This Film stole it's Monster, and killing the only Black man in the Film off from Leviathan from 1989 so remember I recommend you all see that, and also Deep Star Six all three are simular to each other in what the main Characters Face.
shareI don't think this was a rip off of Leviathan. First of all the monsters were in now way remotely similiar aside from a few tentacles. THe creature in Deep Rising is a form of squid, the monster in Leviathan is a mutant half fish/half human thing and it looked ridiculous in the movie.
The plots were also very different.
If anything Leviathan is a rip off of Alien.
Leviathan and Deep Star Six were rip-offs of The Abyss anyway.
When it was said James Cameron was making a new underwater sea creature film (Even though the creatures were aliens) those two quickies were made and released months before.
Deep Rising is completely unrelated. Plus it was above water, and on a ship. Not a mining facility. That doesn't make much of a difference but they are different settings.
Oh, and another thing, Deep Rising is miles better. I can comfortably give Deep Rising an 8.5/10 (Based off of entertainment value, solid acting, decent script, and decent direction)
Leviathan, I'd give a 6.5/10, it was decently made, had decent entertainment value, etc.
Deep Star Six, was a 6/10, decently made, little entertainment value. Nothing too terrible here. Just nothing good.
------------
You are being WATCHED right now...
Previously Maxelle/Nightmaric
I agree. But also The Abyss was a rip off of Close Encounters of the Third Kind only underwater. Remember as much as I like James Cameron's movies, he is the king of the rip off artist having gotten his start with the duke of rip offs Mr. Roger Corman.
sure because every movie set in a similar, but not actually the same, location is a ripoff of each other. do you get 2001 and Event Horizon confused sometimes because they were both on space ships?
if anything Leviathan was a "ripoff" of The Thing. just set underwater instead. (still a classic though)
[deleted]
I agree with that as well. I thought so
shareYou can't have seen that many films if you focus on one ripping off another and they aren't actually very similar.
Does this film rip off It came from Beneath the Sea because it features a giant cephalopod that came up from an ocean trench?
Using a trope of a genere is not 'ripping-off'.
"Solid acting, decent script, and decent direction.."
My god, were you high when you watched this?? Entertainment value (out of being joyfully awful) I could understand, but it's a pretty far out opinion to think anything about this is legitimately "solid".
[deleted]
Yeah. Which was a ripoff of Alien. Cool story, bro.
I am fairly certain you did not watch one or both of these films as they are in no way similar. I guess you could argue that at some time in both movies people were standing in water but other than that, no. And stop using the term ripoff (this is for many people out there with no sense of what a ripoff is) when you clearly have no concept of what it constitutes. "Carnosaur 2" is an almost scene for scene ripoff of "Aliens 2" and is unapologetic about it. The two movies you mentioned here both have water in them... that is it.
Also, how you can say two monsters, one a giant ocean liner eating giant squid creature is in someway similar to a twice the size of a human fish/man is beyond me. That is like saying that "Damnation Alley" is a ripoff of "Herbie the love bug" because they both have vehicles in them which play an integral part of the story. Not the same...
Seriously though, stop using ripoff when it is incorrect... you might as well start a post with "Worst movie ever" for all the accuracy involved... or "Tom Green has never been better!".. "Michael Bay has fully captured the underlying meaning of loss in Transformers 3".."Gena Davis has never been more magnificent than when she did Cutthroat Island!".
[deleted]
Boy, do people really over use the term "ripoff" these days. It's like the go-to term to put down a movie they don't like, especially if they have no criticisms about how it stands up as a movie unto itself.
Deep Rising and Leviathan are a little similar I suppose, but the monster in one liquefies people to drink them like human milkshakes whereas the one in the other directly absorbs them into itself. Leviathan also doesn't have a subplot about hijackers and an insurance scam. It's also set on an undersea base whereas Deep Rising is set on a luxury liner. Aside from the very basic elements of "set at sea and involving a monster picking the cast off one at a time," they have almost nothing in common plot or character-wise.
And as for The Mummy, the style and tone being similar to an Indiana Jones film (specifically Raiders of the Lost Ark)? Sure. But firstly, I'm unsure using similar styles and tones counts as a ripoff. And secondly, what setup are you talking about? They're both set in Egypt and involve looking for a lost city and a supernatural artifact or artifacts and have adventuring archaeologist types in them, except Indy expy Rick O'Connell isn't one of said archaeologists, he's just a former soldier and mercenary with no academic or scientific background whatsoever. Also there were no monsters in Raiders of the Lost Ark, certainly not life-sucking mummies.
It's all very superficial, and any similarities to Indy I'd call homages as opposed to direct ripoffs. Stephen Sommers knew what he was doing. He did enough similar to make his films have some knowing references and nods to previous ones, but enough differently to prevent them from becoming actual ripoffs.
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?
[deleted]
Both The Mummy and Raiders were 'homages' to the adventure serials of the 1930s and 40s so it stands to reason there may well be similarities because they are both paying homage to the same source material
share