Not really a great sci-fi movie, but great in a lot of other ways - Ad Astra (2019) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

But none of those things can overcome the complete ridiculousness of the moon pirates. Sorry but that whole sequence alone moves the whole movie into Plan 9 territory. How the fuck can anyone accept that on a place like the moon the governments of the world would allow pirates to set up shop? The fact that you have limited food, water and air would make eliminating any rogue group of people as easy as shooting ducks in a barrel. You could accept a crew going rogue but as soon as it happened the people in control of the moon would simply cut off their air, water, food and that would be that... Instead we get some ridiculous Smokey and the Bandit style chase on the moon in moon buggies... At that point you can no longer take anything seriously in the movie.

reply

[–] HillbillyIdol (20) 4 years ago

I totally agree with that moon pirate scene being pretty lame. My guess is that the producers after watching a rough cut of the movie said that this movie is too slow for the regular audience, that it need a action sequence to spark things up. And voila, this scene was just included and put in.
The only thing that can even remotely justify this scene, is that it was said in one of the scenes before McBride got to the moon something about the moon beeing a place without any borders and that normal laws didnt apply there or something like that.
But to go from there and suddenly show a moon buggy chase between soldiers and moon pirates is pretty far stretched.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4143) 4 years ago

Moon Pirates it just shows are Humans we would resort back to our ways that's a realistic take how much more logic can you get motive was there

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Well the problem is a moon pirate without an actual space ship for leaving the moon is pretty much like a pirate stranded on a tiny rock island in the ocean where the ocean has no fish... A moon pirate would die from a lack of water and oxygen, it is just a matter of which would they die from first. These moon pirates defied logic.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

Who said the pirates do not have a spaceship? They could have had an entire base somewhere in a crater offscreen after all.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Just think logically. The moon has no air, has not water hasn't a fucking thing you need to live... if some group of astronauts from any country with a base on the moon decided to breakaway it would take what, all of a 12 gauge of 00 buck shot aimed at them to eliminate them from the uprising? No country that had spent the billions it would take to set up a base on the moon would ever allow pirates to exist on the moon. They would be hunted down and eliminated post hast.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

there may have been some legal considerations with regards to elimitating their base. For example if the pirates were in the russian part of the moon the russians may consider it a declaration of war but would allow pirates to act because they hurt the americans and not russians? We saw such setups with pirates in the seas in our history.

reply

[–] twhite (47) 2 years ago

Watching the movie now, they explained that the moon pirates are supported by other countries. I took it mean we were only seeing the American base and there were other countries with setups on the moon that harbored the pirates.

reply

[–] mobocracy (845) 2 years ago

I think the moon pirates concept kind of depends on how big the lunar colonies are. If the lunar colonies are large and spread out, it means the outside supplies are brought in bulk and distributed, which is an opening for the moon pirates to steal supplies. It could also be that they have insiders helping them, too. The whole psychological health thing they always refer to could mean that people get sympathetic to the moon pirates.

Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy has a kind of "moon pirate" concept. Mars gets colonized, but as the colony grows, so does resistance to the UN space command on Earth. The UN ultimately cracks down and forces the resistance underground, and part of their survival involves stealing supplies from mining operations and other outposts.

The depiction of it here is ridiculous, though, as its more "Mad Max" than anything else. You'd kind of presume that lunar pirates would be more like spies or some kind of secret underground, not dune buggy raiders.

reply

[–] ATG6 (3000) 4 years ago

Unfortunately, it WAS a sci-fi movie. And the sci-fi ranged from improbable to laughable. The scenery was fine and the actors were good with what they had, but it was BORING.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

Well, theres hard sci-fi and theres soft sci-fi. If we classify such fantasy movies like Star Wars as sci-fi i dont see why we cant classify this one.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4044) 4 years ago

The only thing good about it was the way it looked, and that's because the director insisted on shooting on film.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

The film grain was so horrible though... Especially on the 4k blu-ray, it looked like i was watching someones bad movie theater camera recording because of all the flickering from the film grain.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4044) 4 years ago

Film grain is a natural property of film, and it's where all the image detail lies. Using heavy DNR to get rid of the film grain results in a low-detail waxy look, which sucks hard. Prominent examples of the ridiculous wax museum look are Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace Blu-ray and the new Terminator 2 4K Blu-ray.

"Especially on the 4k blu-ray, it looked like i was watching someones bad movie theater camera recording because of all the flickering from the film grain."

Film grain doesn't flicker, and it looks nothing like a bootleg "shitcam" recording of a movie. Film grain is beautiful; you just need a different display. LCDs tend to make film grain look bad. Try a DLP projector or a CRT (direct-view or projector).

Movies shot on film aren't supposed to look like YouTube videos, which is what they look like if you eliminate the film grain.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

Yes, film grain is unfornatelly part of the film and it makes the image look like a flickering mess. This is why you film in high resolution to prevent the lack of details but get rid of that shitty flickering.

>Film grain is beautiful

ok now i know im talking with an insane person.

>LCDs tend to make film grain look bad. Try a DLP projector or a CRT (direct-view or projector).

I dont own a private movie theater, thanks.

>Movies shot on film aren't supposed to look like YouTube videos, which is what they look like if you eliminate the film grain.

Yes, they are supposed to look supierior, but film grain prevents that.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4044) 4 years ago

"Yes, film grain is unfornatelly part of the film and it makes the image look like a flickering mess. This is why you film in high resolution to prevent the lack of details but get rid of that shitty flickering."

You're an idiot, and probably a Millennial, or even worse, a Zoomer. Film grain doesn't flicker; any "flickering" you think you're seeing is an artifact created by your shitty glorified calculator screen that you're watching it on. And film still offers the highest resolution for shooting a movie. 15p/70mm negatives resolve to about 18K resolution.

"ok now i know im talking with an insane person."

Every major movie ever made, from the beginning of movie making until about 2000 (and the vast majority of them until about the early 2010s), was shot on film and displayed on film, which means they all had film grain. So according to you, no movie ever looked good until ~20 years ago. LOL at that, and LOL at you too, you know, while I'm at it.

"I dont own a private movie theater, thanks."

That's your problem.

"Yes, they are supposed to look supierior, but film grain prevents that."

No, removing film grain is what makes them look like YouTube videos, as I already said. Also, movies shot on video inherently have video noise, which is similar to film grain, except, it's ugly. To get the waxy look that dumbasses love, you need to apply heavy DNR to it regardless of whether it was shot on film or video. Or, in the case of YouTube and similar video streaming sites, heavy compression, which inherently eliminates film grain or video noise (and all the details those contain) due to not having enough bitrate to reproduce them.

Daniel Craig, who plays James Bond in Spectre, agrees. “Film is so much more beautiful than digital; it gives so many more textures and variations. I don’t know very much, but the amount of work that goes into working on digital to make it look like film after the event seems like a great waste of time. Why not just shoot on film?”

Many of today’s filmmakers still embrace film. In 2014, Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and J.J. Abrams helped negotiate a deal with Kodak to keep film manufacturing going; Abrams is shooting the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens in film. Even when working with digital, filmmakers try to mimic the look and feel of analog. While Hollywood has gone digital for most things, it hasn’t done away with film just yet.

But you don't want textures and variations, do you? You want wax (lol), like you see on YouTube and TV broadcasts.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

Being able to see does not make one an idiot or a millenial, mate. Altrough Zoomers likely do have better eyesight than you do.

And film still offers the highest resolution for shooting a movie. 15p/70mm negatives resolve to about 18K resolution.

They dont. 70mm resolves to a range of resolutions based on the camera used (and quality of film to support it) ranging around 4k, but not achieving 8k in any practical use.

Every major movie ever made, from the beginning of movie making until about 2000 (and the vast majority of them until about the early 2010s), was shot on film and displayed on film, which means they all had film grain. So according to you, no movie ever looked good until ~20 years ago. LOL at that, and LOL at you too, you know, while I'm at it.

Dude did you really just tried to claim that old film stock looks good? Truly insane.

No, removing film grain is what makes them look like YouTube videos, as I already said.

So, better?

Also, movies shot on video inherently have video noise, which is similar to film grain, except, it's ugly.

Why would anyone shoot on tape nowadays when digital is superior and cheaper? And it does not have either film grain nor video noise to boot!

Or, in the case of YouTube and similar video streaming sites, heavy compression, which inherently eliminates film grain or video noise (and all the details those contain) due to not having enough bitrate to reproduce them.

It is truly unfortunate that the only private video available to purchase seems to be of either lower bitrate than even those streaming sites or using terrible compression (like the MPEG2 Blu-rays) that despite having higher bitrate still offer lower quality.

But you don't want textures and variations, do you?

Ah yes, the fake noise from poor filming aparratus is such important part of the textures.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4044) 4 years ago

"Being able to see does not make one an idiot or a millenial, mate. Altrough Zoomers likely do have better eyesight than you do."

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"They dont. 70mm resolves to a range of resolutions based on the camera used (and quality of film to support it) ranging around 4k, but not achieving 8k in any practical use."

You don't know what you're talking about (which isn't a surprise, coming from an established idiot). 35mm negatives resolve to over 4K, and 15p/70mm negatives are way bigger. This is from a source that does know what it's talking about:

According to IMAX, 35mm film has a digital equivalent of 6000 lines of horizontal resolution (6K), while 70mm film has the equivalent of 18,000 lines of digital resolution

The IMAX version of 70mm is 15p, which is the biggest 70mm format.

"Dude did you really just tried to claim that old film stock looks good?"

It looks awesome, especially late '60s and early '70s. You're not qualified to say anything about it, because you're an established idiot who thinks over-compressed waxy YouTube videos look good, and you admittedly watch movies on an LCD screen.

"Truly insane."

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"So, better?"

LOL at you (again).

"Why would anyone shoot on tape nowadays when digital is superior and cheaper? And it does not have either film grain nor video noise to boot!"

Once again you've publicly declared that you don't know what you're talking about. I never said anything about tape, nor is the storage medium even relevant. Both digital and analog video can be stored on tape, and all video inherently has video noise. If there is no video noise then it was removed by DNR and/or heavy compression.

"Ah yes, the fake noise from poor filming aparratus is such important part of the textures."

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Film grain isn't "fake noise," nor is it caused by a "poor filming apparatus." It is an inherent part of film:

Film grain or granularity is the random optical texture of processed photographic film due to the presence of small particles of a metallic silver, or dye clouds, developed from silver halide that have received enough photons.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

Film grain is a sideeffect of not having the film be perfect. Its a downside. your repeated insistence on nonsense is boring.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4044) 4 years ago

Film grain is an inherent property of film, simpleton, in the same way that "wet" is an inherent property of water. In any case, since you didn't actually address anything I said, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

Yes, its an inherent inperfection of film. Its a downside of using film as a medium to film on.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4044) 4 years ago

No, it's an upside. It's a large part of what makes a movie look like a movie rather than a cheap video. Why do you think there are companies that sell film grain overlays for use on top of video?

https://www.rgrain.com/#page-section-5e27c2e900949e3e2537b6c1

I suppose you prefer a poster print to an original painting on canvas too, you know, because of all those "imperfections" in the surface of the canvas.

In any case, your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted. Remember when you said, for example, that 70mm film only resolves to about 4K (LOL)?

reply

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

a mistake, failure to correctly display what was in the set, is an upside.

You are crazy.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4044) 4 years ago

"a mistake, failure to correctly display what was in the set"

That's like saying that a painting is a mistake, because it doesn't look like real life. LOL at that, and LOL at you too, you know, while I'm at it.

For the record, there's no such thing as a visual recording medium which "correctly displays what was in the set." If there were, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between watching a movie and looking out your window. Film makes for a better looking "canvas" than video does, and most of the best cinematography and still-photography throughout history has used film.

"You are crazy."

You're an idiot, and your tacit concession remains noted.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

It is all about getting into Brad Pitt's character's head, but the way they did it was pretty slow, silly, not very science-fictiony and kind of dumb. If I can ignore all that the second half that I am in the middle of now is kind of picking up. After he meets Ruth Negga.

I don't think the effects are very good myself. They are alright. For instance when they go to rescue the ship they have these astronauts traveling through what is basically deep space. You would think they would want to be much close to the station. Then, when they go to the moon and land you have a spaceship going probably up to hundreds of miles per hour coming right down in the middle of the moon base. Seems to me they would probably build the landing pad farther away from the moon base in case of disabled landings or crashed, and connected with a tube or underground tunnel.

reply