Author |
Message |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: After Earth
Bradley Witherberry wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Sadly this is:
neither the worst Scientology-laced movie ever I didn't notice any Scientology propaganda in this movie - - what did you see in your viewing that would cause you to call it " Scientology-laced"? This sums it up pretty well: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a ... est-561310Oh... you read about it... Oops, I thought you were making your own assessment of the film. Well, then perhaps you might like to read some more. Here's an interview with noted Scientology critic Dave Touretzky, a research professor at Carnegie Mellon University: Quote: Touretzky's credentials as a foe of Scientology are impeccable, and he would jump at the opportunity to discredit a propaganda vehicle. “I don't see any Scientology content AT ALL in this movie,” he told me in an email:
- The themes of the movie appear to be standard adventure fare: physical courage, coming of age, father/son relationships, battling danger to prove oneself and earn a father's respect. These are not Scientology themes. There is no mention of evil psychiatrists, mind control, engrams, etc.
He then proceeded to demolish the Scientology hypothesis point by point. The Reddit thread, for instance, says that the film's emphasis on survival aligns with L. Ron Hubbard's contention that "'survive' is the highest command of existence and that everything in life is subservient to this command."
- While it's true that Hubbard placed a lot of emphasis on "survival" being the key drive for all beings, that is also the theme of every shipwreck/castaway movie ever made.
But what about the similarities between the film's vision of Earth and the Xenu myth?
- There is plenty of apocaplyptic fiction in which Earth is abandoned. But that wasn't the point of the Xenu story. Earth was a prison planet that Xenu used as a dumping ground for his victims. It was an insignificant backwater back then, and it was not "destroyed" by the hydrogen bombs that Xenu used to vaporize his victims.
Nor does Touretzky think the "fear is a choice" tagline resonates particularly with Hubbard's gibberish.
- Saying that danger is real but fear is not is run-of-the-mill "brave warrior" stuff. It has nothing to do with traumatic experiences, bad memories (engrams), or any Scientology teaching.
The Reddit thread makes much of the fact that Kitai's story involves gaining his father's respect and overcoming his influence: "LRH very strongly believed that one can exist in another's internal universe, or 'valence,' and that one of the most commonly experienced valences is that of the father or mother.... '[E]xisting in another's valence'...is cited by LRH as a common source of unhappiness."
- The claim that a desire to earn a parent's respect is comparable to "existing in another valence" is nonsense. It is normal and healthy for a child to want his parents' approval and respect. Even a Scientologist would acknowledge that.... [B]eing "stuck in another valence" might be how Scientologists explain some abnormal behaviors, but it does not apply to the situation depicted in the trailer.
Hubbard wrote that space planes of the future will look like DC-8s. The Reddit thread says "the shape of Cypher's and Kitai's ship, which is remarkably similar to an airplane, is no coincidence."
-The ships shown in the trailer don't look anything like DC-8s or any other kind of airplane. They look more like the Space Shuttle, which also had stubby wings. The poster is straining to make connections that just don't hold up to scrutiny. Besides, 99% of Scientologists have never read OT III [the advanced level of Hubbard teachings in which the space opera stuff is revealed] and don't know anything about Xenu or DC-8s, so who would this movie be trying to appeal to?
But don't the costumes make the characters look like Scientology shock troops?
- The poster thinks the Ranger Corps uniforms look like Sea Org uniforms, but that's nonsense. The Ranger Corps are wearing jumpsuits; the Sea Org never do. Sea Org uniforms are modeled after US Navy or Salvation Army uniforms. Military uniforms in the movies all look pretty similar.
But the film's marketing materials prominently feature a volcano, just as the cover of Dianetics does.
- The original version of Dianetics did not have any pictures on the cover. After Hubbard dreamed up OT III around 1967, someone got the idea of putting a volcano on the cover of Dianetics to "restimulate the engrams" of us nonbelievers and influence us to buy the book. But most Scientologists don't know anything about OT III or why there is a volcano on the cover of some versions of Dianetics. And wasn't there a volcano in the King Kong movie too?
I also asked him about what I thought was Kitai’s engram, but he corrected that, too:
That's not an engram. That's a traumatic, character-forming event, and one of the most common plot devices in the history of fiction. Engrams are things you don't consciously remember — until auditing brings them to the surface. When you do remember them and can analyze the event with your analytical mind (a Dianetics term), they lose their power.
|
Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:57 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: After Earth
Of course I read it, Bradboy. I don't necesarily agree on every single point, but the emotion part rings true very much and your post "discrediting" the theory, doesn't address that at all.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:47 am |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68372
|
After Earth
It wasn’t a wholly bad film, just mostly a bad film, and most of it was so uninteresting and serious that I am having a hard time remembering anything I liked. Let’s start with the CGI; well, it was amateurish – I felt like I was watching a Uwe Boll movie at times. Then there’s the story, which was ok – I can get onboard with a survival story in a foreign wilderness where a father guides his son to eventual fearlessness, but this movie was so preachy and cold that I wasn’t interested in the journey for the most part. There were a few times when I got in to it, but they were short-lived. There were a few poignant lines of dialogue (mainly the ‘fear is a choice’ speech) that piqued my interest, though.
The biggest surprise, and therefore the twist of this M. Night Shyamalan movie, was that there was no twist. It was so awfully generic for an M. Night movie, that it was a shock there was no “surprise” twist. This isn’t a positive thing, however. This movie needed something like a shock twist to conjure some buzz and excitement from the crowd.
Now let’s move onto the performances; I don’t understand why someone would think that a fearless ranger needs to be utterly cold and have no personality, but Will Smith seems to think that – my God, what a boring-ass character. I was annoyed at the end that he didn’t die. I’m pretty sure that being fearless is not mutually exclusive with being happy/energetic/excited/kind etc., especially when in the home environment. It was a weird relationship that Smith had with … everyone. Onto Smith Jr., well, the poor guy cannot act. His cringe worthy “I’m not a coward” line was testament to that. Pushy parents are really annoying in show business – it means we get fed crap. The idea that Jaden would have an adventure on Earth would have been cool if he wasn’t asleep/unconscious for most of the movie. It seemed every 5 minutes that he was either knocked out or asleep. Most of the time he was on Earth, he must have been just resting there.
What did I like? I liked the suits, the overall premise was one I could have liked if the rest of the movie was half-way interesting, the way the movie started abruptly, the way the creatures could “literally” smell fear, and the suspense of revealing the big creature – all of that was good. The reveal of the big creature, and the way it played with the flashbacks however, was not great (just the lead up was). The reveal didn’t actually reveal anything we didn’t already know.
The entire ending was one of the biggest anti-climaxes in history. It was really lame, and corny as hell how he overcame that big creature thing when just a few minutes earlier he was fucking petrified of it. His father, at least it was sort of implied in the movie, had a psychic connection with him or something, and, ugh, that whole scene was just poor. There were no cool action scenes throughout the movie, even though they had the opportunity for a few, and most of the action happened with a damn bird. The action, when it happened, was up-close and not well filmed. This movie was just an excuse to push Little Willie into mega-stardom, but sorry Big Willie, it’s not going to happen. Your little runt needs to show talent before anyone will employ him without your guiding hand.
The last two M. Night movies have been stinkers. I don’t think I will watch another. I don’t think I’ll ever have to make that decision, though, as M. Night will struggle to find a respectable studio that will fund another of his movies.
D+
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:13 pm |
|
 |
SolC9
Forum General
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm Posts: 7196 Location: Wisconsin
|
 Re: After Earth
I actually kinda liked this movie. My expectations were really low, but still. Jaden was fine, Will was good in the supporting role. The thought the effects were quite good. It not a great movie, but I was into it from beginning to end. The biggest problem was that it was entirely too predictable. There are two other stories eluded to in this movie that could have made two much better movies.
The exodus from earth.
The attack on the new world by the Ursa.
Still, I don't think it's deserving of it's 11% RT score.
B
|
Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:44 pm |
|
 |
Mister Ecks
New Server, Same X
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:07 pm Posts: 28301 Location: ... siiiigh...
|
 Re: After Earth
What a bizarre film. Heavily weighed down by extreme nepotism and delusions of grandeur, After Earth is neither a triumph nor a disaster. There are so many little things wrong with this movie, but at the end of the day, it's the fact that this serves as the most expensive "Take Your Kid to Work Day" of all time that makes it so dreadful to watch. Will Smith sacrifices himself in every way to showcase a son that could not be less interested in proud poppa's profession. But if I could compliment the would-be star, he's definitely not the worst of the Smiths in After Earth. Will's turn as the macho father is definitely a low point in his otherwise-solid career. One would assume he dialed down his natural charm and ability so that Jaden would shine. It would have worked if it wasn't for that kid's general indifference to the entire experience.
For every minor achievement of the film (there are a bunch of great ideas and moments that would have made a solid blockbuster if not for the Smiths), overall, it is an arrogant film. It's weird assigning a human quality to a piece of art (I know, that's stretching it), but it's true. After Earth is pure arrogance. The Smiths (Will and Jada) believe the world needs Jaden as its next star. Smith, screenwriter Gary Whitta and M. Night Shyamalan believe this massive sci-fi production will become an instant classic thanks to its very universal relationship between a gruff dad and a maturing child desperate for approval. Except that it plays out amidst a mind-boggling paradox: it should be about father and son, except it's impossible to relate to the story since it takes place in a far-off future. On top of that, it's about a father and son, played by a father and son, except it's impossible to relate because not everyone's dad is one of the most well-known people on the planet.
So in the end, it's just a big budget blunder. Every minor strength is countered by a massive weakness. In more capable hands (in front of the camera, as M. Night is a capable filmmaker still), this could have worked. But it's far too distracting watching what is one of the most expensive vanity projects ever, especially given its eventual failure at the box office.
D+
_________________ Ecks Factor: Cancelled too soon
|
Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:18 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|