The movies were intended for all ages, but they came with an implied kids’-eye viewpoint. George Lucas, about the time they came out, commented that he seemed to be aging backwards – THX1138 was adult SF, American Grafitti was teen-age movies, and Star Wars was Kid Fare. You don’t watch the film looking for deep personal interaction, or believable political maneuvering, or insight into the human condition. I mean, heck, in Return of the Jedi, every military person seems to be an Admiral or a General.
Breaking a communications code does not equal infecting an alien military vessel’s operating system. Not even remotely close.
It is glossed over.
Maybe Goldblum, etc used a Mac because they wanted a computer with so little market share that it was quite possible the aliens never heard of it and therefore never bothered to design a defense against it? 
I always felt the bigger flaw in Independence Day was earlier in the movie when the aliens slowly flew around the planet destroying cities one by one at the speed of plot. In reality, our level of technology is sufficient to have knocked out every major target in the first few minutes of an attack. Why would it take the aliens with their supposedly more advanced technology days to do the same thing?
I believe the aliens in ID4 had previously hijacked and were using the Earthlings’ communications sattelites for intelligence purposes and their own communications. Doing so would have forced the aliens to already have some sort of protocol between their own systems and humans. It was through this that the virus was propegated.
/wank
This is exactly what’s wrong with the prequels, especiall Ep 1. Who cares about all the fictional galactic politics bullshit? Maybe Isaac Asimov could have made it interesting.
Second, third and fourth! At least SW l-lll were partially enjoyable on some level; Transformers is possibly one of the worst successful blockbusters of all time.
Ditto Independence Day.
Going back further in cinematic crap history, The Greatest Show on Earth is way up (or down) there as well. Extremely successful, “Best Picture” winner, and a piece of dreck from start to finish.
I thought Transformers was pretty good, but it just took forever to get started and the big fight scene was too close-up and shaky.
I’ve found that the Star Wars prequels and Transformers have something in common: if you skip past all the scenes with dialog, the movies are greatly improved.
Actually, I take that back. Some of the dialog in Transformers was entertaining, whereas very little in Star Wars was. The Sector 7 guy was a hoot.
It may not be covered at any depth, but what people commonly say (“ooh, lucky the aliens had mac-compatible computers”) about it is just a silly distortion of what the movie actually shows. I’m not saying it’s feasible - the whole bloody film is infeasible - I’m saying that the thing people commonly say about it, is incorrect.
I don’t know if Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” qualifies as a blockbuster but it surely qualifies as a** large** heap of dreck.
As for the latest 3 Star Wars movies, they are so bad, so awful, so incomprehensibly dreadful, that words fail me when I attempt to describe how bad, awful, and dreadful they are.
Will Smith is ever watchable, but “I am Legend” was a good movie gone wrong. Terribly wrong.
No wanking needed, this is exactly how its explained in the movie that Goldblum got access to the alien communication code.
“They’re using our own satellites against us.” Nobody remembers that?
So I’ve seen the movie enough times to memorize the script. It doesn’t mean anything!
And then he turns the computer around and shows everyone the screen showing the alien computers talking to his (dun dun DUN!) Mac.
I’ve seen ID4 more times than I can count and it’s enjoyable every time. It is the PERFECT blockbuster.
I was just covering my butt, since I wrote that all from memory.
Yup…
Plus the fact that the aliens were telepathic meaning that it is very likely that they would need no security as their thoughts are all known to each other.
Still a steaming pile of turd though.
It seems to me - and I’m no expert, I have a hard time sitting through star wars films - that the prequels weren’t a significant downgrade in quality. The original movies were shitty movies. Childish, stupid, cutesy, just generally very poor moviemaking. But they were different - movies were different then and it was the first of the big blockbusters. It was revolutionary and memorable. And those movies probably appealed more to kids than to adults too.
Only the kids that grew up watching the originals were adults when the prequels came out, with more discerning tastes. People are less able to be wowed simply by the use of big budget special effects. And the movies seemed childish and stupid, compared to the rose-tinted nostalgia of the originals, where you remembered more the positive feeling you associated with them than the actual qualities of the movies. But I doubt they were really much worse, if at all - you were just in a better position to see how bad they were.
I definitely disagree : the old trilogy was a bit cheesy and campy but the acting was much, much better.
I think the worst part about the prequels is just the absolutely horrible, horrible, horrible acting of Natalie Portman and both kids who played Anakin.
Bad acting can make a mediocre popcorn-flick into an unwatchable piece of dreck.
The 70’s and 80’s Star Wars movies were space opera action flicks. The prequels were colorful, dry, political, unlikely plot stuff happened (like Anakin building C3PO), and yeah, the bad acting.
Figuring there was a good movie in there somewhere I even watched a fan edit of the prequels. It was about 3 hours long and took a lot of scenes out, most of the Jar-Jar was gone and when he was there they distorted his slave-speak and put subtitles on him, the battle with Dooku was gone, all the Gungan(sp?) underwater city, things like that. It was a bit better but unfortunately the video quality wasn’t very good.
I’ll pipe up and disagree. A lot about them was childish, but the first two, especially, were very well made movies indeed. They were well written, well paced, well directed, well edited, and the dialogue and acting wasn’t nearly as bad as in the “prequels.” They mixed humor with drama a lot better than the prequels. “The Empire Strikes Back” is much, much better than the prequels; “Star Wars” is quite a lot better, and even “Return of the Jedi,” which to be honest wasn’t very good and has the distinct feel of being produced in an effort to make a lot of money without the benefit of having a lot of new ideas, is probably a bit better.
And, frankly, you do have to allow for the standard of the time. “Star Wars” put special effects on the screen that had your mouth hanging open. The prequels simply didn’t. By the time “Phantom Menace” came out, CGI had been done, and done better; “Jurassic Park” was the real pioneer there, and it blew people away. CGI animation like “Toy Story” had already amazed folks.
It’s just not as impressive to do it after everyone’s done it. By today’s standards, “Casablanca” isn’t anything impressive; if you created an essentially equivalent movie today, and somehow fooled people into thinking it wasn’t a renamed “Casablanca,” it’d be laughed out of the theatres. But by the standards of its time it was fantastic, and if you enjoy it for what it accomplishes it’s a hell of a movie.