Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans

Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans

What are peopls views on this?

Chojin wrote:Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans

What are peopls views on this?

I wish the Underworld films were good. I really, really do. Every so often I'll hear the first one is on, and I'll give it another chance. But then discover it's just as crap as it was last time.

And the second one... porn, anyone? ¬_¬

That whole sex scene was also the fakest thing I've ever seen!! He wasn't even positioned right! He was so far up her that, unless his c*ck is bent, or he was doing her with his ballsack instead; there was no way in hell he was inside her!

Sorry to be so crude, but it was sh*t. I hate sex in movies as it is, but that the worst attempt at a sex scene I have ever seen!!

I've not got any hopes for the next film, unfortunatly. I'll probably give it a chance, but I'm already prepare for the disappointment.

There was a sex scene in the second one? Since when?

Ok, so I'm not blind. It was rated 18, so mature content is expected. Just because a film has one scene of "porn", soft core I might add, doesn't mean that it should be viewed as a porn film. It was a very brief scene that actually served a purpose. It showed just how deep the connection between Michael and Selene went, inspite of the fact that she was a vampire and he was a cross-breed. It was not just a gratuitous sex scene. The movie should be taken as that, a movie, not individual scenes. As they say "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts."

Chojin wrote:There was a sex scene in the second one? Since when?

Ok, so I'm not blind. It was rated 18, so mature content is expected. Just because a film has one scene of "porn", soft core I might add, doesn't mean that it should be viewed as a porn film. It was a very brief scene that actually served a purpose. It showed just how deep the connection between Michael and Selene went, inspite of the fact that she was a vampire and he was a cross-breed. It was not just a gratuitous sex scene. The movie should be taken as that, a movie, not individual scenes. As they say "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts."

It wasn't brief at all. It was a scene that went on for ages (and then there was the other stupid scene with some guy I can't even remember and a couple of girls)!!

No, it didn't show just how deep their connection was. It was already clear. We didn't need to watch them having sex!! The scene was put in there for those horny little teenage boys, so that the film would make more money.

f*ck sake. You only have to look at what Selene is wearing to know what type of people this movie is aimed it - and that's without the sex scene!

And no, just because it's rated 18, doesn't mean we shoudl expect sex. It's not meant to be a porno!! It was meant to be a thriller/horror/fantasy. If I wanted to see sex, I'd rent a porno. Horror films are meant to be about the horror, not abuse their rating to add sex just because it sells to horny little wankers.

I'm also not basing the movie on just that part. Both the movies were boring. Underworld had so much potential. But they screwed it up completely. I based both movies on them each as a whole (why do you think I even bothered to watch the second when I already knew about it's stupidly long and un-needed sex scene).

Also, it's funny how you say it's "not just a gratuitous sex scene"... every review I've read regarding that scene describes as just that. XD

But yeah, seriously, both the past movies failed. They were boring, and aimed at the wrong crowd. Had they actually been decent horror/thriller/fantasy (which is what claim to be) then they probably would've rocked!!

Each to their own. I admit, I haven't seen either film in a long time, so it's not really surprising that I got the length of that scene wrong. Admittedly, the film could've done without the scene. However, this doesn't mean that it was entirely unnecessary. I know what you mean, though, the scene didn't have to be as long as it was. Hell, it didn't even have to be as long as I remembered it.

I'm not sure if it is just me, but there are obviously some things that I can see in the film that you can't, just like there are some things in other films that you can see that I can't. Not everyone can see the same things in films, which is why we have such varied opinions.

>_<

Ok, so that entire paragraph was obvious and unneeded.

I liked the first two films because of their content, excluding the aforementioned sex scene. It's the whole idea of conflict between Lycans and Vampires that intrigues me. You say Underworld "had" so much potential, but I think that they still have so much potential. There is still so much story to be told, so many chances to repair any damage they have done to themselves.

Chojin wrote:It's the whole idea of conflict between Lycans and Vampires that intrigues me. You say Underworld "had" so much potential, but I think that they still have so much potential. There is still so much story to be told, so many chances to repair any damage they have done to themselves.

Absolutely. Which is why I'll no doubt be giving this sequel a chance. I mean, as they say; don't knock it 'til you've tried it (which you should prolly think about with the other Saw sequels - lol). So yeah, I'll be checking it out. I'm just saying that I don't hold my hopes very high considering it's prequels.

As I said, I'd like these movies to be good. So if they can produce a movie that I can actually enjoy, then hell yeah, that'd be awesome!!

But yeah... given little-miss-skin-tight... I'm already put off. I just can't enjoy such an obvious attempt at movie makers trying to cash-in on the hormonals... ¬_¬

It's so damn degrading too.

lol, nice plug. One of the reasons I haven't watched them is because I'm not a lover of horror films like that. I know that Underworld is marketed as a horror film, but it is really more of an action film. The other main reason is the whole "flogging a dying horse" issue.

As for "little-miss-skin-tight", the choice to have her in tight fitting clothes wasn't so much for asthetics but more for functionality. With the action involved in the films, Selene would be highly impeded by loose fitting clothes. Loose fitting clothes create more air resistance than you would think. During a fight, this would mean that her blows would be severely weakened and, therefore, less affective against the unimpeded Lycans. I know that the Lycans are, in fact, impeded by their fir, which also provies drag, but this has been the case for millenia. They would've evolved in such a way that the drag wouldn't hinder them as much. If a Lycan were to be bald, then even a tight-clad vampire would have more difficulty in dealing with them.

Chojin wrote:lol, nice plug. One of the reasons I haven't watched them is because I'm not a lover of horror films like that. I know that Underworld is marketed as a horror film, but it is really more of an action film. The other main reason is the whole "flogging a dying horse" issue.

Yeah, cept they're not "flogging a dying horse". XD

Chojin wrote:As for "little-miss-skin-tight", the choice to have her in tight fitting clothes wasn't so much for asthetics but more for functionality. With the action involved in the films, Selene would be highly impeded by loose fitting clothes. Loose fitting clothes create more air resistance than you would think. During a fight, this would mean that her blows would be severely weakened and, therefore, less affective against the unimpeded Lycans. I know that the Lycans are, in fact, impeded by their fir, which also provies drag, but this has been the case for millenia. They would've evolved in such a way that the drag wouldn't hinder them as much. If a Lycan were to be bald, then even a tight-clad vampire would have more difficulty in dealing with them.

Sorry, that just made me lol. XD

I meant that as my opinion, I know I don't speak for the majority, nor the minority for that matter, lol.

Howcome that made you lol?

Chojin wrote:Howcome that made you lol?

Because it complete rubbish. XD

It sounds good in theory, but that's not why they really did it. And you'll also notice she's the only one wearing something that tight!

It's a theory that works. I wouldn't say it's complete rubbish. Selene is the heroine of the movie, it's only natural that she be given certain advantages over the other Vampires.

Whether or not they done it for asthetics or function, they did it and they did it for a reason. I don't believe that it was entirely for the whole "sex sells" thing.

just seen this film,having not seen the others the story line seemed meh.
the film was average at best.
and just to make note they was way way more man flesh that woman, and the main woman in it, was not in armor or period costume most of the time.
as for the sex scene it was about 15sec long, maybe they could have gone with out it maybe not. if you don't want a sex scene don't watch a 18+ film. Hollywood films cater for the masses. and sorry but sex sell, both for women and men.... but hey
film was not worth the price in my books.

Species wrote:just seen this film,having not seen the others the story line seemed meh.
the film was average at best.
and just to make note they was way way more man flesh that woman, and the main woman in it, was not in armor or period costume most of the time.
as for the sex scene it was about 15sec long, maybe they could have gone with out it maybe not. if you don't want a sex scene don't watch a 18+ film. Hollywood films cater for the masses. and sorry but sex sell, both for women and men.... but hey
film was not worth the price in my books.

Hang on... there's a sex scene in THIS film as well? ¬_¬

I also think that logic is complete bollox. If I want a sex film; I'll get a porno. These types of films are meant to be adventure, action, thriller, etc. Just coz it's got an 18 rating, it don't freakin' mean they have to have sex in it.

But alot of movie makers will use that as an excuse just because they know there are sad people that it does sell to.

However, sex doesn't sell as well as some people might think. It doesn't sell for me or most of the people I know, and alot of people I don't personally know (but I've heard about it in various places, for various reasons). If anything, it's puts us off, which is why I refuse to pay to see a movie which I already knows has sex in it.

If sex is "needed" for some storyline reason, then do what they did in Alien 3. You know they had sex, but you didn't see any of it. Simple, doesn't take anything away from , or mess-up, the movie, doesn't offend anyone, and doesn't p*ss anybody off.

If a movie is really meant to cater for the masses, then that's obviously the way to do it.

As for the price, alot of cinemas (if not all) are stupidly over-priced these days. =(

Kitai wrote:

Species wrote:just seen this film,having not seen the others the story line seemed meh.
the film was average at best.
and just to make note they was way way more man flesh that woman, and the main woman in it, was not in armor or period costume most of the time.
as for the sex scene it was about 15sec long, maybe they could have gone with out it maybe not. if you don't want a sex scene don't watch a 18+ film. Hollywood films cater for the masses. and sorry but sex sell, both for women and men.... but hey
film was not worth the price in my books.

Hang on... there's a sex scene in THIS film as well? ¬_¬

I also think that logic is complete bollox. If I want a sex film; I'll get a porno. These types of films are meant to be adventure, action, thriller, etc. Just coz it's got an 18 rating, it don't freakin' mean they have to have sex in it.

But alot of movie makers will use that as an excuse just because they know there are sad people that it does sell to.

However, sex doesn't sell as well as some people might think. It doesn't sell for me or most of the people I know, and alot of people I don't personally know (but I've heard about it in various places, for various reasons). If anything, it's puts us off, which is why I refuse to pay to see a movie which I already knows has sex in it.

If sex is "needed" for some storyline reason, then do what they did in Alien 3. You know they had sex, but you didn't see any of it. Simple, doesn't take anything away from , or mess-up, the movie, doesn't offend anyone, and doesn't p*ss anybody off.

If a movie is really meant to cater for the masses, then that's obviously the way to do it.

As for the price, alot of cinemas (if not all) are stupidly over-priced these days. =(

make a topic in the debate section sex in films, and when i get back we can duke it out.lol

Species wrote:make a topic in the debate section sex in films, and when i get back we can duke it out.lol

Nah, it's not worth my time or mood. The subject really pisses me off. XD

Why do you think I've avoided the Sex topic? XD