Really really BAD
-
aperezt — 15 years ago(June 06, 2010 11:43 AM)
I think you already did watch them, because otherwisek, THEY USED THE SAME SCENES YOU MENTION FOR THE THIRD TIME
!!!!! So yeah youve probably olready seen the whole thing: V (miniseries) V: The Final Battle, And the 18-19 episode tv series.
Search the red van lmao i remember that. And the best part about the distracted V pilot crashing into the cliff was that the first time it was fair enough, he was well into the hunt and what not so suddenly he looks up and BANG but when they use it in one of the l;ast episodes its supposed to be a fully computer controlled plan of attack so there should even be pilots in the fighters, let alone ones that would only notice theyre crashing into a cliff a millisecond before, as if hed been concenrttrating on something else hmmmm.
So yeah, if you remember the whole computer hacking thing with the whizz kid blowing fighters out of the sky that was the tv series so you watched that.
Whats the point of having a signature? Only absolute losers have them -
trollomatic — 16 years ago(October 29, 2009 02:11 AM)
ah, someone else who gets it, as does most of the public.
Only the holywood execs and tv execss don't get it, and then they wonder why their network ratings keep going down further and further year after year. -
mjkbncb — 19 years ago(August 30, 2006 09:34 PM)
First of all, "V: The Series" may have been badthat I won't dispute you on. But the two miniseries that preceded it ("V: The Original Miniseries" and "V: The Final Battle") were great! GREAT! The writing was brilliant. It made us all think about how we, as modern-day Americans, would react under a fascist, Nazi-like occupation. It certainly had a lot more depth than such crap that comes out nowadays like "Independence Day," a film that stole every one of its ideas from previous films.
As for the effects, what do you want? It was a made-for-TV back in 1983 for chrissake! The effects were great for their time. The original "Star Trek" from the '60s had worse effects, but its intricate plotting and three dimensional characters carried its popularity forty years. Are special effects that important to you? I've got news for you: "Independence Day" and "Star Wars Episode III" may look great to us now, but twenty years from now, our kids (or grand kids) will be laughing at how cheesy they look.
As for your contention that the acting was bad, you failed to make specific points, so I can not even comment on it, except to say that I vehemently disagree.
The fact that it was made 20 years agoSo what?! "Casablanca" was made over sixty years ago. Does that make it "bad"? "On The Waterfront" was made over fifty years ago. Does that make it "bad"? These are classic films I'm mentioning here. Or are you the kind of person who only likes films that are made nowadays? Why not put down "The Godfather" while you're at it. It was made over thirty years ago.
There was never a scene with the Visitors driving around in golf carts. Are you sure you're thinking of the right movie?
Yes, it was made for TV. It was too long for Kenneth Johnson to have tried to squeeze it all into a two-hour movie, and cutting it down to two hours would have been wrong (Sergio Leone tried it with "Once Upon a Time In America," and the film bombed; when he re-released it in its four hour entirety, the film got raves).
Enough said. An unfair critique is an unfair critique. -
psifi872 — 19 years ago(September 14, 2006 05:25 PM)
V and V: The Final Battle were both completely awesome! I loved them in '83, when I was eleven and I love them both now! Yes, the actual series wasn't quite as good, but who cared? It was more V! The story and characters were both wonderful! Without the Final Battle, we wouldn't have that wonderful battle with all of the balloons! I love watching that! And, the scene where Ham Tyler dumps an entire bag of bacteria down Stephen's throat is classic! Of course, just about every scene that had Tyler in it is classic, lol!! I thought the acting was great!
-
psifi872 — 19 years ago(October 12, 2006 11:56 AM)
The difference is we aren't gathering up people from Afghanistan and/or Iran and eating them! The Resistance couldn't join the Army, because the aliens were in control of the government! V isn't supposed to be an analogy of the war on terrorism, but of Nazi Germany.
I think the political message is one of doing right vs going along with oppressive power. I think comparing the Resistance to Osama bin Laden is a false analogy, since bin Laden had/has power in his own country. A better analogy would be the Resistance = those of his people who aren't terrorists and bin Laden = Diana.
V was actually dedicated to freedom fightersnot religious fanatics. -
dpcole7 — 19 years ago(October 15, 2006 02:39 PM)
V:TFB and the followup tv series were not good but the original does have some merit.
I refer to the thought put into the characters and setup. Unlike 2005, the amount of money put into tv shows for mere melodramatic effect was far, far less. Therefore intellectual content had to be used.