This film has many similarities to Lars Von Trier's melancholia and was released at about the same time.
Does anyone know, was either film influenced by the other or did they just happen to develop simultaneously? Links to interviews with directors etc would be very helpful.
OK, so I've half answered my own question. Cahill was clearly developing 'Another Earth' separately and in ignorance of Von Trier's film.
Director Mike Cahill was on his way to show his new movie, Another Earth, at the Sundance film festival earlier this year when he heard that its central image – the appearance of an enormous planet in the sky above ours – had effectively been scooped by another film.
"I was like, 'Whaaaat, Lars von Trier is doing a science fiction movie with another planet?'" Cahill told the Guardian. "I couldn't believe it. It was literally … It made me think there is something in the ether, a collective sort of consciousness." But Cahill was not too worried; Von Trier's Melancholia is "obviously a very different movie, and he's using the other planet as a metaphor for depression. I mean, I'm a huge Lars von Trier fan, so I was actually, I was really excited. I was like: 'I want to do what he does.'"
Another Earth is incredible and Melancholia is pretentious trash.
shareAnother Earth is incredible and Melancholia is pretentious trash.
"Another Earth" perhaps has the better script because it seems more open-ended. Although in the middle I could already predict who would get the ticket and for what reason. Melancholia also requires interpretive thinking but I reach final conclusions and nothing is left unexplained.
Melancholia wins in these aspects:
- Cathartic experience at the end
- Incredible visual effects
- Usage of Richard Wagner's music which alone is worth spending the 2 hours.
- Explains what depression can do to you through a 2 hour long metaphor.
Maybe I didn't see "Another Earth" on a good day, but it doesn't seem to succeed in making me care as much.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
share[deleted]
no, melancholia is pure art! loved it and loved kirsten dunst in it!
another earth is great aswell, so theres no trash actually.
I loved both.
Spain
steffeeric,
You are an idiot
I exist.
Totally agreed.
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
Actually, both movies are somewhat pretentious, and both movies are strong films in spite of their flaws. Each will appeal to a different kind of viewer. "Another Earth" is far more dramatically accessible and poignant, while "Melancholia" is far more formally brilliant and profound in its vision. It just comes down to personal taste and your own cup of tea, like everything in cinema. The fact that a certain type of cinema doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it trash. Von Trier's film has resonated with a great, great many viewers, and there's a legitimate reason for that, or it would not be the case.
shareI agree.
shareI also believed that "Another Earth" had a simiar feel as "Melancholia". (I didn't enjoy either movie very much. I always thought that the films were developed independently.)
In science fiction movies I want a basic story idea that moves things forward (also called a McGuffin).
In "Solaris" it is that something has gone wrong on a space station and the main character needs to investigate that.
In "2001" something is found on the moon and that leads to a mission to Jupiter.
Just having actors reacting to tragedies of life is not enough.
BB ;-)
it's just in my opinion - imo -
That a bit too broad use of the term McGuffin
shareIncorrect definition of the Hitchcock word, "McGuffin."
shareJust having actors reacting to tragedies of life is not enough.
Another Earth is about the discovery of a second Earth identical to ours in every way (there is no indication that the planets are on a collision course). Melancholia involves another planet that might ram into Earth (there is no indication that the two planets are identical and in fact the visual representation suggests that Earth is bigger than the other planet).
These movies are similar in no way other than that they involve two planets.
BE YOUR OWN FANBOY
"These movies are similar in no way other than that they involve two planets."
Visually they are strikingly similar. And the director of one of the films was struck by the similarity enough to be blown away by it (see my second post).
Right. visually, the two movies both involve two planets on the same screen. The storylines couldn't be too much different. The director you reference was blown away by the coincidence. Nothing more.
BE YOUR OWN FANBOY
You got that backwards Melancholia is much bigger than Earth.
Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid.
I AGREE!
Melanchilia its away better than Another Earth,
but I lke both movies, Melancholia its more artistic and better in the actors performance
Melancholia 10stars
Another Earth 7stars
Melancholia is one of the best films in this century and in the history of cinema.
Another Earth, is a really very good movie... but is smaller than Melancholia... as Earth 2 is smaller.
Melancholia its away better than Another Earth,
but I lke both movies, Melancholia its more artistic and better in the actors performance
Melancholia 10stars
Another Earth 7stars
FWIW, hollywood often greenlights a film because another studio has already put a film with a similar sounding premise into production. It is because hollywood is run by 5-year old children, when they see another kid has something new they all want it.
Here's one list of such twin movies, it is far from comprehensive:
http://imgur.com/a/J5j6L
That's pretty funny. I knew that sort of thing went on but when you look at the whole list, it is kind of pathetic.
Hollywood is obsessed with making money so I guess an imitation is the next best thing to a sequel. Right now of course we're getting the best (worst) of both worlds with endless superhero movies, sequels and reboots. I'm trying to figure out who kick started that, maybe Christopher Nolan with Batman?
Oh and violence seems to be selling too. I read an article recently about how most recent blockbusters were little more than extended fight scenes. Even the usually cerebral world of Star Trek turned into a long punch up near the end.
Hollywood isn't so much about making money as they are about avoiding risk -- one big failure like John Carter and a studio exec is out on his keister. I joked about the 5-year old thing, it is more of a case of "if they like the idea then it must be a safe bet." So we get knock-offs and sequels because they are perceived as low risk. They really have very little understanding of what makes for a good movie, they keep trying to turn it into a formula but they don't realize that by definition a formula can't produce creativity.
The reason for the increase in violence is that foreign sales now bring in more money than domestic sales. The US film market is still the largest single market, but add up all non-US markets and the US is a rapidly fading second place. Complexity and cultural references don't translate well so hollywood's adopted the formula of "bombs and boobs" because those things require no translation.
Roddenberry would be pissed if he saw the new star trek movie, never mind the cgi battle scenes, the portrayal of women is completely out of line with his vision. It is so bad that even one of the screenwriters ended up apologizing.
http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/23/sexy-or-sexist-how-star-trek-into-dark ness-turned-heroines-into-damsels-in-distress/
The Bechdel Test is a simple but revealing insight into hollywood sexism
http://bechdeltest.com/view/4127/star_trek_into_darkness/
Just happened at the same time. Sometimes have films released months apart that have a similar plot.
Like the two recent Snow White films. In the 90s we had two volcano films in the same year, two end-of-the-world films in the same year. Just a coincidence
http://www.youtube.com/user/RowanCharlton
I love both films. I think both are very different but beautiful stories in their own right.
.....
"No time for the old in-out,love-I'm just here to check the metre"
I think that Melancholia has great actors, is beautiful and interesting.
However, I clearly prefer Another Earth. It also has great actors, and the story touched me more than Melancholia. Further, I liked that Another Earth is more "humble" (in terms of style and music).
I think that Another Earth is a good example of what a great movie can be made with an interesting, touching story and fine actors, even if the budget is only $200,000. It's surely very high on my list of low budget movies.