PDA

View Full Version : Cowboys vs Aliens: did this come from our very own...



swampyankee
2011-Jul-26, 02:09 AM
"Please, please, no" thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/74195-Please-Please-No!!)?

Because if it did, BAUT should be getting royalties, because somebody in Hollywood has been trolling for ideas ;)

Swift
2011-Jul-26, 02:29 AM
Well, it seems only fair, since the news media trolls Untrue Facts! (!!!) for content. :D

Gillianren
2011-Jul-26, 05:39 AM
I've read that they want us to take the movie seriously. They are out of luck.

grapes
2011-Jul-26, 06:26 AM
"Please, please, no" thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/74195-Please-Please-No!!)?

Because if it did, BAUT should be getting royalties, because somebody in Hollywood has been trolling for ideas ;)Ackk there are 51 pages there, which post?

ggremlin
2011-Jul-26, 07:33 AM
I'm fairly sure that Scy-Fy, auto scans the thread for new movie titles and is the logical source for some adult-themed titles :)

And no they haven't got around to paying for it yet.

Jim
2011-Jul-26, 12:27 PM
I've read that they want us to take the movie seriously. They are out of luck.

Oh, c'mon! James Bond meets Indiana Jones with the hot bi-sexual doctor from House thrown in? How can you not take that seriously?

Actually, I think what they mean is that it shouldn't be considered camp. It should be taken as seriously as, well, James Bond and Indiana Jones.

Fazor
2011-Jul-26, 02:06 PM
To be honest, I want to see it. I think it looks awesome, and not in an ironically bad way. But the weather is supposed to be nice this weekend (well, as nice as 90+ degrees with ~100% humidity can be) so I'll probably be planning outdoor activities rather than seeing a movie. Maybe a late-night viewing though.

Garrison
2011-Jul-26, 02:16 PM
And if you want to know what other strange combos Hollywood may be planning try this Cracked article(as with almost all Cracked articles there may be stuff that's NSFW, especially in the comments):

32 Insane Movie Ideas Built Out of Existing Movie Titles (http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_226_32-insane-movie-ideas-built-out-existing-movie-titles_p32/)

Frankly I would pay good money to see most of these, especially number #31. :)

Gillianren
2011-Jul-26, 03:19 PM
Oh, c'mon! James Bond meets Indiana Jones with the hot bi-sexual doctor from House thrown in? How can you not take that seriously?

Actually, I think what they mean is that it shouldn't be considered camp. It should be taken as seriously as, well, James Bond and Indiana Jones.

Yes. They're still out of luck. When I saw the trailer the first time, there was the standard muttering in the (completely packed) theatre about who wanted to see it and who didn't, and then the title came up, and pretty much everyone in the theatre burst out laughing.

Fazor
2011-Jul-26, 04:05 PM
Yes. They're still out of luck. When I saw the trailer the first time, there was the standard muttering in the (completely packed) theatre about who wanted to see it and who didn't, and then the title came up, and pretty much everyone in the theatre burst out laughing.

Tsk tsk. And if everyone else in the movie theater saw the title card and then jumped off a bridge, would that also mean it's a bad movie? Sure it was hard not to laugh at the title when it ambushed you with it's apparent stupidity. But it's a movie about wild west cowboys fighting tech-sling'n aliens. The title is unabashedly blunt. Any movie that's soo cool that they need not bother with a clever title has to be awesome, right?

mike alexander
2011-Jul-26, 04:20 PM
I certainly intend to watch. After all, a REALLY advanced alien wouldn't care if it was 1877 or 2012, we'd still be centuries behind technologically.

And, of course, there was that incident in Ansby, Lincolnshire in 1345...

Gillianren
2011-Jul-26, 04:37 PM
Tsk tsk. And if everyone else in the movie theater saw the title card and then jumped off a bridge, would that also mean it's a bad movie? Sure it was hard not to laugh at the title when it ambushed you with it's apparent stupidity. But it's a movie about wild west cowboys fighting tech-sling'n aliens. The title is unabashedly blunt. Any movie that's soo cool that they need not bother with a clever title has to be awesome, right?

Have you ever seen the old SNL sketch about "With a name like Smucker's, it has to be good"?

And the thing is, I have now seen that trailer, I don't know, five or six times. It is very much not my thing. But Graham will probably go see it without me.

Garrison
2011-Jul-26, 04:37 PM
I certainly intend to watch. After all, a REALLY advanced alien wouldn't care if it was 1877 or 2012, we'd still be centuries behind technologically.

And, of course, there was that incident in Ansby, Lincolnshire in 1345...

When I first heard the title I assumed this would be some sort of B-movie, then I saw the trailer for the first time and saw who was in it and the premise and I couldn't wait to go see it. And I'm thinking Ansby is 'The High Crusade'? Maybe that's another reason why I wasn't fazed by the premise, I've read quite a few books with that sort of anachronistic theme, and cowboys v aliens isn't necessarily the weirdest.

Fazor
2011-Jul-26, 05:50 PM
Have you ever seen the old SNL sketch about "With a name like Smucker's, it has to be good"?

No, but I assume it's the same kind of tongue-in-cheek attitude that my post should be taken with. Not that I'm at all sarcastic about wanting to see it -- I very much do. I just don't have a good argument for why anyone who thinks it looks stupid shouldn't think that.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jul-26, 06:15 PM
Is this the prequel to a ST-ENT episode (http://www.startrek.com/database_article/north-star1) where the aliens are known as Skagarans?
(I hope I didn't give away the ending) :whistle:

Githyanki
2011-Jul-26, 06:29 PM
Frazor, theaters have A/C.

I for one, am looking forward to seeing that movie. It's a movie about aliens and can be no worse than War of the Worlds or Starship Troopers.

Gillianren
2011-Jul-26, 07:13 PM
No, but I assume it's the same kind of tongue-in-cheek attitude that my post should be taken with. Not that I'm at all sarcastic about wanting to see it -- I very much do. I just don't have a good argument for why anyone who thinks it looks stupid shouldn't think that.

Fair enough! (The sketch is from the first cast, I'm not sure exactly what year, and points out how stupid a slogan it really is by suggesting progressively worse names for brands of jam. It's really funny.)

mike alexander
2011-Jul-26, 07:55 PM
Yes, I was thinking of "The High Crusade"; or maybe Dickson's stories such as "In the Bone", "Danger:Human," or the masterful "On Messenger Mountain."

And a minor correction. It is "Cowboys and Aliens."

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-26, 08:20 PM
It's a movie about aliens and can be no worse than War of the Worlds or Starship Troopers.
Being on fire is no worse than watching War of the Worlds or Starship Troopers. Aren't really saying much.

Gillianren
2011-Jul-26, 08:22 PM
I actually kind of like Starship Troopers . . . .

CJSF
2011-Jul-26, 08:40 PM
I actually kind of like Starship Troopers . . . .

....gets out the duck weighing equipment ;-P

I assumed that this movie isn't taking itself too seriously, based on one of the trailers I saw. Based on the other, I have to agree with mike alexander. We have movies like Skyline, "ID4," and the like. If we assume, for a story's sake, aliens are coming in 2011 or 1996, why not in the 1870s? I think it looks like great fun. The kind of story my dad would laugh at and say, "It's a true story!" when I was a kid.

CJSF

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-26, 08:45 PM
I liked the George Pal version of War of the Worlds, and the original story. I liked the novel Starship Troopers, though there are other Heinlein novels I like more. The movie was pretty horrible, not surprising given that Verhoeven admitted he didn't read the novel.

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-26, 08:53 PM
....gets out the duck weighing equipment ;-P

I assumed that this movie isn't taking itself too seriously, based on one of the trailers I saw. Based on the other, I have to agree with mike alexander. We have movies like Skyline, "ID4," and the like. If we assume, for a story's sake, aliens are coming in 2011 or 1996, why not in the 1870s? I think it looks like great fun. The kind of story my dad would laugh at and say, "It's a true story!" when I was a kid.

CJSF


Right, they could have called it "Battle: Santa Fe" or "Invasion: 1870" or something, but would that make a big difference? We have fantasy, skiffy and superhero movies right and left. If you don't laugh at a title like "Spiderman," "Batman" etc. it's probably only because you're familiar with the character.

swampyankee
2011-Jul-26, 08:56 PM
Frazor, theaters have A/C.

I for one, am looking forward to seeing that movie. It's a movie about aliens and can be no worse than War of the Worlds or Starship Troopers.

When it's 90F and 90% humidity, airconditioning will make up for a lot of sins. On the other hand, I live near the beach ;)

Oh, and I'm sure it can be worse than either War of the Worlds or Starship Troopers, but then, I tend to be somewhat pessimistic.

Gillianren
2011-Jul-27, 02:53 AM
....gets out the duck weighing equipment ;-P

Hey, at least I've never claimed it was a good movie.

Ronald Brak
2011-Jul-27, 05:53 AM
Starship Troopers is a great movie. It's just so - Dutch!

The book is not so good. There's hardly enough cheese in it to cover a pizza, let alone span a galaxy. (The Puppet Masters - now that was a good book. Cheese, paranoia and action mixed together on top of a crisp, flakey base of 1950's unwholesomeness...)

Anyway, anyone familiar with, "Night of the Living Cooters?" I hope I got the title right. It's about Cowboys versus H.G. Wells aliens.

SkepticJ
2011-Jul-28, 04:02 AM
It's actually based upon a graphic novel from a few years ago.

I don't know what's wrong with you people, when I first saw the previews, a big grin spread across my face.

SkepticJ
2011-Jul-28, 04:08 AM
The problem with Starship Troopers, the novel, is that it's freakin' boring. It has monumentally cool ideas for the time, and it doesn't really do anything with them.

Too bad Heinlein didn't write it as a novel for adults, because he certainly had talent for stories when he didn't have to censor himself.

parallaxicality
2011-Jul-28, 06:35 AM
It's actually based upon a graphic novel from a few years ago.

Actually, the graphic novel was based on it, sortof. The movie started out as a title in search of a concept. The comic was a dry run to see if the concept worked.


I don't know what's wrong with you people, when I first saw the previews, a big grin spread across my face.

Me too! Though I think most people on this thread want to see it.

Noclevername
2011-Aug-02, 02:21 PM
A potentially interesting concept in dire need of a better title.

swampyankee
2011-Aug-02, 02:37 PM
The problem with Starship Troopers, the novel, is that it's freakin' boring. It has monumentally cool ideas for the time, and it doesn't really do anything with them.

Too bad Heinlein didn't write it as a novel for adults, because he certainly had talent for stories when he didn't have to censor himself.

In contrast, I tend to find many of Heinlein's "young adult" books more enjoyable than his more "adult" books. Number of the Beast was, I thought, nearly unreadable. I do think he wrote better books than Starship Trooper; my favorite is probably Double Star.

Cougar
2011-Aug-02, 03:34 PM
I love the title. I thought this would be a good movie. It wasn't. What's wrong with moviemakers these days?

SkepticJ
2011-Aug-03, 02:39 AM
In contrast, I tend to find many of Heinlein's "young adult" books more enjoyable than his more "adult" books. Number of the Beast was, I thought, nearly unreadable. I do think he wrote better books than Starship Trooper; my favorite is probably Double Star.

Number of the Beast was written late in his career. I haven't read it, and don't plan to. I've heard it was bad before.

Stranger in a Strange Land is very good.

I just know Johnny Rico is the most boring protagonist I've ever seen, and the book is written from his point of view.

ravens_cry
2011-Aug-03, 03:22 AM
This movie sounds "awesome". Notice the quotes, what do I mean by that? What I mean is it feels like it will be a big spectacle with no substance, all flash and thunder, but nothing beneath that. Interesting, fleshed out world with characters we can care about? Who cares, we got COWBOYS verses ALIENS!
And we should care, why?

grapes
2011-Aug-03, 06:46 AM
Cowboys vs. Predators, now that'd be "awesome"

ggremlin
2011-Aug-03, 07:31 AM
Please delete last post, WE MUST NOT GIVE THEM IDEAS!

grapes
2011-Aug-03, 07:41 AM
Ha. Cro-Magnons (or, AMHs, if you prefer) vs Aliens

SkepticJ
2011-Aug-03, 07:42 AM
This movie sounds "awesome". Notice the quotes, what do I mean by that? What I mean is it feels like it will be a big spectacle with no substance, all flash and thunder, but nothing beneath that. Interesting, fleshed out world with characters we can care about? Who cares, we got COWBOYS verses ALIENS!
And we should care, why?

Why must all movies be the same? Can't we have our Fifth Elements and our Saving Private Ryans?

As long as they're entertaining, who cares? Not everything has to aspire to be high art. The world would be quite a pretentious place if so.

ravens_cry
2011-Aug-03, 03:18 PM
I am not talking about 'high art' I am talking about characters I can like, and worlds that make sense when I look away from the screen. There is a place for the Cotton Candy popcorn thriller, I like the Fifth Element, I just, don't like, gah, words fail me here.
Maybe I am getting curmudgeonly in my old age.

Gillianren
2011-Aug-03, 03:43 PM
I have decided that one of my criteria for a perfect summer blockbuster is that you can think about it if you want to, you just don't have to. It should hold up to being thought about, but if you want to (shudder) "turn your brain off," you can go right ahead and do that.

CJSF
2011-Aug-05, 07:57 PM
I saw the movie yesterday, and I liked it. A lot. It was exactly what I expected of it. I overheard one person ask, "Why cowboys?" to which I would say, "Why not?" It made for an interesting twist, and the movie wasn't at all pretentious. It was shot and composited well, I thought. It was fun, which I think was the point.

CJSF

swampyankee
2011-Aug-06, 12:44 AM
I'm hardly going to brag about my high taste in film -- I couldn't watch such award-winning fare as Babel or The Hours -- but I do think that "sci fi film" and "horrid dreck" shouldn't be synonymous. Maybe Cowboys and Aliens is really good, in an adventure movie sense, but I'm not being convinced by the advertisements I've seen on TV. Movies have just become too expensive for me to wander down to the local megaplex and plop down a medium-sized wad of dollars for a ticket, wait through a half hour of horridly loud previews, and have my shoes stick to the floor when I get up to leave.

CJSF
2011-Aug-06, 02:15 AM
I went to the local moderately sized 10 screen cinema and paid $4.00 for the last morning show. They keep the place reasonably clean, and I had to wait about 2 minutes in line (because I was too lazy to pre-buy via Fandango before I left to go to the cinema). Maybe you need a new "favorite" theater?

CJSF

swampyankee
2011-Aug-06, 02:41 AM
The theatres on the Space Coast must be a lot better than here ;)

Graybeard6
2011-Aug-06, 03:59 AM
Our theaters are probably newer than those in Connecticut, thus easier to keep clean. Also remember, we have no mud or slush to clean up and sand vacuums easily.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Aug-06, 06:50 AM
I have decided that one of my criteria for a perfect summer blockbuster is that you can think about it if you want to, you just don't have to. It should hold up to being thought about, but if you want to (shudder) "turn your brain off," you can go right ahead and do that.

Along these lines, I tend to divide all forms of entertainment into three categories:

1. Things that require you to think about them.

2. Things that don't require you to think about them but there is scope to do so if you want to.

3. Things that require you not to think.

I am fine with Type 1 now and again when I am feeling brainy, and Type 2 is more likely to hit the spot if I've had a demanding week at work. But to my mind, the majority of films and TV shows seem to be of Type 3.

grapes
2011-Aug-06, 08:48 AM
4. Things that hurt when you think about them.

astromark
2011-Aug-11, 11:27 AM
:shifty:A fitting description of the new sci fi film ; Cowboys and Aliens.

Mr Spielberg and with Harrison Ford... Oh silly me, because I thought and expected a better than this, film..

One of my favourite bits concerns the often rolled out by me assumption.

That aliens will be different. I will not argue with that.

At about two hours this film got a little slow and, fell behind the expected norm for action or story line. I wish I had not seen it. A disappointed:think::confused: and weary Mark.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Aug-11, 02:35 PM
4. Things that hurt when you think about them.

Surely a subset of 3?

Daffy
2011-Aug-11, 02:41 PM
Number of the Beast was written late in his career. I haven't read it, and don't plan to. I've heard it was bad before.

I have read "The Number of the Beast" several times and consider it to be one of Heinlein's best by far. Definitely a departure for him, and I suspect that is what threw most people. But I love it---for me an absolutely delightful read. (Just trying to identify all the literary references is great fun!) To each their own, I guess.

Gomar
2011-Aug-15, 02:06 AM
I certainly intend to watch. After all, a REALLY advanced alien wouldn't care if it was 1877 or 2012, we'd still be centuries behind technologically.

And, of course, there was that incident in Ansby, Lincolnshire in 1345...

right! Why didnt aliens visit Earth in 1615, or 824, or 350BC?
Why are all UFO sighting happening in 20c? Perhaps ifcourse aliens detected radio and TV transmissions, or signs of atom bombs, or some other type of scientific advancement that finally convinced aliens Earth is worth visiting.

Now as to how they get to Earth so fast? Well, it took old man Columbus 6 months to sail from Europe to America, it takes a jet plane 18 hours to get from NYC to Paris.
Who knows what type of tech the aliens are using that human minds cant even comprehend.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Aug-15, 10:00 AM
That's because when it happened in 1615 it wasn't seen as an alien abduction, but rather as someone who'd been out dancing with the elves.

swampyankee
2011-Aug-15, 10:58 AM
Or somebody who had been consorting with the devil. Malleus Maleficarum was still in print.

parallaxicality
2011-Aug-15, 01:17 PM
It's still in print now. Though I don't think it's as popular.

jamestox
2011-Aug-16, 04:01 PM
right! Why didnt aliens visit Earth in 1615, or 824, or 350BC?
Why are all UFO sighting happening in 20c?

Well, the premise of Quatermass and the Pit (American title: Five Million Years to Earth) was that all of Earth's human life was heavily influenced by aliens at a very ancient time, so why not? If the story and motion picture are well-done, it would be a really neat presentation!

CJSF
2011-Aug-16, 05:29 PM
Apparently I'm the only one who seems to have seen any awesome in this movie. It may be because it was just what I needed at the time (a brain vacation?), but I wonder if some were just expecting more of a movie called "Cowboys and Aliens."

CJSF