Kind of glad this discussion came back as I actually decided to look up the guy and have to say when it comes to movies he is mixed bags.
During the 90s he made some of the most influential sci fi films such as Universal Soldier, Stargate and Independence Day. But he is also responsible for crappy blockbusters in the better parts of the 2000s like Godzilla (yeah I'm including this film as part of his 2000s filmography), The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and 10000 BC. And in the 2010s, well, this is where his mixed bags begins to shine as I do like the films Annonymous and White House Down for what they are, but have to join in the band wagon as everyone else in calling his last two films (Stonwall and Independence Day Resurggence) as shitty films.
Hell speaking of White House Down, that film to me is a truer sequel to Independence Day than the actual sequel. Namely in its tone and self awareness that it knows its an overglorified action movie; which actually makes it stands out from its more serious counterpart Olympus Has Fallen.
I'm also surprised that the guy have produced for the film Hell; an underated post apocalypse movie that I enjoy from time to time.
Yeah, White House down is stupid but it is a good kind of stupid. It kind of works like a parody of all those Die Hard rip-offs which were inflicted on us in the last years (honestly, how many movies about some guy getting accidentally trapped in some place and is forced to take down a bunch of attackers are there?), but without ever going full spoof. I wish he had leaned in a little bit more into the ridiculousness of it all, because I think that would have tipped the movie over from being enjoyable stupid to really working as a commentary about this particular genre.
His body of work is overall a mixed bag and I wouldn't say that there are any masterpieces between them. But I actually think that Emmerich could create one if he paired up with an outstanding writer.
edited 13th Dec '17 3:22:26 AM by Swanpride
I agree with you there! With an awesome screenwriter, his films would definitely be considered masterpieces. Like Michael Bay and Zack Snyder, the guy has a talent for cinematography as he can produce the best set designs, costumes for characters, special effects and camera tricks to produce some of the best looking scenes. The problem is the scripts tend to be lackluster as they are plagued with overused tropes, hackney dialogue, and (of course) historical/factual innacuracies; the last one applies to Stargate, The Patriot, 2012, Annonymous, Stonewall and 10000 BC.
In fact 10,000 BC to me would of been a truly epic movie if the script was written by a better writer. A Swords & Sandels style adventure movie set in the prehistoric era on paper sounds pretty epic; especially during a year where CGI can bring to life long extincted creatures and come off convincing. Its really a shame that the film itself was a flop, as I actually wanted to like the movie.
I have never been able to enjoy Independence Day as much as I should because I am a massive fan of Tim Burton's early work, and I have much more fun watching Mars Attacks! than ID.
However, as far as brainless/facepalm entertainment goes, 2012 was good. It is the kind of movie where you can spend two hours discussing the insane number of shortcuts and inconsistencies...but where you still have a somewhat good time because the cinematography and pacing are all-around solid. I also never take disaster movies too seriously, so its dumbness didn't hurt me too much.
Also, Emmerich's movies never struck me as having toxic undertones (I subscribe to the notion that his over-the-top patriotism is not to be taken at face value). They are often dumb and simplistic, but they don't actively make our society worse, so their existence do not bother me at all.
Arguably they try to make society better. Moviebob brought forward the theory that Emmerich uses his movies to reach the masses and pointing out important concerns to them in a format they enjoy. He might be right, Independence day certainly does have an undertone of "look, we are all human, no matter what walk of live we are coming from, and we really shouldn't get hung up on all those political conflicts or social conventions". and I freely admit the Day After Tomorrow was the first thing which drew my attention towards the whole Climate change topic. There is also a lot of social commentary in 2012.
There are some really good points in the "Really That Good" review for Independence day. I think the best one is the subverting of stereotypes in the movie. I think it is a little bit less obvious nowadays because, well, Independence Day broke through the glass ceiling concerning some of them. ie an action hero which isn't a white guy. It is still the most common variant, but nowadays we don't really think twice about the notion of an action hero who doesn't fit the mould.
The over the top patriotism, well, one shouldn't forget that Emmerich isn't American. He is German. His movies are pretty much a reflection of how I always saw certain American movies (ie Spider-man (and yes, I know that one came later), American Fighter, every Rambo Sequel) translated to the American audience by taking it even more over the top. Though I am not sure if the intention was to hold a mirror in front of American society or if he just tried to appeal to them and then did the equivalent to what American movies often do when they portray a foreign culture.
edited 13th Dec '17 7:03:30 AM by Swanpride
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcma0bKjJlY
link to the movie bob "Really that good" analysis. He also mentions that Shakespeare movie in it.
“Anonymous is just impressively terrible.“
At least it ain’t Stonewall. Between these two I don’t think this guy has a great grasp on history.
But no seriously guys I fucking hate Anonymous. Every time it plays somewhere you can hear Samuel Johnson’s ghost wail in anger.
Y’know you’re supposed to give some detail about the video you link for those who can’t , or won’t (because ugh, Moviebob) watch it.
edited 13th Dec '17 10:12:17 AM by thatindiantroper
Well, the good thing is that barely anyone even paid attention to this movie.
See above....elements of this video were part of the discussion for a while, I just felt that it was time to link the video too, for those too lazy to search for it.
But just in case you are also too lazy to read the last page of a discussion you intent to participate in: It is his "really that good" regarding independence day, in which he makes some good points about what works and what doesn't work in the movie, as well as its place in movie history.
edited 13th Dec '17 10:16:35 AM by Swanpride
I was looking over old Siskel and Ebert episodes and came across their review of Independence Day, which is an interesting movie because critics disliked it but audiences seemed to really dig it, and not just because of the knock-your-socks off special effects. The Siskel/Ebert review made it very clear that they were underwhelmed by the characters, feeling they were generic and dull, while it's longevity I think is because audiences really liked the characters. You can make an argument for "dull" or "fun" but they are not really "obnoxious." Any annoying characters are eventually killed off or otherwise get knocked down, while the main cast are all trying to act intelligently within their own sphere of influence.
I'm not hugely familiar with Emmerich's films beyond a couple of the blockbusters, but I think his main perceived failings is in how he embraces certain cliches without any irony. For that I think his best films I've seen are Independence Day and The Patriot, if only because I think the visual style of both films are so uniquely done that it sets itself apart from similar films. For an Alien Invasion, movies had to go more ground-level / Found Footage because Independence Day set the bar so high.
I think there is a difference between a movie having likable characters and one having memorable characters. The characters in Independence day are likable exactly because they are generic. It is easy to understand them and immediately figure out who to root for in this movie. But does anyone even remember their names? That's why we always talk about the speech of "President Pullman" instead of "President Whitehall" and no one remembers that Will Smith's character is called "Michael Hiller".
And if you didn't immediately perk up and started to write a post to correct me that it is "President Whitmore" and "Steven Hiller", yeah, exactly my point. Because those characters are as deep as a puddle. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing in a movie, because the less character there is, the easier it is for the audience to relate on an emotional level by seeing themselves in said characters. The only thing they shouldn't be is also boring, and nothing about those characters is boring. I mean, you have a president, a stripper, a soldier who wants to be an astronaut, a geeky genius, that is pretty much "popular tropes bingo" for that era
I think White House Down is among his best, if only because of how creative it gets with the action sequences. I think Emmerich is one of those directors who’s best when given limitations on what he can do.
I enjoy 2012, for being basically the ultimate disaster movie, but I don’t think it’s exactly good.
And when it comes to the characters...while they’re usually really flat and basically just cliches, they’re still entertaining, especially when they play off against each other. He also uses side characters who are super entertaining for short bursts of time, but knows not to make them main characters because they’d be really annoying.
That's an extremely flimsy argument, anything that hinges on memetic fan behavior and claiming it to be evidence of a majority opinion is going to be on shakey ground.
The only truth to that has more to do with the actors than the movie. The majority of Will Smith movies are "Will Smith as [insert occupation ]." It's true of most A-list actors, they don't disappear into roles. Will Smith was hired to do what Will Smith does.
I haven't seen 2012 but I've heard it is sort of the same basic thing, the disaster elements are extreme and contrived but John Cusack acquits himself well. Day after Tomorrow was basically all of the Emmerich cliches but no one really elevates the material (I kind of liked the Gyllenhall/Rossum romance, but not a lot). Godzilla's biggest failing was focusing too much on a screechy reporter trying to get a big break and get back together with her boyfriend. I've heard 10,000 bc was near unwatchable.
I was pointing out your original claim (people only refer to the characters by actors name) is false, therefore your conclusion (the characters are shallow) is flawed. I'm saying there is not a direct correlation between audience reception and the quality of the characters. Will Smith can go into a movie, do his Will Smith thing, and the character can still turn out complex and interesting. Good actors can elevate the material, this is regardless what level of celebrity they are.
In fact, Emmerich mentioned that when they wrote the Whitmore speech they were never really happy with it, but were surprised on set when Pullman filmed it and got genuine applause from the cast and crew.
My point still stands. Granted, it is not the only piece of evidence. Because if you start to describe the characters, you can do it in three bullet points. They all have a goal (flying into space/being hung-up about the ex/wanting to be a worthy president) a conflict to overcome (being in love with a stripper/drifting through live/not being taken serious as president) and some sort of job description (soldier and pilot/technic geek/leader). By the end of the movie the former conflict doesn't matter anymore/is seen as a strength, they all fulfil their goal and just happen to fulfil their desire by doing so. And there is nothing wrong with it, it's story telling 101 paired with a healthy dose of wish fulfilment per proxy. But all this is painted in so brad strokes there aren't any nuances, and there is no true struggle...which sounds odd in a movie about an alien invasion, but think about it. The decision between stripper and dream is never made because social conventions are literally blown away, the nerd gets the perfect excuse to get close to his ex again, plus, his abilities are suddenly the most important thing on earth and the president gets the opportunity to proof himself on a silver plate. If not for all of them also loosing people close to them during the movie, I would label it "Gary Stu central".
Godzilla was great? Was it a good movie? No, not by any definition. Was it a bad movie? Absolutely, incredibly beyond all expectations it managed to be a bad movie. And that is what made it great.
The biggest strike against Godzilla, and it's a pretty big one, is that it was called Godzilla. Should have called it French Lizard Nests In New York, or maybe Dominant Macrofauna.
I watched quite a few Toho Godzilla movies. The cheese wasn't really the problem with 1998, just the name. There were also a lot of blunders and research failures that shouldn't have been in 1998, but those were still minor compared to the name. Or rather, that it was In Name Only.
Buldogue's lawyerWhite House Down is like my third favorite Die Hard movie. Seriously. It might as well just be a spiritual sequel to Die Hard.

I felt that we had a nice discussion going on, so, let's continue this without Bay bashing and focus on Emmerich's body of work. Which, I think we can all agree, isn't exactly on one level Spielberg, but still culturally relevant, especially regarding Independence Day and Stargate (and yes, the Disney movie which blatantly ripped off Stargate is Atlantis, except that the plot of Stargate actually made more sense).
I also want to add that I know someone who absolutely loves Day after Tomorrow and 2012. As I said, if you are into those kind of disaster movies, Emmerich's are still the best around. Which is kind of a shame...I certainly wouldn't mind a director tackling something like this from a new angle and with more fleshed out characters.