MovieChat Forums > The Quiet Earth (1985) Discussion > what is it with these movies

what is it with these movies

posted 9 years ago by watterlloo
10 replies | jump to latest

The Omega Man. The Quiet Earth. I Am Legend. Etc....

All these movies tease some crap about a normal guy figuring out he's the so-called "last" man alive...cool idea.....then.....

He runs around, and finds token female (hottie), and then the premise goes straight out the window. I liken it to watching something being advertised as porn, and it ending up being about plate tectonic shifts on the Pacific rim.

I still like the movies, but keep the premise straight. OR......

Is it just that nobody, even cutting-edge directors, don't want to handle such a dramatic subject, as someone actually BEING the last human alive? Begs the question. And don't tell me about how "boring" it would be. How "exciting," exactly, was this gem? I thought so.

As a side-note, I liken this entire situation to the state of most horror films made in the USA today. They make "horror" films, but just HAVE to toss in humorous crap here and there, for so-called "comedy relief." Why? If I wanted to see comedy, I would go SEE a COMEDY. Poor audience members today....can't handle real horror and drama anymore. More dumbing-down, nanny state crap.

Let the flames begin.

"Hey, shut up in there, I'm trying to type....." OT: Do the voices in my head bother you?

[–] greg-233 9 years ago

If this film adaptation had been more faithful to the novel it was based on, it would have been much more downbeat. (For one thing, the protagonist didn't find a "hottie".)

[–] rndhyd 9 years ago

You're missing a big point. A novel & the movie are 2 different hings. There's no reason for them to be incompatible.

A film often changes things. So what?

Have you ever seen a claim "by the book"?

If you gain pleasure by reading books -- then continue; good for you. If you want it made into a movie -- verbatim (almost,variances allowed) -- then get funding & do it!

 

[–] MerovingianGoddess 9 years ago

The problem all people have with these movies is that they see themselves as being so much smarter, more apt to make better decisions, and would not have made the same mistakes as the protagonist. This makes the audience basically armchair quarterbacks, and people who boisterously promote their 20/20 hindsight when actually they had no vision at all.

In such a situation as this movie, how many of us would have just gave into our own vices and fear, and never even crawled out of the safe rabbit hole to begin with?

Merovingian Goddess
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

[–] sloveniapower1 9 years ago

Can't have films without a love interest it seems, shame.

[–] eightbitsofhorror 9 years ago

We, the audience seem to require that glimpse of hope for movies. I love the idea as well but agree seeing things as we know it just fade away in a whimper would be interesting.

[–] kiboshz 8 years ago

I'd say the biggest problem,would be Hollywood finding an actor (or actress) who has the acting chops to BE the movie. That is one hell of a tough job - to be the only person in a film and to carry every single scene.

[–] avortac4 (3751) 9 months ago

"I'd say the biggest problem,would be Hollywood finding an actor (or actress) who has the acting chops to BE the movie. That is one hell of a tough job - to be the only person in a film and to carry every single scene."

Tough job?

Why would it be tough? Isn't that what acting is supposed to be all about, to be able to tell a story or fulfill a premise believably? If hollyweird is populated with sub-par actors, that's their own fault for casting talentless hacks instead of people with talent.

If you are saying that amidst ALL actors on this planet, a powerful force like hollywtf is 100% incapable of finding a slightly-above-mediocre actor (this could pull it off just fine - look at Keanu Reeves in The Matrix or Sam Rockwell in 'Moon'), you must be delusional.

Also, why would THIS particular thing be any tougher than ANY acting job? There are plenty of people that have acted plenty of all kinds of weird situations and roles, from Spock to Data to Picard being Borg and whatnot.

Why would THIS particular role be somehow different? What makes this role somehow more difficult?

You are looking at this from some kind of weird angle, when the reality is, this is the story, these are the lines you have to say believably, this is the premise, this is the story, now act. NO PROBLEM for any actor in my opinion. Anyone that knows how to act should be able to pull off this role.

So WHAT if you have to 'carry' a movie, that's not, in acting reality, any more difficult than being the star of some other movie with other people in it. Are you saying that if you can't do dialogue with some other actor, it's somehow suddenly harder to act or get in character?

No, it isn't. You obviously haven't acted.. it doesn't matter WHAT the role is, this kind of role could actually even be EASIER than most roles, because you do NOT have to constantly be spewing dialogue and showing emotions and whatnot. You could just walk around saying nothing with a stressed-out look on your face..

[–] avortac4 (3751) 9 months ago

Wow, you are writing my thoughts somehow!

I thought I was the only one on this planet that thinks this way... hmm, wait, that sounds somehow familiar a premise.

In any case, I 100% agree with you - hollyweird just DOES NOT have the guts or talent to make a movie about any premise. They HAVE to inject the 'expected', so women would also see the movie.

Someone talked about forcefully injecting Square Dancing into every movie. So you buy pr0n, and it has square dancing section in it, EVERY single time. You watch any movie or read any story, square dancing is everywhere. This would be almost as annoying as what they are doing now, with the 'injected romance'.

There HAS to be some woman in every movie, it's pretty difficult to find movies that do not. Even the SUPER rare movies that do NOT have square dancing - which is to say, 'injected romance' - almost always have women in them. There's ONE movie I can think of that does not have a female character, but even that movie has female actors.

It's even made by a celebrated hollyweird moviemaker, if you can believe that.

We should all know it... but I will tell ya: It is, of course, 'Bad Taste', possibly from 1987, if I remember correctly.

A really goofy movie, but very funny and fun as well.

I don't mind 'comedic relief' (as I think it's called, instead of 'comedy relief') at all, because I hate horror anyway, and love comedies, so it's always welcome to me. I can't understand why anyone would WANT to watch a movie without humor, I guess that's just my nature... I just love humor, so please inject as much of that as you want.

However, 'injected romance' is what REALLY ruins pretty much EVERY SINGLE MOVIE EVER!

It's like inserting some robots in EVERY single 'chick flick', would women like that? No. Their movies are pure romance and completely robot-free, so why do OUR robot movies have to have romance every single time? IT MAKES NO SENSE!

In any case, yeah.. I am not gonna flame ya..

[–] Kementiri (57) 9 months ago

Well if you really want to watch an end of days movie go and watch Threads. When it came out in 1984 I was 17 and threat of nuclear war was pretty real during the Reagan era. Living in Canada I thought well if that movie ever came to pass I would be safe living on the west coast of Canada. A very deluded idea of course. That movie scarred me for life. It's about as real as it gets.

[–] imatosser182 (341) 8 months ago

Watching Threads was was quite a miserable experience. Not many people know this but one of the cast members is now in Coronation Street, and is a lot older.