I'm guessing it was imbeciles who rated this so low.
-
Tsavo — 10 years ago(September 23, 2015 01:32 AM)
The aliens coming just for human brains is different? You must be new
FYI, that concept was already used before, for the game prey, and to much better effect, instead of just coming for brains, which makes NO real sense (I'm sorry, even if they needed brains to power their army, why would they need ours? And why would they not be able to grow them? If they can create and army, brains are not going to be to be that much different, not to mention issues with biological compatibility, amongst a variety of other issues that result from a need so specialized. -
MaxPhilips — 10 years ago(October 01, 2015 12:13 AM)
I played prey some time ago, so don't remember exactly, but I think they were "harvesting" humans, not just their brains.
In the movie here aliens may have had a variety of reasons to conquer Earth. Maybe they needed resources, maybe a habitable planet to use as a colony or as a hub in a transportation system, options are numerous. Human brains were not the goal, but rather a means of achieving a goal.
This is how I see it - aliens came to the planet and decided they need to destroy local intelligent life to use the planet freely for whatever they needed. To do so they used local resources (humans) to build an army instead of bringing an army with them. -
Tsavo — 10 years ago(October 11, 2015 02:27 AM)
But they did not seem to be making any efforts to secure any land, and in fact their single minded focus throughout the film was literally to harvest people for their brains. They did not seem to have any interest in us beyond that. Even if they were planning to use them for some other purpose, that still does not explain why they would travel all the way to our planet just to steal our brains, when they seem more than advanced enough to create their own, or find a suitable alternative.
-
-
silovik812 — 12 years ago(February 17, 2014 06:15 PM)
Do I need to continue the list ?
How about space aliens coming to earth disguised as gods from the sky, enslaving humans, and using them to mine gold, which they need on their home planet to spread throughout their atmosphere in order to cure it from whatever it is they did to mess it up?
Well, OK, that's from Zecharia Sitchin's work (
The Tenth Planet
, which so far has not been updated to
Eight Planets, Six Dwarf Planets, and a Whole Lot of Other Stuff
), but I'm sure someone has made at least one movie based on it."Oh, well" said Zanoni, "to pour pure water in the muddy well does but disturb the mud !"
-
silovik812 — 12 years ago(February 18, 2014 07:53 AM)
Yeah,
Stargate
was based on the general idea of ancient astronauts, though they used Erich "Chariots of the Gods" von Dniken's version more than Sitchin's: von Dniken (borrowing/adapting/stealing nearly all his ideas from earlier French writers) had the idea that
all
the ancient gods were aliens, whereas Sitchin's work was mostly about a minor group of Babylonian gods called the Annunaki, and their planet Niburu (which to the Babylonians was an astrological point in the sky and not a planet, but nevermind). The
Stargate
movie was all about one of the Egyptian gods, Ra; but the TV series pretty much brought
everyone
to the party over the years. I don't remember if the Babylonian gods ever showed up or not, but I'd bet they're in there somewhere. And you're right about the gold - the Goa'uld were mostly interested in humans as general slave labor or hosts for their symbiotes, or just to have somebody to lord over. They did employ large numbers of them to mine for naqahdah, though, which everybody knows is far more valuable than gold!
There are other movies out there using the general idea of ancient astronauts. Even
Star Trek TOS
used it in the episode "Who Mourns for Adonis", and the recent
Thor
movies definitely have a theres-nobody-here-but-us-extraterrestrials vibe to them. I just don't know of any that use the Annunaki, Niburu, and humans as gold-mining slaves, specifically."Oh, well" said Zanoni, "to pour pure water in the muddy well does but disturb the mud !"
-
gpliao-1 — 12 years ago(December 12, 2013 05:51 AM)
I don't know which movie you thought you were watching but it was NOT skyline. Because the skyline I saw was a 6/10 up until the last 5 minutes. Then it sunk to a 2 or 1/10. No closure to the plot whatsoever.
And yes, by the end of the movie(right before the dude and his gf get sucked up, finally) I wanted them to just die. Slowly and horribly and brutally. In fact, when considering how un satisfying this movie is, I wanted the aliens to set the city of Los Angeles( and earth in general) ablaze.
Since I watched this I now refer to 95% of films as "being better than skyline" - predators, army of darkness, splice, shark nado, ghost shark, two headed shark attack and even Sharkopus!!!
Skyline is not even so bad it's good. Instead skyline is soo bad you will want to punch whomever suggested watching it, ask for your time back and then watch it in reverse in an attempt to get some sort of closure. -
silovik812 — 12 years ago(February 17, 2014 06:07 PM)
I kept feeling like
Skyline
was the second part of a trilogy, of which we never got to see the first part. It's obvious that the ending was the setup for a sequel, and if the makers of this film could come up with a prequel film, this one would make more sense."Oh, well" said Zanoni, "to pour pure water in the muddy well does but disturb the mud !"
-
ragusa11 — 12 years ago(January 26, 2014 06:02 PM)
Mars Attacks sucked and it was meant to be a parody. This movie sucked at it wasn't original. It had no character or plot development. It was trying to be Cloverfield meets Independence Day. If you want good thinking sci-fi you should go watch Blade Runner.
Though I don't remember Goa'uld using gold that way.