Amazon Prime Video Thread : Mr & Mrs Smith

atlsfinest said:
Movie looks good. I was actually looking forward to seeing it in the theaters when I first heard about it a couple years ago.

Here's my thing though: Why don't the soldiers from the future just send strategic information to the humans of the past? Just let them know exactly when, where and how the aliens will attack and give the humans 30 years to prepare?

Why not just tell the people the past "ali ens attack on XYZ date, they hit XYZ cities in the initial wave and these are their tactics, strategies and weaknesses."

How is just sending people from the past into the future going to help?

It's a Hollywood movie so I'm not going to get too deep on the story but even on a surface level it doesn't make much sense
Click to expand...
Its always funny when the main conflict is suppose to be the biggest obstacle but they introduce a macguffin that would easily solve the problem but is instead used to do something that only makes taking down the obstacle longer which in results pads out the movie.

The invention of time travel eliminates any alien threat unless they can time travel too.

I assume they'll come up with a good enough reason why they can't time travel to solve the problem cuz a war draft from ppl in the past is problematic for several reasons no matter what the time travel rules are.
 
Master Zik said:
Its always funny when the main conflict is suppose to be the biggest obstacle but they introduce a macguffin that would easily solve the problem but is instead used to do something that only makes taking down the obstacle longer which in results pads out the movie.

The invention of time travel eliminates any alien threat unless they can time travel too.

I assume they'll come up with a good enough reason why they can't time travel to solve the problem cuz a war draft from ppl in the past is problematic for several reasons no matter what the time travel rules are.
Click to expand...

It depends on how they handle time travel and the rules they set in place. Every time travel movie is different in that regard.

Screenshot_20210527-022245_YouTube.jpg


If you pause the trailer during that protest scene, you see people holding up a sign saying "not our war" which leads me to think that there are people pushing back on the idea of drafting people and sending them into the future.

My thought is that there are two separate timelines and even if the people from the past get the information they need, the future timeline would still be losing their war. Maybe it's not a situation where simply fixing things in the past changes things in the future, That's the only way any of this makes sense.

You'd imagine someone with young children in the present would want to fight to save their children in the future who might be 30 or 40 years old by that time.

You're right though that this could create all kinds of paradoxes and butterfly effect implications (If a current person is sent to the future and dies in the war, would that wipe out all of their posterity and make it so none of their future actions ever happened?)

This seems like a pretty dumb sci-fi action movie so I doubt they're going to go deep on any of these themes but it's certainly interesting.
 
atlsfinest said:
It depends on how they handle time travel and the rules they set in place. Every time travel movie is different in that regard.

Screenshot_20210527-022245_YouTube.jpg


If you pause the trailer during that protest scene, you see people holding up a sign saying "not our war" which leads me to think that there are people pushing back on the idea of drafting people and sending them into the future.

My thought is that there are two separate timelines and even if the people from the past get the information they need, the future timeline would still be losing their war. Maybe it's not a situation where simply fixing things in the past changes things in the future, That's the only way any of this makes sense.

You'd imagine someone with young children in the present would want to fight to save their children in the future who might be 30 or 40 years old by that time.

You're right though that this could create all kinds of paradoxes and butterfly effect implications (If a current person is sent to the future and dies in the war, would that wipe out all of their posterity and make it so none of their future actions ever happened?)

This seems like a pretty dumb sci-fi action movie so I doubt they're going to go deep on any of these themes but it's certainly interesting.
Click to expand...
Yeah it just depends on the time travel rules.

To me they got two options in that regard, it's all one timeline so the past effects the future. In that scenario, ppl in the future would be drafting ppl in the past who die anyway or have no meaningful effect on the future. The problem there is they'd have to go far enough in the past so that time doesn't catch up to when the aliens start the war. In a situation like that though, they're bound to **** up and get somebody important involved.

The other option is every time they time travel they're creating a new timeline so everybody in the past are just expendable. So even if the war is won in the future it would do nothing for the ppl in the past cuz those aliens would still start a war and ppl on earth would be forced to time travel in the past to get more recruits. That would just repeat itself ****ing up time.
 
Last edited:
Infinite ****ed up.

I love sci-fi so I put aside a principle of watching anything with Wahlberg in it cuz of the premise and my other fav actors being in it.

Lame *** racist *** Marky Mark shouldn't have been the lead. If it had to be a white guy make it the first white guy, Dylan O'Brien.

My boy Chiwetel was acting ACTING in this. Played a great villain. Hope he brings all this energy when he returns as Mordo in the MCU.

Toby Jones in this for no reason :lol:

5/8

By the numbers action. Could've done a lot mire with the concept. Especially with the additional concepts they were introducing in the middle and climax of the movie. Ending seemed a bit rushed where they wanted to just get the main conflict over with but if done right could easily get a trilogy out of this.
 
Last edited:
Any fans of the old top gear should definitely check out clarksons farm. Really funny and reminds me of the old show.
 
I find it weird for the final season where Edgar is slipping and ****ing up feeling guilt off that righteous kill. Should've done this early but they swerved me anyway cuz I thought this season would've been a full on Haitian war.
 
Master Zik said:
I find it weird for the final season where Edgar is slipping and ****ing up feeling guilt off that righteous kill. Should've done this early but they swerved me anyway cuz I thought this season would've been a full on Haitian war.
Click to expand...

On Episode 2 of Bosch...

What did Edgar do that was so bad?

Dude was non compliant, walked up in a threatening manner, then swung on him.

All J. Edgar did was twist his arm bit.

He didn't pull a taser or gun.

What am I missing?
 
kingkoopa said:
On Episode 2 of Bosch...

What did Edgar do that was so bad?

Dude was non compliant, walked up in a threatening manner, then swung on him.

All J. Edgar did was twist his arm bit.

He didn't pull a taser or gun.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
This season partially reflects the current real life relations with police.

So any time an LAPD officer is seen and recorded panhandling or threatening a minority its just bad optics.

Plus in house, Bosch and their Lieutenant know Edgar been slipping lately. Now he's reacting violently and not according to guidelines with suspects. Its just not a good loom especially if its unnecessary.
 
I like how they incorporated Incels within the police. We all know that **** is 100% factual.
 
While this wasn’t the best season of Bosch, it was still solid and I loved the way he peaced out. They are already filming the spin-off, weird that it’s going to be on Amazon's IMDb TV.
 
She kinda fine. Maybe I missed since it was on in the background, but didn't even catch that they were married.

Thought it was ok though, started off pretty good actually then fell way off after. Stupid premise so it already sets your expectation but they could have done better with it.
 
Mark Antony said:
She kinda fine. Maybe I missed since it was on in the background, but didn't even catch that they were married.
Click to expand...
She fine as ****. Movie didn't do her justice since she was a secondary character.

The marriage stuff was taken out along with her subplot. Probably have to look real close for any clues that remained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom