PDA

View Full Version : Tomorrowland is Rotten -- Anyone see it?


Red Barchetta
05-20-2015, 05:55 PM
According to RottenTomatoes (http://rottentomatoes.com/m/tomorrowland_2015/), Tomorrowland is rotten (admittedly, it's on the cusp, but that rating's been steadily dropping as reviews have come in.)

A rare miss for Brad Bird apparently. Too bad, because the trailer looked intriguing. Although I can't say I'm surprised because Damon Lindelof is a complete hack. The movie opens wide tomorrow, but has anyone here seen it yet?

obfusciatrist
05-20-2015, 06:12 PM
I've seen it.

It wasn't awful but definitely not what I'd hoped for from Brad Bird.

Biggest issue is that the main actress just wasn't up to it (she's not that good on Under the Dome either but I didn't know whether that was her fault since everybody is bad on that show). Could have just cut her out of the movie altogether and focused on the other two main characters and I would have been happier.

Much more aimed at kids (with a weird exception in needless, though bloodless, killings on screen) than I expected. Not much of a second layer for more adult sensibilities.

Sherrerd
05-20-2015, 06:14 PM
I've said it before, but: Damon Lindelof must be the most charming human being on the face of the planet.

What else could explain the fact that he continues to be hired to write stuff?

(I haven't seen the movie. But I'm disappointed that it's been Lindeloffed; the premise seemed intriguing and likely to provide fun and amusement.)

Red Barchetta
05-21-2015, 12:20 PM
It wasn't awful but definitely not what I'd hoped for from Brad Bird.

I was afraid (but fully expected) of that.

And looks like the rating is still dropping, down to 55%. Yikes

2ManyTacos
05-21-2015, 12:31 PM
I'm still excited for it and plan to see it, but yeah, the fact that it was scripted by Lindelof makes me nervous.

The sad thing is that I was a huge fan of Lost during the entirety of that show's run; then I saw how it ended and I almost felt like I wasted six years of my life.

I mean, Lindelof is great at raising intriguing ideas, but he has no fucking clue how to pay anything off. I had a similar reaction to Prometheus, which was equally disappointing.

I'm honestly curious how he continues to get consistent work. I guess his Lost pedigree goes a long way. :dubious:

steronz
05-21-2015, 12:51 PM
Damon Lindelof

:eek:

I guess the problem is that even his shitty stuff makes lots of money.

RandMcnally
05-21-2015, 12:52 PM
I read somewhere that the fact Bird has announced the Incredibles 2 so quickly is a bad sign. It shows that he's trying to take attention away from this movie.

MovieMogul
05-21-2015, 03:24 PM
It's unusual that a Metacritic score is higher than an RT one, since they weight the reviews and RT is strictly a binary system.

That said, Tomorrowland is at 61, which is in the "green zone" there, which means the bad reviews aren't that bad and the good ones are just good enough.

Sage Rat
05-21-2015, 03:28 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a Rotten Tomatoes rating above 50% for anything outside of an art film, so unless you tend to agree with RT, I wouldn't take that rating very seriously.

The participation of Damon Lindelof on the other hand....

Sam Lowry
05-21-2015, 03:36 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a Rotten Tomatoes rating above 50% for anything outside of an art film, so unless you tend to agree with RT, I wouldn't take that rating very seriously.

The participation of Damon Lindelof on the other hand....

There are a lot of non-art films with RT scores above 50%. Right now in the top 10 box office films in the US, Pitch Perfect 2, Mad Max: Fury Road, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Furious 7 all have above 60%, and none of those are art films.

I don't rely purely on RT ratings, but they give a good indication of a film's quality. It's best to read the Critics Consensus, and some of the partial or full reviews for the movie to really get a good idea of whether you should see a movie or not.

For Tomorrowland it doesn't sound like most of the reviews are saying it's terrible, it's more that it's a disappointment, with some shoddy writing.

ISiddiqui
05-21-2015, 03:59 PM
Hell, Mad Max is at 98% at RT - must be full of long shots of people having meaningful glances and be in French with that rating, right? ;).

Red Barchetta
05-21-2015, 09:35 PM
That said, Tomorrowland is at 61, which is in the "green zone" there, which means the bad reviews aren't that bad and the good ones are just good enough.

Update: It's at 60 now and is now "yellow zone."

BrainGlutton
05-21-2015, 09:43 PM
I haven't seen it, but this review (http://salon.com/2015/05/20/tomorrowland_can_nostalgia_for_the_future_save_our_doomed_planet/) is encouraging.

Wendell Wagner
05-22-2015, 04:07 AM
Non-art movies with high Rotten Tomatoes ratings:

98% E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
100% Toy Story 2 (1999)
99% Toy Story 3 (2010)
98% Up (2009)
99% Finding Nemo (2003)
100% Toy Story (1995)
98% The Babadook (2014)
98% Paddington (2015)
98% How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
98% Aliens (1986)
100% Cool Hand Luke (1967)
98% Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
98% Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
98% King Kong (1933)
99% L.A. Confidential (1997)

How far do you want to go back and how do you define art films?

Sage Rat
05-22-2015, 05:56 AM
Here's a list of the first eight movies listed, that I have seen, which are rated between 30-50% on Rotten Tomatoes:

Snow White and the Huntsman - 48%
RoboCop (2014) - 49%
Kick-Ass 2 - 30%
RED 2 - 43%
Pain & Gain - 49%
Beverly Hills Chihuahua - 41%
Hancock - 41%
Rambo (2008) - 37%

Now I'm sorry, RoboCop, Kick-Ass 2, Red 2, Pain & Gain, Hancock, and Rambo might not be classic films but rating them anywhere near to Snow White and the Huntsman and Beverly Hills Chihuahua makes about as much sense as No Soap, Radio. They may be somewhat flawed or largely forgettable, but they're professionally made and fill time perfectly well.

You're going to be just as satisfied by RED 2 as if you were to watch:

Die Hard 3 - 51%
Pirates of the Caribbean 1 - 79%
Mr. & Mrs Smith - 59%
Ocean's Eleven - 82%

I could see those movies being spread over the 65-75% range, maybe, but not 43-82%. RED 2 is not "about as good" as Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Ocean's Eleven shouldn't be comparable to Curse of Chucky - 80% nor In Bruges - 84%.

If I go onto the IMDB and look at ratings, other than the obscenely high rankings of Tolkien and comic book movies, they at least make sense. And, even if we return the Tolkien and comic book movies, I can at least say that there is a general consistency to how things get ranked, even where I don't agree. If something is particularly nerdish, it will get extra love on the IMDB, but otherwise, everything's sane and I can do some mental math to correct for it.

I'll go back and revise my statement that RT rankings are pro art film, but they're certainly arbitrary. Looking at any particular slice of near-rated items, what criteria could possibly have gone into making those items all end up around the same place is completely baffling.

And just to go back to my "spread over the 65-75% range" statement, here are the previously listed movies as found on IMDB:

RED 2 - 6.7
Die Hard 3 - 7.6
Pirates of the Caribbean 1 - 8.1
Mr. & Mrs. Smith - 6.2
Ocean's Eleven 7.8

Pirates obviously hit it big with the nerd crowd, so I think we can safely crop 0.5-1.0 points off of it. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is still a bit low, but that rating is comparable to This Means War (http://imdb.com/title/tt1596350/) and I think we can safely expect it to drop with time (IMDB ratings generally trend downwards) and will probably end up lower than Smith, so that's as I would expect. Whereas on RT, This Means War is a 26%. Clearly, a far worse movie than Beverly Hills Chihuahua. :dubious:

Alessan
05-22-2015, 07:56 AM
You have weird taste in movies.

CalMeacham
05-22-2015, 08:39 AM
"Ix-nay on the otten-ray!"

. --Ygor ("EYE-gor") in Young Frankenstein

Wendell Wagner
05-22-2015, 09:18 AM
Sage Rat writes:

> . . . they're certainly arbitrary . . .

All ratings come across as a little arbitrary compared with the personal ratings of any individual. I have no idea whether my personal ratings are closer to those of Rotten Tomatoes or the IMDb. I don't care. There's no perfect set of ratings out there. The fact that Rotten Tomatoes isn't very close to your personal ratings tells us nothing interesting.

RikWriter
05-22-2015, 09:21 AM
I'll still see it once it comes to FIOS on-demand.

Red Barchetta
05-22-2015, 11:21 AM
50% and still dropping.

The Lindelof factor is strong with this one.

Larry Borgia
05-22-2015, 11:59 AM
Yes, my feeling was "Hooray! a Brad Bird movie! and the screenwriter is...Oh. Oh crap."

How does Lindelof still get work? Did Shyamalan email him whatever compromising photos of studio heads he has?

Red Barchetta
05-23-2015, 12:01 PM
So I saw it last night against my better judgement. And it was pretty terrible. The story is mess, the cg was distracting, the characters weren't compelling (mostly), and the whole thing was a lot more childish than I was expecting.

The best thing I can say is the overall idea is decent, but executed horribly

wonder9
05-23-2015, 07:23 PM
I saw it and liked it. I'm sick to death of super heroes, reboots and sequels. I'll enjoy pretty much ANYTHING that is competently made and a novel idea. This film is not a game changer but it was a refreshing change all the same. The fact that it has two strong female characters in lead roles is big plus. Go see it.

Declan
05-24-2015, 07:14 PM
The movie opens wide tomorrow, but has anyone here seen it yet?

Just got back from seeing it. Has a very anti-Rand theme to it at one point. The main point of the movie, which is spoiled in the trailors, is that the pin gives the bearer a glimpse at the future world, is selectively or was supposed to be selectively seeded to certain individuals. I think this was the point of the movie, in terms of audience viewing.

In a few years, I think it will end up getting more sympathetic reviews, regardless of the numbers that its pulling now.

Plus it had a star wars trailer.

Declan

Loach
05-24-2015, 08:35 PM
I know they are not film critics but my 13 and 15 year old daughters loved it. I'm pretty sure they are the target audience. I enjoyed it too.

Fubaya
05-25-2015, 02:10 AM
Yeah I really don't get all the adults reaction to this movie. It's not for us. I didn't have a problem with it. I'm not saying it's an Oscar winner, but it was better than a lot of what my 9 year old daughter drags me to to see.

The more I think about it, the more I like it because of it's uniqueness. Kids movies like this don't come out every day. It wasn't a fairy tale, it wasn't a comic book/superhero movie, it wasn't animated. It's a kid's sci-fi/action movie and most of those are stupid like Spy Kids or Journey 2.

Lanzy
05-25-2015, 04:29 PM
Saw it, give it 3 stars. For what it is it was fairly well done.

Red Barchetta
05-25-2015, 04:39 PM
Yeah I really don't get all the adults reaction to this movie. It's not for us

Doesn't matter who it's for--that doesn't make me like it any more.

With that said, the initial trailer did not suggest the goofy kid-action flick that we ended up with. I purposefully avoided the trailers since as I prefer seeing a movie knowing as little as possible. Usually works out for me, but clearly not this time.

obfusciatrist
05-25-2015, 10:32 PM
If I had realized before going in that it is a PG movie it would have helped set expectations for the age level it is targeted at.

Though that just makes me more surprised for the on screen murders of four innocent bystanders.

Zebra
05-26-2015, 02:04 PM
I've seen it.


It is the most spectacular after school special ever!


I enjoyed the actors but the story is so paper thin. Of course it is an Ayn Rand novel complete with the very late long monologue. Tomorrowland is a place where only the 'exceptional people' go and non-exceptional people make it bad.

but the young girl has 'hope' and that saves the day!!! ugh

jharvey963
05-26-2015, 04:24 PM
I didn't see any reviews before I went to the movie. Fandango user's reviews had it at 4 stars, and that sounded pretty good to me. When we were sitting in the theater before the movie, they were playing the kids version of the pre-movie show. I then looked it up and realized it was a PG (not even PG13) movie, so that set my expectations a little bit more realistically.

After all that, I enjoyed the movie. I thought the story (despite a few holes) was pretty interesting and was a fresh idea. I found the acting believable, and I enjoyed the action. I also was happy with the moral of the story. I think this was a fine movie for the age it was made for. And my tween inside thought it was great. :)

J.

Elendil's Heir
05-26-2015, 04:25 PM
I'll see just about anything Brad Bird does (The Incredibles is still my favorite Pixar film, and quite possibly my favorite superhero movie, ever), but the Lindelof connection and mixed early reviews do give me pause.

Saint Cad
05-26-2015, 04:32 PM
Saw it. Good not great. Two big questions for me (due to bad writing I suppose) that may be spoilers.
Is Casey actually needed in the plot or is she just a MacGuffin?
Is Gov. Nix bad or just that his plan is different than the protagonist and it happens to be the wrong plan?

Kimstu
05-27-2015, 01:32 PM
Tenthed or twentiethed on the "Saw it, didn't hate it, didn't love it" reaction.

Good performances from Clooney and Laurie, as usual, and the little girl whats-her-name was excellent, and I liked the initial device of "Tomorrowland immersion" by touching the pin. But the plot soon went so all over the shop that just I stopped caring.

Okay, road trip to Texas. Whoops, over to upstate NY via stolen pickup truck. Aren't those clothes feeling a little un-fresh by this time? Oh never mind, here's a mini-wax museum of 19th-century scientists. Ah, here comes the time travel! Wait, so where are we now? When are we now? That was an awfully quick and easy solution to the imminent doom of all humanity, wasn't it? Oh, I guess things are better now? Okay, have fun y'all, bye.

I will say that it was extremely refreshing to have the stock character of the Random-Average-Seeming-Kid-On-Whom-The-Fate-Of-The-Universe-Actually-Depends as a non-sexualized teenage girl. No bikinis or ballgowns or boyfriends, just a kid in a strange situation who happens to be a girl, just like the flashbacks to young Frank show a kid in a strange situation who happens to be a boy (indeed, one might argue that young Frank's character is actually more sexualized than Casey's, because of the him-and-Athena thing). But it takes more than just showing a female character as a normal person to make a good movie.

jsc1953
05-27-2015, 07:23 PM
Tenthed or twentiethed on the "Saw it, didn't hate it, didn't love it" reaction.

Good performances from Clooney and Laurie, as usual, and the little girl whats-her-name was excellent, and I liked the initial device of "Tomorrowland immersion" by touching the pin. But the plot soon went so all over the shop that just I stopped caring.

Okay, road trip to Texas. Whoops, over to upstate NY via stolen pickup truck. Aren't those clothes feeling a little un-fresh by this time? Oh never mind, here's a mini-wax museum of 19th-century scientists. Ah, here comes the time travel! Wait, so where are we now? When are we now? That was an awfully quick and easy solution to the imminent doom of all humanity, wasn't it? Oh, I guess things are better now? Okay, have fun y'all, bye.

My take on it, precisely. I really liked the idea of the film: let's get back to the idea of the future being a better place, and away from this obsession with dystopia. But the script spent too much time meandering around, blowing shit up.

As a Disney (park) fan, I liked the parallel between the theme of the movie and the theme of the park. Tomorrowland -- the Disney attraction -- was very much an extension of the 1964 World's Fair: many of the attractions were picked up from New York and dropped in Anaheim (Small World, People Mover, and the Carousel of Progress, whose theme song was heard in the opening moments of the movie). The fair and the park both exemplified that vision of the future as bright and shiny and wonderful. Disney has since redesigned Tomorrowland, to make it more retro/Jules Verne/steampunk, which is kind of sad.

Dorjän
06-02-2015, 11:33 AM
It was something different for the Disney-family-movie genre, and my 6-yr old some was amazed by it. It's not going to win any awards but I thought it was a fairly enjoyable summer flick myself, and I'm a sucker for the whole Futurama style.

Sage Rat
06-02-2015, 01:17 PM
I've said it before, but: Damon Lindelof must be the most charming human being on the face of the planet.

What else could explain the fact that he continues to be hired to write stuff?
By happenstance, I just saw that Adam Savage (of Mythbuster fame) had interviewed Damon Lindelof, as part of a series of interviews that he's doing, so I watched it. It's a friendly interview, so there's no clear answers as to why Lindelof's scripts end up lame, but from what I could tell the recurring theme would seem to be that Lindelof is sort of the ultimate Yes Man. He's willing to take just about anything that the director or producers give him and integrate it, without giving any thought to the implications. He says that this is necessary, to keep working in the business, but I'd venture to guess - from how often he brings up the topic of gleefully knuckling under to the demands of others - that he takes it to a new level.

Following on this, he says that he's more of a fan of the big mysteries of life, so he's more likely to focus on developing that topic than anything else. Consequently, you'll end up with a fully developed mythos that goes behind Prometheus, but very little thought given to the stuff we actually spend most of the time on in the movie.

So basically, I'd venture to guess that he gets work because he's great to work with (being a Yes Man and all) and he sells great, big concept ideas that sound good.

TroutMan
06-02-2015, 04:32 PM
Unspoilering these because I think there's already some spoilers in the thread and these seem comparatively tame to me.

Is Casey actually needed in the plot or is she just a MacGuffin?
She's not at all a MacGuffin. It's her "hope" that wakes up Frank from his hopelessness. She is the embodiment of the film's entire message, that we shouldn't just give up. I'm not arguing that the plot is all that great, but she is an integral part of it.

Is Gov. Nix bad or just that his plan is different than the protagonist and it happens to be the wrong plan?
My take is that his original plan wasn't bad: he wanted to show people the consequences of their inaction and hopefully spur them to change. But when that didn't work, he essentially said screw them and left them to self-destruct. At that point, he turned "bad" because he could have done something to help or at least save some of them, and he did nothing.

Sherrerd
06-02-2015, 05:24 PM
Interesting, Sage Rat; thanks. (If asked to guess who would interview Lindelof, I never would have come up with Adam Savage!)

gigi
06-02-2015, 06:08 PM
Of course it is an Ayn Rand novel complete with the very late long monologue. Tomorrowland is a place where only the 'exceptional people' go and non-exceptional people make it bad.


Ew, somehow I didn't think of that. I was too busy being hit over the head by what I thought was the message -- take better care of the world/environment now.

It was also disconcerting to see Britt Robertson, who so recently was an adult in the Nicholas Sparks movie, back to being a kid.

And I was in one of those theaters where they serve you food, so distractions abounded.

Hermione
06-04-2015, 01:45 AM
Ew, somehow I didn't think of that. I was too busy being hit over the head by what I thought was the message -- take better care of the world/environment now.

It was also disconcerting to see Britt Robertson, who so recently was an adult in the Nicholas Sparks movie, back to being a kid.

And I was in one of those theaters where they serve you food, so distractions abounded.

I didn't take that away. Remember, Frank said that they were about to share Tomorrowland with the world before it all went to pot, so one would assume that with Tomorrowland back on track, those plans would also be back on track. All the talk at the end was about making the world, OUR world, a better place, not escaping it.

Generally, I rather liked it. I really like the message that both hope and despair are self-fulfilling prophecies--which wolf do you feed? It's a shame that a movie with a message like that (and, ironically, an "enough-with-the-dystopias-already" message) has to struggle while the dystopias and disaster flicks are thriving.

But there was one change I'd have made:

Maybe it's my affection for Hugh Laurie talking, or a desire to have seen him stretch his considerable talents more here, but I'd have made him less overtly villainous--taking the blood from his hands, perhaps, by having his androids memory-wipe rather than kill cops and guards. There are those who saw Nix as more tragic and misguided and thought that if the point of the movie was hope, it should have included him as well.

More to the point--it's clear the audience (before the reveal about Athena's nature) was meant to think she was Nix's daughter. Well, what if the movie had taken that and run with it? Have her call him "Daddy" from the get-go, and have him show her real love and affection even though he's stern and dismissive with Frank. Then, after Frank's snuck into Tomorrowland, Nix is still reluctant to have Frank there, until his daughter's pleading turns him around. It's clear that he can deny her nothing, and we see evidence of his love for her throughout--he's relieved and overjoyed to have her home safely again. He'd have some expository dialogue later in the film about how he designed this first android with a mixture of his own features and his late wife's, in her memory, so as to make her the child they longed for but could never have. That he considers her his beloved daughter, robot or no robot--a contrast to Frank's attitude.

If they'd done this, established this, built on this idea instead of letting it drop--then, at the end, when Athena takes the shot Nix meant for Frank (his extremism driving him to murder, as well as the belief that Frank turned her against him) then it would have been DEVASTATING. And would have led to an EPIC My God What Have I Done moment for Nix, as he realized, too late, that "feeding the wrong wolf" had led him to destroy the one person in the world that he loved. Athena, in her last speeches, would have expressed forgiveness for her father and told him "it's not too late."

So that could have meant his redemption, as he takes part in the speech at the end and tells the recruits never to give up hope, since his doing so "cost me more than I will ever be able to say." That way, the negativity that is the movie's REAL villain is still personified in Nix, but even for someone as far gone as him, it's not too late.

jsc1953
06-04-2015, 10:28 AM
Hermione, you're already a better writer than Lindelof. :)

I was surprised that the happy ending didn't include the reveal of Athena 2.0. (Like the new Groot at the end of Guardians of the Galaxy). Which would've been cheap and emotionally manipulative, but it's not like the film was above such things.

The Tooth
06-04-2015, 10:34 AM
So I saw it last night against my better judgement. And it was pretty terrible. The story is mess, the cg was distracting, the characters weren't compelling (mostly), and the whole thing was a lot more childish than I was expecting.

The best thing I can say is the overall idea is decent, but executed horribly

There you have it. I saw it too and found it disappointingly thin. I was still waiting for the third act to start when the credits rolled.

Ranchoth
06-10-2015, 05:37 AM
A late—probably too-late, regrettably. :( —input from me, but I saw it last week, and I rather enjoyed it. Quite charming. There are a few dents I'd probably try and hammer out, if it were up to me, but that's true of anything.

Alessan
06-10-2015, 06:00 AM
There's an interesting article (http://io9.com/no-tomorrowland-isnt-really-an-optimistic-movie-1710146704)on the movie's false "optimism" in today's io9:

On the surface? Sure. Tomorrowland has an optimistic wrapper around its pessimistic core. The surface message of Tomorrowland is, “Remember when we used to believe in the future?” And all of its most beautiful imagery is in the service of retro-futurism, recalling the Jetsons aesthetic that signified “futuristic wonder” 50 years ago. Jetpacks! Cool robots! Spaceships! Walkways! Blue skies! It was so cool, and now everything is just emo.

But that’s part of the problem — nostalgia for optimism isn’t optimism. Optimism means looking at the world we have today, and saying that we can make it better. Optimism includes pointing to all the actual reasons in today’s world to be hopeful.

---

Nostalgia is closer to being optimism’s enemy than its friend. Nostalgia is a fundamentally regressive, non-constructive sentiment. Geek culture, and by extension the activities that geeks are engaging in, are overloaded with nostalgia for futures that didn’t pan out, and images that we loved decades ago. We don’t need more nostalgia.

---

But that’s not the main reason why Tomorrowland, in its heart, is pessimistic.

The real problem is, Tomorrowland is a deeply misanthropic film that believes that people are sheep, apart from a few “dreamers” like Casey (Britt Robertson). There’s an early montage where Casey is the only one in her school who keeps asking “how do we fix it,” while the other slack-jawed students listen to the teachers drone about all the reasons we’re doomed. Casey gets singled out by the cute robot girl because she, alone, still wants to make the world better.

And the actual plot of Tomorrowland is also incredibly negative, in almost every way. Tomorrowland itself is defined by what it isn’t — it’s a place without politics and bureaucracy, so you can actually create innovation without the stupid regular people getting in the way. (So, basically, John Galt’s happy place.) This ignores the fact that we didn’t land people on the Moon thanks to rugged individualism, but rather thanks to a massive government bureaucracy. At one point, Frank (George Clooney) says that there was a plan to open up Tomorrowland to everyone — but when Frank gets the chance, he still decides to open it up only to the select few.

---

I don’t think you can be that pessimistic about human nature, while still claiming to be optimistic, in the abstract. It also misses the main point of the 1960s Space Age shininess this movie claims to be pining for. Back in the 1960s, optimism about our future and faith in human nature were intertwined. Humanism was a huge part of the can-do spirit, and the notion that people can rise above, and the potential for greatness is inside all of us, is preached in dozens of classic Star Trek episodes. It’s pretty much THE philosophy of the Space Age.



I basically agree with that. In my eyes, Mad Max: Fury Road was in many ways a far more optimistic movie than Tomorrowland.

Bryan Ekers
06-11-2015, 04:20 PM
The motivation of the antagonist was poorly thought out. One aspect of the ending, though, is that I can imagine headlines about hundreds of creative people killed when they walked into traffic while under the impression they were standing in a wheat field.

jsc1953
06-11-2015, 04:28 PM
The motivation of the antagonist was poorly thought out. One aspect of the ending, though, is that I can imagine headlines about hundreds of creative people killed when they walked into traffic while under the impression they were standing in a wheat field.

Transport to and from Tomorrowland seemed to be a bit...uh, variable. Frank as a kid got there via the It's a Small World ride, with just some minor turbulence. But to get back, they had to get launched into outer space from the Eiffel Tower. Returning from Tomorrowland to our plane was just a matter of walking through a door.

Did Casey actually visit when she touched the coin? Or was the "advertising pitch" she saw just a hallucination?

Bryan Ekers
06-11-2015, 04:52 PM
Transport to and from Tomorrowland seemed to be a bit...uh, variable. Frank as a kid got there via the It's a Small World ride, with just some minor turbulence. But to get back, they had to get launched into outer space from the Eiffel Tower. Returning from Tomorrowland to our plane was just a matter of walking through a door.

Did Casey actually visit when she touched the coin? Or was the "advertising pitch" she saw just a hallucination?

I gather getting to Tomorrowland is easy, if Tomorrowland invites you.

Tomorrowland was starting to look pretty rough, though, probably much like the 1964 World's Fair site - weathered, largely forgotten, long past its heyday... I was mentally rewriting the movie as I was watching it and thought it would work better if the Hugh Laurie character was the last human in Tomorrowland and he was surrounded by robots that had started to go a bit squirrely in their compulsion to only let the "right" people into Tomorrowland, with the result being the gradual exiling of the human population (including Frank) and no invites extended to replacements. Athena, the only still-functional bot from 1964, is bucking the system.

I could give it some thought, I'm sure there are numerous ways to doctor the script into coherence.

Ranchoth
06-11-2015, 06:08 PM
To be honest...I actually thought that io9 review was "protesting too much." Like it was bit of a reaction against the film's undertone of "endlessly droning about how horrible and problematic things are won't galvanize people to work against the problems, it ends up causing malaise and fatalism."

Y'know, not that I'm implying I think any political or social creed fashionably overindulges in that sort of thing. :D ;)

TroutMan
06-11-2015, 06:26 PM
Did Casey actually visit when she touched the coin? Or was the "advertising pitch" she saw just a hallucination?
It was a "hallucination", thus the bit about walking into walls and the lake.

I had the same thought as Bryan Ekers - not everyone is going to survive the advertising pitch.

Strassia
06-12-2015, 10:14 AM
Just got back from seeing it. Has a very anti-Rand theme to it at one point. The main point of the movie, which is spoiled in the trailors, is that the pin gives the bearer a glimpse at the future world, is selectively or was supposed to be selectively seeded to certain individuals. I think this was the point of the movie, in terms of audience viewing.

In a few years, I think it will end up getting more sympathetic reviews, regardless of the numbers that its pulling now.

Plus it had a star wars trailer.

Declan

I've seen it.


It is the most spectacular after school special ever!


I enjoyed the actors but the story is so paper thin. Of course it is an Ayn Rand novel complete with the very late long monologue. Tomorrowland is a place where only the 'exceptional people' go and non-exceptional people make it bad.

but the young girl has 'hope' and that saves the day!!! ugh

I didn't take that away. Remember, Frank said that they were about to share Tomorrowland with the world before it all went to pot, so one would assume that with Tomorrowland back on track, those plans would also be back on track. All the talk at the end was about making the world, OUR world, a better place, not escaping it.


Saw it yesterday with my kids. I had hope at first. Until the end, it looked like they were going with a failed Galt's Gulch that would teach them to take better care of world etc. But there big plan at the end to save the world is to pull out all the people actually doing that. What was their eventual plan? Build up an all powerful tomorrow land and then take over the world as a benevolent over-class? Infiltrate world governments and industries with their advanced tech and rule from the shadows?

The whole idea of of Tomorrowland seems to be to drain the most talented and dedicated individuals from the world and put them to work making Tomorrowland better. In the world of the movie that had been going on for almost 100 years before it shut down. Think what that would mean for world progress and politics. No wonder the world was in such bad shape. Every innovator disappeared forever or came back as jaded and pessimistic misanthrope.

John Bredin
06-12-2015, 11:19 AM
Saw it yesterday with my kids. I had hope at first. Until the end, it looked like they were going with a failed Galt's Gulch that would teach them to take better care of world etc. But there big plan at the end to save the world is to pull out all the people actually doing that. What was their eventual plan? Build up an all powerful tomorrow land and then take over the world as a benevolent over-class? Infiltrate world governments and industries with their advanced tech and rule from the shadows?

The whole idea of of Tomorrowland seems to be to drain the most talented and dedicated individuals from the world and put them to work making Tomorrowland better. In the world of the movie that had been going on for almost 100 years before it shut down. Think what that would mean for world progress and politics. No wonder the world was in such bad shape. Every innovator disappeared forever or came back as jaded and pessimistic misanthrope.I got the impression that Tomorrowlanders didn't make a mostly-one-way trip, like pre-Jet Age emigrants to the New World, or withdraw from the "real world" but commuted back and forth regularly. The capsule Frank used to arrive from the World's Fair was a pastiche of a New York subway car of the same era, implying the trip was as common as riding the subway. The 19th-Century founders (Verne et al.) at the Eiffel Tower were real people who didn't disappear a la Galt's Gulch.

My impression was that they'd live in both worlds, use Tomorrowland as a retreat or safe haven where the creative can work without interference and in cooperation with the like-minded, and then bring their creations back to the outside world to the benefit of humankind. IMHO, the implication of having Victorian-era innovators as the founders of Tomorrowland was that the accelerated technological innovation since the Victorian age was (in the universe of the movie) the result of Tomorrowland.

Strassia
06-12-2015, 05:04 PM
I got the impression that Tomorrowlanders didn't make a mostly-one-way trip, like pre-Jet Age emigrants to the New World, or withdraw from the "real world" but commuted back and forth regularly. The capsule Frank used to arrive from the World's Fair was a pastiche of a New York subway car of the same era, implying the trip was as common as riding the subway. The 19th-Century founders (Verne et al.) at the Eiffel Tower were real people who didn't disappear a la Galt's Gulch.

My impression was that they'd live in both worlds, use Tomorrowland as a retreat or safe haven where the creative can work without interference and in cooperation with the like-minded, and then bring their creations back to the outside world to the benefit of humankind. IMHO, the implication of having Victorian-era innovators as the founders of Tomorrowland was that the accelerated technological innovation since the Victorian age was (in the universe of the movie) the result of Tomorrowland.
The way it seemed to me was that some of that accelerated progress was to get to tomorrowland, after which the normal world stagnated. Tomorrowland was hundreds of years ahead of where we are now. 90% of all advacement and progress was happening and staying in Tommorrowland.

Best Topics: cyfin gas shave minimizing lotion kava euphoria lysol mold killer nemo american dad papi cops shit tv wwii zippo lighter carnival bell girl with overbite supply conductor submissive pet names neck won't crack reusing foodsaver bags goofball drug kitten trump fuck itunes opposable digits tout suite translation pitching woo mild insults library checkout card bender slang poppy spanish slang amtrak cafe pico and sepulveda huh huh haaa overhead toilet contra points bender explains irony chiropractic vibrator sod farming preemies grunting how to make a soda can bong phil and claire dunphy can caffeine be absorbed through skin daylight savings and birth control fallout 4 high school how to find out if someone is in hospital how to fix a leaking plastic water pipe joint cows stuck in cattle guards salutation to whom it may concern record video from vga output am i being watched by a private investigator how to attach paper to fabric dentist deep cleaning necessary avery 3 x 5 index cards can ship captains officiate weddings car will not shift into park why do tetanus shots hurt so much everytime i go to town somebody kicked my dog around unique egg rolls recipe can lava melt steel office chair casters for thick carpet how to get toilet seat off mailing without return address schick silk effects discontinued opening eyes underwater with contacts how to sterilize a needle how to make my beard white is it illegal to kill your dog two by two hands of blue firefly soul vs r&b 70s vs 80s music