| Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web. While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous. Join our community today! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Super 8 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 12 2011, 07:04 AM (1,215 Views) | |
| Empyreon | Jun 15 2011, 03:55 PM Post #16 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
I was finally able to see the movie. It was very enjoyable, with a predictable but entertaining plot, engaging characters, and a generally fun premise. But if you're looking for plausibility in the alien I don't think you'll find too much. A few points of interest: - We never get a nice clear look at the creature; the best we get is dimly lit closeups on the face (which is arguably humanesque). I only saw two eyes, Canis Lupis). As a result, it's difficult to make many definitive conclusions about the nature or physiology of the creature. - The creature has telepathic abilities. Sure, it cuts to the chase and allows ready communication with the human characters, but not that plausible. - I kept an eye out for orange shuttle fuel tank, I completely missed it in the theater. I had to re-watch the trailer to see which part of the movie it took place in. If that little motion blurred moment distracts you from the scene, I feel very sorry, and recommend withdrawal from movies as a whole. Perhaps a hermitage is in the cards, as media as a whole generally cuts these kinds of corners. ![]() - The kids language was tiresome. Sure, I know kids in real life talk just like that, but I think that excuse is equally tiresome. I'm not looking for insults/cussing of shakespeare caliber (he was a master) but a little creativity beyond standard four-letter words would have kept things a little more artful and imaginative. |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| T.Neo | Jun 15 2011, 04:56 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Translunar injection: TLI
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I probably would have missed the shuttle tank myself if I actually saw the film; I noticed it only after my unintentional scrutiny of the trailer... I know that these details are minor, and I know that pretty much everyone in the industry makes these kind of mistakes... but the thing is, when you know a lot about a field, or something is your passion, you notice these things easily and they become heavily disturbing; it kinda becomes almost as if the producers forgot something crucial, and gave everyone pig ears as a mistake, or something. It wouldn't make the entire film unwatchable for me, at least- but it would distract me from the next scene or two as I wondered about the stupidity of the filmmaker's mistake. The alien was arguably humanesque? I assume it looks nothing like this, then? Spoiler: click to toggle The "hide your monsters" theme in film today annoys me a lot. Not only is the filmmaker apparently trying to play a cat-and-mouse game with anyone who actually wants to see a monster, but in reality things need not be deliberately hidden- often you cannot get that good a look at the scariest things, but sometimes they bare their faces in broad daylight, which arguably makes them even scarier. Edited by T.Neo, Jun 15 2011, 04:57 PM.
|
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
![]() |
|
| Empyreon | Jun 15 2011, 05:39 PM Post #18 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
I totally understand that. There are things like that for me too, though none currently come to mind.
The alien's face is arguably humanesque, and looked very little like that image, which I believe was a piece of concept art and matches the body and limb configuration pretty closely to my memory. I believe this image was drawn by someone after seeing the movie, and more closely matches the face I saw in the movie.
I agree. I don't mind a hidden monster for the first part of a movie so long as there is a dramatically appropriate reveal at some point in the movie so I can see the creature in all its splendor at some point, but that never happens in Super 8. I can even tolerate the clearly deliberate frame compositions designed to obscure the creature (there is even a shot where a gas station sign is in the way of an otherwise visible scene of violence and destruction) until some dramatic moment if I get to see it fully. Again, Super 8 frustrates me on this point. To me the tactic of never fully revealing the alien indicates a lack of confidence in the work of the graphics team. The team here is J.J. Abrams and Stephen Spielberg, two filmmakers who are not known for pulling their special effects punches. Spielberg helmed Jurassic Park, a perfect example of milking the mystery of the creature by artful compostion (the dinosaur is in a cage in the movie's prologue scene and all we see is the result of its violence) leading to a slow reveal of small creatures and eventually long, bright, glorious images of several well rendered dinosaurs. The graphics work of Jurassic Park is still acceptable by today's standards. Abrams played "hide the monster" with Cloverfield, but while disappointed I felt it was forgivable as I thought that the in-movie "cameraman" was often too afraid of death and destruction to get very good shots of the creature. The work in Star Trek showcased the creature effects much more clearly and seamlessly with the plot, so I'm left wondering why the Super 8 creature was so poorly represented. Why so dark, especially when all mysteries surrounding the alien are revealed? I doubt it had to do with budget, and I don't think it involves Abrams' disappointment with the work of his CG crew (what I can see of the creature is cool and compelling) so I'm left believing it was an artistic choice: probably the only one with which I disagree in an otherwise exciting summer blockbuster. |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| T.Neo | Jun 16 2011, 11:29 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Translunar injection: TLI
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Interesting evaluation, Empyreon. That's an odd... alien. And an odd take on humanesque, indeed. It looks ugly. But the undercurrent of 'human' is definitely there. Looks a lot like the Cloverfield monster as well. |
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
![]() |
|
| Scrublord | Jun 16 2011, 07:32 PM Post #20 |
|
Father Pellegrini
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe they're from the same planet. |
|
My Projects: The Neozoic Redux Valhalla--Take Three! The Big One Deviantart Account: http://elsqiubbonator.deviantart.com In the end, the best advice I could give you would be to do your project in a way that feels natural to you, rather than trying to imitate some geek with a laptop in Colorado. --Heteromorph | |
![]() |
|
| Spugpow | Jun 16 2011, 09:28 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Prime Specimen
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Or both designed by Neville Page .
|
| My deviantart page: http://amnioticoef.deviantart.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Spec · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2













.
2:23 PM Jul 11