Jupiter Ascending (2014)

Somnambulist · 27 Mar 2014 at 18:19

The cycle cannot be broken, Sean Bean must die.

JBod · 27 Mar 2014 at 19:49

That looks totally amazing. Goosebumps after that trailer.

Rroff · 28 Mar 2014 at 18:06

Efour said:
and Sharpe is in it too

Sean Bean seems a bit out of place IMO hes better suited to slower paced thought provoking sci-fi like equilibrium.

JBod · 26 Apr 2014 at 14:21

I am noticing a small trend around the web where it is becoming "cool" to wail on this movie based on zero knowledge about the story other than the trailers (which look awesome!).

Why do people actually *want* movies to fail?

Destination · 26 Apr 2014 at 15:07

Rroff said:
Sean Bean seems a bit out of place IMO hes better suited to slower paced thought provoking sci-fi like equilibrium.

We running a book on how many scenes into the movie he makes it without dying?

Meridian · 26 Apr 2014 at 19:18

JBod said:
I am noticing a small trend around the web where it is becoming "cool" to wail on this movie based on zero knowledge about the story other than the trailers (which look awesome!).

Why do people actually *want* movies to fail?

Bad ones, yes. Bad Science Fiction, a big yes. If enough bad science fiction fails then maybe they'll finally decide to make good stuff.

JBod · 26 Apr 2014 at 22:27

Meridian said:
Bad ones, yes. Bad Science Fiction, a big yes. If enough bad science fiction fails then maybe they'll finally decide to make good stuff.

No one knows if it is good or bad yet? So why are people hoping it will fail now?

Meridian · 26 Apr 2014 at 22:47

JBod said:
No one knows if it is good or bad yet? So why are people hoping it will fail now?

Go back and read the plot synopsis in the first post. Now, seriously, is there any way a plot that stupid can produce a film which is anything other than rubbish?

Mr Jones · 27 Apr 2014 at 08:04

Meridian said:
Go back and read the plot synopsis in the first post. Now, seriously, is there any way a plot that stupid can produce a film which is anything other than rubbish?

If every film is based entirely on it's synopsis before watching, we won't be watching

e.g. Matrix

IMDB said:
During the year 1999, a man named Thomas Anderson (also known as Neo), lives an ordinary life. A software techie by day and a computer hacker by night, he sits alone at home by his monitor, waiting for a sign, a signal - from what or whom he doesn't know - until one night, a mysterious woman named Trinity seeks him out and introduces him to that faceless character he has been waiting for: Morpheus. A messiah of sorts, Morpheus presents Neo with the truth about his world by shedding light on the dark secrets that have troubled him for so long.

Meridian · 27 Apr 2014 at 08:24

The Matrix is a mediocre film with good effects. (Thought experiment: if the film had been made with the same script, but none of the SFX, how popular do you think it would be? Saying that the film is about the effects is a cop-out, and an explanation as to why so much film Science Fiction is rubbish.) But comparing the two, that plot synopsis sounds a lot more sensible than the one for Jupiter Ascending. Any film featuring a character described as "Queen of the Universe" is going to be John Carter all over again.

SixTwoSix · 27 Apr 2014 at 08:53

Kunis...i'm in

It'll be rubbish but I can watch her all day long

Steampunk · 27 Apr 2014 at 10:59

Meridian said:
Any film featuring a character described as "Queen of the Universe" is going to be John Carter all over again.

Is it bad to say I quite enjoyed John Carter?

I also enjoyed (the first) Total Recall, and the high concept for that was "Arnie goes to Mars". The synopsis is just a one liner, it doesn't really tell you about the quality of the movie.

Jupiter Ascending might not end up being a great movie (I hope it is), but if it's good, I'll certainly be able to find more things to enjoy than not. Mila Kunis, space battles, lush visual effects? Count me in, but then it doesn't take a lot to keep me happy. I think if I go expecting a visually impressive popcorn movie, I'll enjoy it more than if I pick holes in the characters, storyline, and science of the film.

arknor · 27 Apr 2014 at 12:53

Meridian said:
The Matrix is a mediocre film with good effects. (Thought experiment: if the film had been made with the same script, but none of the SFX, how popular do you think it would be? Saying that the film is about the effects is a cop-out, and an explanation as to why so much film Science Fiction is rubbish.) But comparing the two, that plot synopsis sounds a lot more sensible than the one for Jupiter Ascending. Any film featuring a character described as "Queen of the Universe" is going to be John Carter all over again.

you could say the same thing about LOTR or any other film that relies on visuals to draw the viewer in to that world

JBod · 27 Apr 2014 at 17:45

Meridian said:
Go back and read the plot synopsis in the first post. Now, seriously, is there any way a plot that stupid can produce a film which is anything other than rubbish?

I think you are in the wrong thread then. Big budget sci-fi VFX-fests (which I enjoy the most) always have simpler story lines but are a feast for the eyes.

Starship Troopers many years ago was amazing:

imdb said:
Humans in a fascistic, militaristic future do battle with giant alien bugs in a fight for survival.

What about Hunger Games:

imdb said:
Katniss Everdeen voluntarily takes her younger sister's place in the Hunger Games, a televised fight to the death in which two teenagers from each of the twelve Districts of Panem are chosen at random to compete.

Now that just sounds plain B-Movie if you ask me.

I am guessing you are the kind of guy that went into a Transformers movie and expected story and script on par with Shawshank Redemption and came away disappointed?

Meridian · 28 Apr 2014 at 07:11

I think that all you've proved there is that IMDB can't write plot summaries. To be fair, neither can almost anyone else. If pressed, I'd say that a summary alone can't usually prove much about what a film will be like, but when even the official plot summary is stupid, you have to wonder. But I'll still stand by my estimation: this will be as good as John Carter.

arknor: I think you are missing my point. A film is not bad because it has SFX; it is bad if it relies on them. It should have (roughly in order): a sensible plot, good writing, good direction and good acting. Once those are sorted out, then add some SFX. But it's perfectly possible to make great Science Fiction with no SFX at all.

Meridian · 28 Apr 2014 at 07:14

Steampunk said:
Is it bad to say I quite enjoyed John Carter? I also enjoyed (the first) Total Recall, and the high concept for that was "Arnie goes to Mars". The synopsis is just a one liner, it doesn't really tell you about the quality of the movie.

Jupiter Ascending might not end up being a great movie (I hope it is), but if it's good, I'll certainly be able to find more things to enjoy than not. Mila Kunis, space battles, lush visual effects? Count me in, but then it doesn't take a lot to keep me happy. I think if I go expecting a visually impressive popcorn movie, I'll enjoy it more than if I pick holes in the characters, storyline, and science of the film.

And this, along with millions who agree with you, is why the quality of film Science Fiction is so woeful (although still ahead of TV). It seems to me that the only way to make good Science Fiction films is to deny that they are Science Fiction, because all the "fans" want to see rubbish. Which in turns starts the vicious circle whereby all the people who want to see good films assume all film Science Fiction is rubbish. Because mostly it is. Yes, Total Recall is fun. But it's a bad, bad, film.

Steampunk · 28 Apr 2014 at 11:30

Meridian said:
And this, along with millions who agree with you, is why the quality of film Science Fiction is so woeful (although still ahead of TV). It seems to me that the only way to make good Science Fiction films is to deny that they are Science Fiction, because all the "fans" want to see rubbish. Which in turns starts the vicious circle whereby all the people who want to see good films assume all film Science Fiction is rubbish. Because mostly it is.

If they put out great SF movies, I'd watch them too. I also like films like Moon, Blade Runner, and Solaris. Slower, more thoughtful movies that make you think are good, but the studios often don't want to make them. Such movies don't fit into the script formulas they use to make hit movies that pull in the money. Movies are primarily a visual medium, and studios too often reduce this down to "pretty pictures".

I read a lot of SF, and great books just can't be made into a two hour film - there's just not enough time to do them justice. I'd rather they become a mini-series on HBO than be mangled by a film studio.

Meridian said:
Yes, Total Recall is fun. But it's a bad, bad, film.

An interesting question is why, despite the intervening years and improvements in the visuals, the remake seems so soulless and bland compared to the laughable (but fun and enthusiastically spirited) Arnie original.

JBod · 29 Apr 2014 at 21:41

Meridian said:
I think that all you've proved there is that IMDB can't write plot summaries. To be fair, neither can almost anyone else. If pressed, I'd say that a summary alone can't usually prove much about what a film will be like, but when even the official plot summary is stupid, you have to wonder. But I'll still stand by my estimation: this will be as good as John Carter.

arknor: I think you are missing my point. A film is not bad because it has SFX; it is bad if it relies on them. It should have (roughly in order): a sensible plot, good writing, good direction and good acting. Once those are sorted out, then add some SFX. But it's perfectly possible to make great Science Fiction with no SFX at all.

VFX not SFX.

Meridian · 29 Apr 2014 at 22:21

JBod said:
VFX not SFX.

You forgot to put [smug][/smug] around that. Or to answer the point.

JBod · 30 Apr 2014 at 00:35

Meridian said:
You forgot to put [smug][/smug] around that. Or to answer the point.

I am pretty sure it was implicit

I think people have given up trying to explain it you. A movie can totally rely on the VFX, it is a feast for the eyes. If you walk into every movie expecting a story and scripting master piece you are going to walk away disappointed quite a lot.

I thoroughly enjoy all the Transformers, Pacific Rim, all 3 Matrix, all 6 Star Wars and all 4 Indian Jones movies.

Equally something like Shawshank Redemption I consider fantastic, in the TV world The West Wing is in my top 3 all time favourite TV shows - that is purely down to the quality of Sorkin.

The second Jupiter Ascending trailer gave me goosebumps and tingles. I know even if it doesn't deliver a stunning script the visual feast is going to be stunning and thoroughly enjoyable.

Recently The Avengers was absolutely amazing, it is the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time but if you break it down the pace, the script, the direction is actually more like a TV Episode. This is undoubtedly due to Whedon and his background. The entire last ~1hr was basically a very high quality cartoon.