone should warn people on all the Pitch Black spoilers!!  

I liked Pitch Black a lot, but I'm not going to discuss that here.  THe Riddick movie was not as good, but still a good movie.  Like I said last page, it was what I hoped for: a good action ride of a movie.  It has its problems, but nothing that I thought was overly bad.  



Spoiler



So, the last scene in the movie with Riddick sitting down...was it just me or did that scream King Conan?


----------



## Crothian (Jun 11, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I may be wrong, but I recall quite clearly that they explicitly said that the planet was in perpetual daylight (save for once every 22 years). And if whatever was being mined is really important, maybe the guy who founded the colony took care to keep it secret (thus explaining the lack of discovery). Hey, it would be cool if in one of the next Riddick movies, it turned out that the colony was looking for something related to their plot! Are they set before or after pitch black? After, I suppose?




Chronilces of Riddick is set after Pitch Black, but the video game is set prior to it


----------



## Villano (Jun 11, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I may be wrong, but I recall quite clearly that they explicitly said that the planet was in perpetual daylight (save for once every 22 years).




I don't remember that, but it might have come up as they were looking at the model.

What I do remember is that they saw one sun setting and were surprised when one or two more started to rise.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 12, 2004)

I recall that I especially liked the use of different camera filters for the different suns.

 Crothian is right about the Pitch Black spoilers, I would go back and edit, but I think at this time it'd be easier if someone just placed a spoiler warning in one of the first posts.


----------



## Villano (Jun 12, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Crothian is right about the Pitch Black spoilers, I would go back and edit, but I think at this time it'd be easier if someone just placed a spoiler warning in one of the first posts.




The movie came out 4 years ago, has been released on DVD at least twice, and can be seen on basic cable/network television.  I think the statute of limitations on spoilers has run out on that one.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 12, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> The movie came out 4 years ago, has been released on DVD at least twice, and can be seen on basic cable/network television.  I think the statute of limitations on spoilers has run out on that one.




Actually, I'm sure there are many people who still haven't seen it.  There are no statutes of limitations on spoilers, as I'm sure we all can name many old movies that people have not seen but may want to.


----------



## Aaron L (Jun 12, 2004)

OK, I just saw this tonight, and I must say I am very happy with it.  While it isn't the greatest movie ever made, it is a VERY fun movie, and it's VERY D&D.  Visually it looked like something right out of Warhammer 40K.  And the main villian does about the coolest baadest thing I have EVER seen a bad guy do in a movie!   



Spoiler



He tears someones SOUL out!




I can see several places where it could have been improved, and some of the editing could have been better, but I am still very happy with the movie as a whole.  I would DEFINATELY like a sequel.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 12, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> "Only works in sunlight" isn't completely stupid. The eclypse only comes for some time every 22 years. So the planet is bathed in sunlight for, what, 99.9% of the time? And no clouds either. Why should the vehicles have batteries, since they would never be used? Batteries are costly, bulky, and not terribly reliable after such a long time.




Actually, it is. There's not an engineer in the world that'd design a practical solar-powered vehicle that wouldn't have batteries, for a number of reasons.

1. There might not be night, but there can still be shadows, depending on where you want to go.

2. Solar cells can break in an accident.

3. Storing energy in batteries allows for vastly better performance when it's needed (like when you need to get somewhere fast in an emergency, or need to haul another vehicle out of a ditch, or when being chased by ravenous alien monsters...) than what you can get directly from the solar cell, where the power flow is usually constant.

It's kind of like saying people would never use containers to hold water on a planet with near-constant rainfall, because they're bulky and inconvenient.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 12, 2004)

Fair enough. My point wasn't that it is obvious, only that it isn't incredible.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Jun 12, 2004)

I LOVED it ^_^

and to the person stating that the anti-hero part of the film was downplayed...DID you even watch the movie?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 12, 2004)

Gave it a 9 - thought it was well paced, good story, strong acting, and action.


----------



## Villano (Jun 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm sure there are many people who still haven't seen it.  There are no statutes of limitations on spoilers, as I'm sure we all can name many old movies that people have not seen but may want to.




Oh, there are lots of old films that people haven't seen.  But I think it gets silly to have to use spoilers to talk about movies that have been out of theatres for *years.*   Do we need to use spoilers every time someone mentions that 



Spoiler



Norman Bates was crazy


 or 



Spoiler



Darth Vader is Luke's father


?

Besides, nothing said was exactly spoiler material.  It's a horror film in which people get lost or trapped?  Not exactly groundbreaking (and no mention was made of what happened to those people in the movie).  They're trapped on a planet with killer creatures that only come out at night and it *gasp!* gets dark and they only have limited light?  That's only the plot of the film!  If you didn't know that, why are you even watching it?  It would be like demanding spoilers that there's a werewolf that kills people in An American Werewolf In London.


----------



## Dimwhit (Jun 12, 2004)

Great movie. I had a fun time. Gave it an 8. I agree that it's very D&Dish. It would work as a great D20 campaign (not D&D obviously).


----------



## nHammer (Jun 13, 2004)

Kick-ass movie...If you like sci-fi and action movies, you'll like this movie.

I think some of the stupidest conversations, are when people use real-world sense while talking about a make-believe movie. Especially when the movie takes place in the far future, as well as a far off galaxy.


----------



## Kaledor (Jun 13, 2004)

Just saw CoR.
My wife and I really liked it.  I personally love movies though and can be easily entertained by even "bad" movies...  I'm apt to rush out and see just about anything that hits the theaters (yeah... I've got an addiction, I think my local cinema puts something in the popcorn to keep me coming back!)

There were a few editing problems and sound problems, but that could've been a problem my theater's particular print of the film and not a universal problem.  Also, I really don't think Vin is a great actor.  He's got a perfect body type for the role and the action scene are great...  but when he opens his mouth I just cringe.   'Course, the wife loves the eye-candy he presents :\   I'll get my turn at King Arthur when Kira Knightly is in a "strap bikini"    

All-in-all, I'd see it again.  It's got some great moments and some great RPG ideas.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 13, 2004)

Saw it earlier today.  It was okay.  Gave it a 5.

Kind of a sci-fi Conan with a humorous amount of direct quotes from Mortal Kombat video games, and a really weak main villain.

A lot of build up, some spectacular visuals, and a pretty cool "race against time" sequence a little more than midway through the movie.

The finale played like a poor man's "Dune meets Conan."  I'm curious as to where they take the story if they make enough money to go ahead with Parts II and III, but overall I was pretty underwhelmed.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 13, 2004)

Just saw it. Good good movie.

Kai Lord:

Poor man's Dune meet's Conan? Hmmm...I guess. But that doesn't mean its a bad thing. 

Overall, I do hope they keep going with this and make the next two parts.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 13, 2004)

Actually I really meant "poor man's Dune" + Conan.  The Conan part was pretty cool, but (trying to be vague here in the non-spoiler thread) the part of the finale that echoed a very similar sequence in the Dune movie was much less engaging, mostly due to the fact that the Riddick villain not only looked ridiculous (no pun intended) but had almost no charisma to speak of.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 13, 2004)

I rated it an 8 out of 10.  Not bad at all.  I'd definately be interested in seeing more movies about Riddick.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 13, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Actually I really meant "poor man's Dune" + Conan.  The Conan part was pretty cool, but (trying to be vague here in the non-spoiler thread) the part of the finale that echoed a very similar sequence in the Dune movie was much less engaging, mostly due to the fact that the Riddick villain not only looked ridiculous (no pun intended) but had almost no charisma to speak of.



 Ah, right. Good point. Still was a 'good' bad villain IMO.


----------



## ShadowX (Jun 13, 2004)

Kai Lord, your comments about the similarities to Dune I echoed when I saw the trailers for the first time.


----------



## Trainz (Jun 13, 2004)

I rented and just finished watching Pitch Black. So, yeah, this thread might be spoiler material for some (it would have been for me 5 hours ago).

However, someone who REALLY doesn't want any spoilers from a movie shouldn't browse a thread about that movie once said movie is released. That said, the "NO SPOILERS" in the thread title is misleading and should be changed at once.

DAMMIT ! After watching the trailers I wanted to see it (CoR). Today. But before me and the wife unit decided to go, we checked IMDb: below 6. Damn. We decided to not go see it.

However, after browsing this thread, I wish I did ! Sounds like the kind of movie I would enjoy. But now, I can't tomorrow, and probably won't be able to for the next weeks. Darnit.

"Dune meets Conan" ? I HAVE to see it ! ! !


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Jun 13, 2004)

OK, rating the movie based on the first 10 minutes is lame.  What if I were to tell you that the first 20 minutes of the movie were the best part of the movie?

Anyhow, I've seen the movie and gave it a 4.  I really did not like the fight scenes because of the camera work employed.  Basically, whenever two guys (or gals) were battling it out hand-to-hand the camera point of view was TOO CLOSE and the camera operator actually SHOOK the camera.  I couldn't watch most of these fight scenes because 1) I couldn't tell what was going on, and 2) I didn't want to get dizzy or strain my eyes.  I could understand them doing this if they wanted to hide the set or bad acting, but they put a lot of effort into the sets and probably worked hard to coreograph the fight scenes, so I just don't get it.

I just hope moviemakers stop doing this in future films.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 13, 2004)

BradfordFerguson said:
			
		

> OK, rating the movie based on the first 10 minutes is lame.



Read the thread.  I didn't cast my rating until I saw the entire film days after my initial post.


----------



## D+1 (Jun 13, 2004)

It was quite a decent sequel although _I_ would not have gone in a "save the universe" direction.  I really did not like the editing though.  I am sick to death of ultra-fast paced, strobe-like, impossible to follow, epilepsy-inducing fight scenes.  I really, really am.  I rated it 6 and that's at least 1 point subtracted just for that reason.

Unfortunately I was also convinced to see it at a drive-in.  Being a visually dark movie it was even darker on a drive-in screen and a lot of visual impact was lost - but from what I COULD see it looked good.  Nice art design (except the lensmen).  Also any merits from sound design were thoroughly hosed.  I will very likely try to see it again, it at least was entertaining enough to be worth a second look at a matinee.

On a second viewing I might up my rating to a 7 but I doubt it'll be any higher than that.  It was not that far above what SHOULD be an average movie - 5 or 6 on a 10 point scale.  Personally I prefer to use a 5 point scale and go with half points when warranted.  3 is then average, a score MOST movies will get.  4 above average.  5 is perfect or nearly so.


----------



## Trainz (Jun 13, 2004)

Well, I just saw it, and found it great. You can never have too much epic sci-fi.


----------



## buzzard (Jun 13, 2004)

A fair movie. Nothing really bad in it. Then again, nothing amazing good either. It's worth a matinee. I felt that my afternoon sitting in a dark room eating popcorn (with real butter... mmmm) was not wasted. 

A little much style over subtance, but the style was pretty cool so it was OK. Twas quite a violent movie, but if you didn't expect that, you must not have seen anything about it. It also had too much of the shaky camera during action scene thing going. 

buzzard


----------



## Abraxas (Jun 14, 2004)

Just saw it - bleehhh.  

It rates a 3 in my book. The first thing said as we exited the theatre - Conan in space, then I read the comment here by Kai Lord, and I couldn't agree more.

I've been waiting for a good anti-hero movie and I'm still waiting. I sure didn't see it as epic Sci Fi. Once again just to many glaring problems for me to really emjoy it.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Jun 14, 2004)

Just got back from the theatre, I'd give it a strong 6 (6.5).

Special effects were nifty, and the acting for the most part was adequate, if not a little over the top at times. The movie got a lot stronger towards the end, and I really liked the big finish. The conan/dune simialrities noticed by others in this thread were quite obvious, but I felt they were more of a homage than a blatant copy. All in all I was entertained.

As a side note, did anyone else notice the actor that played Vaako (Karl Urban) is the same guy that played Eomer in LoTR. Its nice to see that LoTR has allowed some relatively unknown actors to get noticed and land other roles. 

Dirge


----------



## Trainz (Jun 14, 2004)

BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> As a side note, did anyone else notice the actor that played Vaako (Karl Urban) is the same guy that played Eomer in LoTR. Its nice to see that LoTR has allowed some relatively unknown actors to get noticed and land other roles. Dirge



Yeah ! I kept telling my wife that during the movie, but she didn't get it.

Cool !

I definitely think a Riddick 2 (or 3 ?) movie would be awesome !

HAIL RIDDICK !


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 14, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> *Since the creatures are subterranean, the sun(s) may not factor much into it.  After all, whole species of fish, salamander, etc. evolve without ever seeing the light.   Of course, they don't explode in the sun, but this is a sci-fi movie, so, if we can accept that the Alien has acid blood that can eat through several feet of metal, that isn't much of a stretch.  *





Of course, that begs the question of why you would have a subterraneran creature that has flight as its primary means of locomotion. How would evolution make this work? They live underground in small caves for 22 years, hiding from something that makes them explode if they leave, but keep powerful wings (useless 22 years at a stretch) to fly around in the couple of weeks they can go outside? No matter how you slice it, the creatures make no sense.



> *Two possible reasons.  The kid sneaked in while Riddick was examining that building.  It's possible that he either saw him or, after seeing the other kid hanging out on top of it, put two and two together.*




In which case why did they not use the entrance the kid snuck in through rather than blasting off the lockes with explosives? The problem with the sequence is that we know the kid is in there, and how he got in, but there is no indication of how the characters know, or why they decided that the best place to look for a missing kid is in a building that they have to blast the locks off of. Like most of the rest of the film, the characters come to conclusions that make no sense given the information available to them.



> *I didn't like or understand the model at all.  It was pretty much a plot device.*




But once you include it, why allow such a major lapse in plot follow from it?



> *Are you talking about how she got out of the cave and to him while leaving the others behind? Yeah, that is a big problem.*




Basically nothing about the last 20 or so minutes of the movie makes any sense. That is an especially glaring example.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Jun 14, 2004)

I think some of you are over-analyzing this movie.  It's an action flick, not english literature.


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 14, 2004)

Fry plays with the model after looking at the mine samples.  She goes forward quite a bit indicating that the eclipse is a couple of months (at least).


----------



## Merlion (Jun 14, 2004)

Just saw it. Gave it a 7. It was a lot of fun, mostly just needed more development...I would have liked to know more about the Necromongers etc.

But hopefuly we will learn more in the sequels.


----------



## Villano (Jun 14, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]Of course, that begs the question of why you would have a subterraneran creature that has flight as its primary means of locomotion. How would evolution make this work? They live underground in small caves for 22 years, hiding from something that makes them explode if they leave, but keep powerful wings (useless 22 years at a stretch) to fly around in the couple of weeks they can go outside? No matter how you slice it, the creatures make no sense.




Just as a side note, we don't know how big those hives really are.  After all, all those creatures couldn't have fit in that little area where the woman went exploring.

Anyway, there are winged creatures that don't spend much time flying.  What about the winged queen ants?  Do they actually ever leave their hives (colonies?)?  

And what abot 17 year locusts?  They only come out once every 17 years.

That said, it is kind of pointless to analyze the creatures in sci-fi films (see the Alien example another poster and I used).  You just have to go with it at a certain point.  After all, how did Dr. Frankenstein get around organ rejection when building his monster?  I mean, did they even know about blood types back then?


----------



## ShadowX (Jun 14, 2004)

I really hate the "dynamic" camera approach.  I hate fast cuts and the shaky camera that pervades a lot of films today.  Action movies are the worst offenders, but other genres have their films (e.g. the Roxanne scene in Moulin Rouge).


----------



## Merlion (Jun 14, 2004)

Yea it is getting a teensy bit old. It can be nifty, but its being used a little to heavily.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 15, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> That said, it is kind of pointless to analyze the creatures in sci-fi films (see the Alien example another poster and I used). You just have to go with it at a certain point. After all, how did Dr. Frankenstein get around organ rejection when building his monster? I mean, did they even know about blood types back then?



In some way, this is some kind of involuntary praise for Pitch Black. If some scientifically unlikely facts are the worst that can be said about it, I mean.


----------



## Merlion (Jun 15, 2004)

Really, I'm not so sure that the monsters in Pitch Black were 100% normal biological entities. Especially given some of the themes in CoR, they may be at least partly supernatural in nature.


They reminded me strongly of Lovecraft's Night Gaunts.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 15, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> In some way, this is some kind of involuntary praise for Pitch Black. If some scientifically unlikely facts are the worst that can be said about it, I mean.




Except that the scientifically unlikely facts aren't the worst that can be said about the movie. The worst that can be said about the movie is that the plot makes no sense, especially the final twenty minutes or so, which is almost incomprehensible. The characters don't make any sense either, continually doing things that are silly when viewed from the perspective of the information available to them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 15, 2004)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> I think some of you are over-analyzing this movie.  It's an action flick, not english literature.




So, because a movie is an action flick, the plot doesn't have to make any sense? Just so long as it has cool special effects, that's enough?


----------



## Trainz (Jun 15, 2004)

I didn't have anything good to say, so I decided to STFU.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 15, 2004)

I watched _Pitch Black_ again last night (after having seen _CoR_ last week) and found it to be a perfectly enjoyable film.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 15, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that the scientifically unlikely facts aren't the worst that can be said about the movie. The worst that can be said about the movie is that the plot makes no sense, especially the final twenty minutes or so, which is almost incomprehensible. The characters don't make any sense either, continually doing things that are silly when viewed from the perspective of the information available to them.



Fair enough. I liked Pitch Black, and I don't completely agree with your points, but at least they are points that address real issues.


----------



## Mark (Jun 16, 2004)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Saw it tonight, definitely a very cool sci-fi/fantasy action flick. Note that it's definitely a fantasy flick, too, with spirits and foretold futures and such. I'd be hard-pressed to compare it to anything as it's very much its own film, but there were definitely vibes of Alien/Aliens, Starship Troopers, Pitch Black, Final Fantasy, and Bond films.
> 
> Some very cool effects, particularly the way that ships and such distorted the air around them. The overall plot was nicely constructed to both allow this film to stand alone and to still both tie into Pitch Black _and_ be completely set up for the sequel(s).
> 
> ...




I gave it a 7 but I agree with your summary.



			
				ShadowX said:
			
		

> ... the "dynamic" camera approach.




That's what dropped it from an 8 to a 7 for me.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> ... the plot makes no sense, especially the final twenty minutes or so, which is almost incomprehensible.




I must have missed the confusion.  What questions did you have?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The characters don't make any sense either, continually doing things that are silly when viewed from the perspective of the information available to them.




Such as?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 16, 2004)

Mark said:
			
		

> *I must have missed the confusion.  What questions did you have?*





To start with, how did Fry get out of the cave to where she shows up again faster than anyone else? Does anything involving Riddick and Fry in the last twenty minutes of the movie make _any_ sense? Does anything either of them do make sense (One can also note several technical problems too, for example, when Riddick fights one of the creatures by staying in its blind spot, he repeatedly steps in a puddle, making a lot of noise, which should have allowed the creature's sonar to pinpoint him immediately).



> *Such as?*




Perhaps you missed, for example, where I pointed out that when the kid goes missing, the other members of the group somehow guess (based upon no information that they have available) that he's in a building which, to their knowledge, the only way in requires that the locks be blasted off. How did they figure out he was in there? What made them make that guess? This is just the first of many glaring examples of this sort of silliness.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 17, 2004)

I'd give it a seven or an eight, I'd have to see it again to make up my mind.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So, because a movie is an action flick, the plot doesn't have to make any sense?




Yes, an action movie *is* all about the action, the plot exists solely to get you from one action sequence to the next. If the action scenes hold up the plot doesn't matter.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Well its a good thing you're here to call attention to this very serious issue.  Album Cover and I might not have cleared that up several posts before yours if you hadn't.




If you showed a little more respect to begin with there wouldn't be anything to clear up and your choice of smilies certainly doesn't help matters. Saying your sorry or you didn't mean anything by it after the fact doesn't excuse what you said in the first place.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 17, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Saying your sorry or you didn't mean anything by it after the fact doesn't excuse what you said in the first place.



I'll let the five pages and 70+ posts of cordial discussion about the movie speak for itself as to whether or not I have to apologize for a joke I made on page 1.

EDIT: And jumping back into the discussion 50 posts after your first complaint just to bring it up again is simply bad form.  Lighten up.

Getting back to the movie, I found it interesting that I was very lukewarm about the picture after seeing it but then when I called a friend who had no interest in seeing it and told him the whole story (he asked me to spoil it) I found that it sounded _much_ better.  Lots of cool ideas and clever twists in the broad strokes of the story.  It was just in the execution of the details that they missed the mark in various places.

For instance, who knows how it would have played with a perfectly cast actor in the role of the Lord Marshall (or at least a very fitting actor.)  Or had really nailed the various fight scenes throughout the movie.  Diesel and Twohy definitely had some cool ideas.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 17, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Yes, an action movie *is* all about the action, the plot exists solely to get you from one action sequence to the next. If the action scenes hold up the plot doesn't matter.




Good to know. Now I can treat all of your opinions on movies as completely worthless.


----------



## Sarigar (Jun 28, 2004)

I'm glad I didn't read this thread before I went to see it.  Good story, fair acting, great concepts, kick-butt special effects.  Gave it a nine.  It won't win any Oscars, but then again very few sci-fi/fantasy films ever have beyond technical awards, including  most of what most of us here consider greats in these genre's.  My fiance tried everything she could to get out of seeing it, saw it anyway, and liked it more than _Pitch Black_ .  She is not a sci-fi/fantasy buff in any way shape or form, but I'm working on her.


----------

