Author Topic: Movies you've recently watched  (Read 144892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MiyamotoPuck

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1225 on: October 11, 2017, 11:14:58 AM »
Anyone watch the short movies they released? I haven't ...

I did, you can find them on Youtube, they're interesting. The first one is a short anime, I liked it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrZk9sSgRyQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9Os8cP_gg

Offline GiantSword Mufasa

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1226 on: October 11, 2017, 11:45:19 AM »
I just saw blade runner in Imax. Holy hell what a film. I absolutely loved it. I am going to see it again, I cant say a  single thing displeased me until I see it again. It was like being in a trance, the cinematography, the score, the set design, It was all mesmerizing.

I will say jared leto is forever a creep.

 I think it was an excellent continuation of the BR universe with out over doing it.   
\[**]/
                     Praise the sun

Offline GiantSword Mufasa

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1227 on: October 11, 2017, 11:53:39 AM »
Anyone watch the short movies they released? I haven't ...

Yes. They are really cool and act as like a "fill in the gaps" sort of thing. ridley scott's son directed two of them and Shinichirō Watanabe (cowboy bebop) made the other,
\[**]/
                     Praise the sun

Offline Walter

  • 賢者
  • Administrator
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 15883
  • Karma: 469
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapter ≠ Episode
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1228 on: October 11, 2017, 03:04:42 PM »
This is really annoying to read with the spoiler tags, so here it is in a Medium post: https://medium.com/@walterbennet/blade-runner-2049-review-24da9b096e7a

Blade Runner 2049 is a gorgeous film. Let’s start there.

Table the baby story for later, folks. Just take a look at it all. Drink it all in (hey now, don’t drink too much though — this is a 2h43m movie). The narrow glimpses of neon streets between the manicured skyscrapers. The dominating walls shielding the city from the ocean (fuck you nature, we’re California, the techno Babylon!). The smog layered on top of the remnants of art deco design from the era of the first movie.

The primary strength of Blade Runner was its futuristic spectacle, which somehow miraculously hasn’t worn thin across 30 years. That movie had atmosphere so thick it was almost tangible. And this movie somehow lives up to that, or at least, high enough so it’s not an embarrassing sidekick. Though it seems less concerned with chewing up the visual set pieces than turning a paranoid eye towards the MacGuffin-driven plot. That’s unfortunate, but certainly not a wasted effort altogether.
 
I don’t need to explain to this crowd how influential Blade Runner is, and thus, what a terrifying feat it is to pick up on its trail and attempt to make a new story truly matter. These were some big shoes to fill. So I appreciate how well this movie straddled the line of being a sequel while also being its own thing. I went into this whole endeavor pretty much grossed out by the idea, was somewhat softened by the early reviews being out-of-this-world, and about 10 minutes into the movie, I got it. I understood why that world deserved to be revisited.
 
There are so many small touches (and many not so small) to portray the quality of life for humanity spiraling downward, despite the luxury that’s available. Alongside 2049, 2019 looks like a Golden Age. Learning right from the jump that the Tyrell Corporation was bankrupt and replaced by Wallace Corp, something even bigger and more powerful, with an even tighter grip on humanity’s throat, was a nice cyberpunk touch. Though perhaps its my perception, but they kind of hedged their bets there. Tyrell made out to be a businessman/benevolent genius in the end, with Wallace being more of an aggressor, rabidly intent on exploiting an entire race to achieve his ends.
 
Speaking of which, I know he’s been a controversial actor recently (I still primarily associate him with My So-Called Life…) but I really loved Leto’s Wallace, who somehow embodies a melange of hipster-techie-zen master-Satan. Listening to him prattle was like hearing behind-the-scenes of a Google or Apple keynote, 30 years from now (“7 planets … WE SHOULD OWN THE STARS”). And then I read that the initial casting choice was David Bowie (FUCK!!!). Wallace’s on-screen real estate is brief, but his presence is felt in the architecture and the creeping lighting that’s in every Wallace Corp building shot. It was unclear to me how his master plan of reproductive-capable replicants would bring humanity to the stars (is it truly only a matter of worker production?), but fuck it, sounds great and terrifying. Also, I was so, SO bummed out we didn’t get a chance to see his futuristic, off-world torture tech (so demented that not even this rotten version of Earth can sustain it), though I knew it was a promise that couldn’t be delivered on.
 
If Wallace and his dense, layered diatribes are one end of the acting spectrum, then Gosling’s K are at the other. I was not a huge fan of his, but at least he wasn’t a barrier for the rest of the film, which was my fear. So weird that they left in that awkward, found-footage conversation between him and Robin Wright about Ryan Gosling lacking a soul, right?

K’s a vessel for the narrative, and a great punching bag (did Ford write into his contract that if he works with Gosling, he mandates a certain number of punches to the face?), but not much else. And that’s a bummer — but that was inarguably his role: He was supposed to be a second-class citizen who represses his feelings and simply obeys. I suppose they chose the right actor! He was rationed precisely one emotion, he used it well, and that’s all she wrote.

[BTW, Ford did actually punch Gosling in the face on the set.]
https://twitter.com/GolazoDan/status/914094843277783040
 
Instead, what I found interesting wasn’t in the script, but on the periphery: K’s station in the world, and what that said about replicants and blade runners. That placating little bow that K has to do in the presence of humans at the police department was a nice touch, and of course the intense, verbal assault of the [evolved] Voigt-Kampff test, which has a fascinating new function — we know who the replicants are now, so the test is to reinforce their servitude.

K is persecuted as a replicant within the force, and outside he’s persecuted as a blade runner. On that note, I couldn’t quite tell if he were treated that way on the outside because they knew he was a replicant or because he was a blade runner. My understanding is that replicant production had exploded, and thus his persecution would be a reaction to his job, not what he was. Though it’s interesting that the movie doesn’t spend much time on that predicament — really just the title exposition and a brief sales pitch scene from Wallace’s Luv.

I found most of Joi’s scenes to be indulgent and clichè. I’m honestly not sure what would be lost if she were removed completely. K being a sweet guy? They took Gibson’s idea for Idoru and assigned her a disposable role in the story. The only interesting angle for Joi for me was questioning where the line between her individual persona and herself as the product was drawn. It’s hard not to question whether an AI programmed to be a supportive, loving companion could truly have genuine feelings, or whether that was merely her only avenue for expression (K: “You don’t have to say that”). I suppose it’s an interesting question to consider, but I don’t think the film focuses enough on it to draw out an interesting answer for it.

Of course, the primary role that Joi plays is reinforcing K’s notion that he is the REAL BOY. However, the revelation that K wasn’t actually the “chosen one” seemed telegraphed a little too early on. The story seemed so headed in that direction by the halfway mark that it never felt solid to me. The problem was, once the truth was revealed, it’s too late in the film to do anything with the idea other than ruminate on the presumptive next steps in a human-replicant war, leaving a rather messily unresolved scenario. The ending is of course unconcerned with these practical problems, and instead, trades up for an emotional reunion, and one that in a thematic way, parallels Deckard and Rachel being rejoined to flee at the end of the first movie. I’ll take it.
 
Speaking of which, I really felt bad for Rachel’s actor, Sean Young, in the scenes where Wallace is holding up her character’s skull. They brought back Harrison Ford and Edward James Olmos (that was a delightful surprise), but for Sean Young, all they could spare were her remains. Oh but wait, they did bring her ba-*BLAM* Welp… Sorry Sean!

Ford’s Deckard didn’t bring much to the table for me, aside from a few well-written quips ([is the dog real?] “I dunno, why don’t you ask him?”). He didn’t really feel like Deckard to me. He felt like Harrison Ford in his sweats. Of course, 30 years changes a man, particularly given what he’d been through in the interim. And I didn’t check, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that his number of lines is trumped by the number of times he punches K in the face.

While we’re on the subject of this couple, I’ve seen a lot of confusion still about Deckard’s character and whether or not he’s a replicant. This is, of course, the continuation of a nerd debate that has raged for decades, across multiple cuts of the original film. But from my viewing of 2049, I didn’t have many questions left.

* Gaff says Deckard was “retired”.
* We learn that Deckard went on the run with the remaining old-era replicants, in fear of being retired.
* Fear of other blade runners hunting him is likely why he’s so prepared for combat when he encounters K.
* Wallace regards him as “a wonder” at his role in creating the first replicant child. He ponders whether Tyrell “designed” their coupling to begin with.

None of these new bits put his replicant nature in question. Instead, they’re all evidence for it. All of this stacked on top of the old film’s recut leaving little to question, it doesn’t seem like much of a puzzle to me. Of course, Scott says he’s a replicant, Ford insists that he’s a human, and Villeneuve is mum. So I suppose we’re back to our own individual interpretations, despite all the additional material in this new movie.

---------------------
I saved a bit here to go over some … well, they aren’t plot holes exactly; they’re just rough parts in the story that bothered me. I wanted to share them here in case someone can guide me through anything I missed.

1) Security in that police department is a bit… light, right? Yes I understand that Wallace’s personal assistant likely has ways of cloaking her involvement and deflecting any actual repercussions to murdering someone in a police department, but it just seemed a little unrealistically sloppy, given all the attention to detail elsewhere in the movie. That scene is there because it’s the first tip of the hat to Luv's lethality. But also, maybe they just wanted to kill that dork in a really cool way? Even odds, I’d wager.

2) Was Wallace, Mr. I Own The Fucking Stars, really going to miss the fact that his nominally protected caravan was effortlessly dispatched and NOT track them down? Isn’t going straight to the one they’re trying to hide, just MAYBE not the brightest idea?

3) Are we seriously to believe that the entire story of Blade Runner was a setup so that Deckard and Rachel would ultimately fuck? That seems like an unreasonably convoluted retcon. If preserving Deckard for that act was so important to Tyrell, why was he given such a dangerous profession and ordered to track down lethal replicants? Seems a bit rash for a carefully laid out experiment.
---------------------

Around the halfway point, I wasn’t much concerned with the story anymore, though the script really wanted me to be. In that respect, it reminded me of something I liked about Blade Runner. It’s so thick with atmosphere and so light on the narrative that it almost would work better as a silent film. I used to joke about recutting that movie so it would work as a silent film, but of course, never bothered. Griff can tell you about his recut of Minority Report though, he actually pulled off something we'd talked about doing — cutting out the fat and making it better.

This is all to say that what I appreciated so much about 2049 wasn’t where the story took us, but just letting us live in that world a little longer, seeing where it went (and where it was going), and them NOT shitting the bed in the process. That was so much more than I expected to get.


If I had to give it a number, I’d say 8/10, though it seems pretty silly, because if you’re still reading this, it means you’re into sci-fi, so you should just go fucking watch it.
:femto: :slan: :ubik:

Offline m

  • Falconian
  • Of the Interstice
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: 18
  • Gender: Male
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1229 on: October 11, 2017, 05:43:38 PM »
Yeah right, you're probably just here to defend Edge of Tomorrow!
A-ha!

 :ganishka:

... but I also think it benefited from being surprisingly good

I completely agree with this.

...whereas the hype around Interstellar kind of put it in a no-win place (save for the box office) of being transcendent or bust, and I thought it was much closer to the former, at least a credible attempt, than given credit, or even the credit given to less ambitious movies. So, I didn't mean to pick on Edge of Tomorrow so much as point out what I see as a double standard. Like, just come up with a cool Twilight Zone idea and we'll rave but don't get too ambitious or we'll be disappointed!

I think your point came across loud and clear, and I agree with you. It's just that, as they say, I'd go to bat for Edge of Tomorrow any day, and so I felt I needed to say something.

Offline IncantatioN

  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3397
  • Karma: 58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1230 on: October 11, 2017, 07:00:21 PM »
I liked Edge of Tomorrow too and agree with the both of your perspectives on it. Cruise gets a bad rep in the US and not a lot of people are interested in watching his films but he's a megastar outside the US.

Thanks for the extensive write-up Walter.


I don’t need to explain to this crowd how influential Blade Runner is, and thus, what a terrifying feat it is to pick up on its trail and attempt to make a new story truly matter. These were some big shoes to fill. So I appreciate how well this movie straddled the line of being a sequel while also being its own thing. I went into this whole endeavor pretty much grossed out by the idea, was somewhat softened by the early reviews being out-of-this-world, and about 10 minutes into the movie, I got it. I understood why that world deserved to be revisited.

I felt the same way while it was being made, before the promos came out. Even with the promos I couldn't help but be dissatisfied with the choice of casting Ryan in it. I love Denis but to have one of the two writers be someone who did the story for Alien Covenant was another red flag.

How do you feel about rumors of Denis doing the next Dune? It's again another movie that doesn't need a follow up and yet, it'll happen anyway ... so given that predicament (as a fan), is Denis the best man for the job? 
 
Quote
K’s a vessel for the narrative, and a great punching bag (did Ford write into his contract that if he works with Gosling, he mandates a certain number of punches to the face?), but not much else. And that’s a bummer — but that was inarguably his role: He was supposed to be a second-class citizen who represses his feelings and simply obeys. I suppose they chose the right actor! He was rationed precisely one emotion, he used it well, and that’s all she wrote.

:ganishka:

Quote

2) Was Wallace, Mr. I Own The Fucking Stars, really going to miss the fact that his nominally protected caravan was effortlessly dispatched and NOT track them down? Isn’t going straight to the one they’re trying to hide, just MAYBE not the brightest idea?

Yeah, that's a hard one. It hit me on the subway this morning that perhaps it's not as obvious as it seems and that maybe it was still all orchestrated by Wallace? Luv could have killed K when she had the chance before swimming back to the car, but she didn't. Maybe she had orders not to kill him so it's orchestrated that K kills her (I'm shrugging this off as I type it cos it sounds ridiculous) and so both, Deckard + K lead him to the child he's been looking for. It's a big big stretch but Wallace talking about how the meeting between Deckard and Rachel was orchestrated was a bit bonkers and I didn't see coming.

Quote
Griff can tell you about his recut of Minority Report though, he actually pulled off something we'd talked about doing — cutting out the fat and making it better.

I want in on this cut!
At the end of time, a moment will come when just one man remains. Then the moment will pass. Man will be gone. There will be nothing to show that we were ever here... but stardust.

Offline VengeanceQuest982

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1231 on: October 11, 2017, 10:53:34 PM »
Walter

... I am interested in seeing how much of a lasting influence Blade Runner 2049 has on the Theatrical Medium over the next 30 years. As Blade Runner 2049 was a near flawless film with the exception of some lingering shots its just that I don't think that their is mass appeal by the movie going audiences to see films like this anymore. And I'm not saying art-house films like 2049 shouldn't be made I think that they should as this film has layers and layers of presence that current scifi films don't have or no longer do and that's draw you into the film world and cause you to get lost in it.

Offline Walter

  • 賢者
  • Administrator
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 15883
  • Karma: 469
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapter ≠ Episode
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1232 on: October 12, 2017, 01:18:22 AM »
How do you feel about rumors of Denis doing the next Dune? It's again another movie that doesn't need a follow up and yet, it'll happen anyway ... so given that predicament (as a fan), is Denis the best man for the job? 

Similar to when Studio4C announced plans to adapt the Golden Age into a movie trilogy, I think cramming Dune into a feature-length film is a bad idea. Villeneauve has proven himself as a capable guy for scifi, but Dune is like, my baby. If anything, I hope him being attached will draw more people to the novel, because as popular as it is, I don't think it's ever really gotten its due (really, not different from Berserk in this respect).
 
Quote
It hit me on the subway this morning that perhaps it's not as obvious as it seems and that maybe it was still all orchestrated by Wallace? Luv could have killed K when she had the chance before swimming back to the car, but she didn't. Maybe she had orders not to kill him so it's orchestrated that K kills her (I'm shrugging this off as I type it cos it sounds ridiculous) and so both, Deckard + K lead him to the child he's been looking for. It's a big big stretch but Wallace talking about how the meeting between Deckard and Rachel was orchestrated was a bit bonkers and I didn't see coming.

Nah, I don't buy that. Why would Ana have twisted the knife? She was going for the kill. Furthermore, there's no signal that it's the case, so it'd be purely hypothetical. I think Wallace just fucked up.

Walter... I am interested in seeing how much of a lasting influence Blade Runner 2049 has on the Theatrical Medium over the next 30 years.

Probably not much. I enjoyed the hell out of it, but it was undeniably derivative in terms of what it offered as a movie experience, compared to the original movie. Now in terms of scifi movie storytelling, perhaps it'll raise the bar a bit, something like what Children of Men did at the time.

Quote
As Blade Runner 2049 was a near flawless film with the exception of some lingering shots

Come on... near flawless? That's a little over the top. And if lingering shots were your problem, then I don't know how you got through the first movie. It's far more slow moving in terms of cinematography.

Quote
And I'm not saying art-house films like 2049 shouldn't be made

Blade Runner 2049 wasn't an art-house film by any stretch of the definition. It's a Columbia Pictures movie distributed by Sony and Warner Bros. It's just about as mainstream as you can get.
:femto: :slan: :ubik:

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1233 on: October 13, 2017, 02:46:43 PM »
Well, I got my ticket to 2049 at 3:30pm after work, before I have to come back for an 8pm meeting, but the fucking movie is so long I had to bypass a theater a few blocks away because it doesn't start there until "4:30pm" and if they don't it get going before five I might not have time to get back and setup for my own meeting! :ganishka: So, given the date I decided to play it safe with the earlier showtime and a short drive. Will update with my thoughts when I can (when I finally read the thread after the embargo I had to put on a few days back =).

As an aside, at first I tried making a date to see it with my dad this weekend, as I first watched the original with him like 20 years ago  (:isidro:), but, despite the positive word of mouth and his only begotten son wanting to take him, he's going to wait for it to hit cable. :schierke: BOOOOOO! Well, then I'm not coming to visit this weekend, dad!

Update:
The fire alarm went off during the trailers! Will update/consolidate posts later. :ganishka:
« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 01:18:26 AM by Griffith »

Offline Oburi

  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
  • Karma: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • All praise Grail
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1234 on: October 13, 2017, 11:42:34 PM »
Well, I got my ticket to 2049 at 3:30pm after work, before I have to come back for an 8pm meeting, but the fucking movie is so long I had to bypass a theater a few blocks away because it doesn't start there until "4:30pm" and if they don't it get going before five I might not have time to get back and setup for my own meeting! :ganishka: So, given the date I decided to play it safe with the earlier showtime and a short drive. Will update with my thoughts when I can (when I finally read the thread after the embargo I had to put on a few days back =).

As an aside, at first I tried making a date to see it with my dad this weekend, as I first watched the original with him like 20 years ago  (:isidro:), but, despite the positive word of mouth and his only begotten son wanting to take him, he's going to wait for it to hit cable. :schierke: BOOOOOO! Well, then I'm not coming to visit this weekend, dad!

That's funny, I'm in the same position. My father and I are supposed to see it this weekend but since I work nights I have to try to find a showing that's earlier enough and close enough so that I can make it to work on time. But because it's so damn long, it's actually harder than I thought it would be. At least my dad did agree to go with me.  :ganishka: I think that's just because he misses me though.

Offline MiyamotoPuck

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1235 on: October 13, 2017, 11:46:02 PM »
BOOOOOO! Well, then I'm not coming to visit this weekend, dad!
:ganishka:

The fire alarm went off during the trailers! Will update/consolidate posts later. :ganishka:
So unlucky! :judo:

I came out of the theater 2 hours ago, I had a really great time. Those 2h43 felt so short, I wish it was even longer! Just like the original Blade Runner, I really loved the awesome atmosphere. I don't really have anything to add to Walter's analysis except that I would give it a 9/10 and I think Ryan Gosling did a pretty good job.

And I don't really agree on Deckard being a replicant.
"We learn that Deckard went on the run with the remaining old-era replicants"
Didn't he run away with Rachel only?

"Fear of other blade runners hunting him"
Probably because he ran away with Rachel, and futhermore had a child.

"Wallace regards him as “a wonder” at his role in creating the first replicant child"
Maybe because he's a human having a child with a replicant?

I don't want to open a "nerd debate" as you call it because I don't really care, but I'm not really convinced. Perhaps I'm too naive, or I maybe need to rewatch the first Blade Runner to refresh my memory

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1236 on: October 14, 2017, 01:15:13 AM »
I still haven't caught up on the thread yet and am posting this on the go, but... I kind of didn't like it! :ganishka: Like I'm still waiting for it to get good but it ended 30 minutes ago and now I'm just waiting for pizza. I did dig the atmosphere, I'm definitely skulking around with an ominous Goslian look on my face (great casting for that part btw, definitely the role he was born to play =), but... I don't know what this was about and it didn't make me much care. The main conceit was a bit absurd to me, they don't really get into the nuts and bolts of it, and we're told it's so important but... I still don't see why (the good guys, bad guys, and their motives are all a bit muddled, incestuous and inconsequential)? I think the main thing even sorta misses the point, one could argue. Anyway, I thought it was all a bit simple, superficial and, given the relative lack of sizzle, all seasoning and no steak. Great seasoning though, top shelf, but where's the electronic mutton?

Disclaimer: That's my first impression though, which is often negative, the movie did have an affect on me and I'm still thinking about it, but we'll see if I'm haunted and drawn back, or if it's just lost in time, like tears in... forget it! Gotta get to my meeting. I'll be back when I've gathered my thoughts and read more impressions from this thread and elsewhere.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 01:28:07 AM by Griffith »

Offline Walter

  • 賢者
  • Administrator
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 15883
  • Karma: 469
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapter ≠ Episode
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1237 on: October 14, 2017, 02:11:54 AM »
I did dig the atmosphere

Then you liked the movie  :badbone:

Quote
ominous Goslian look on my face (great casting for that part btw, definitely the role he was born to play =)

He's 1 Genuine Human Bean! And a real hero.
:femto: :slan: :ubik:

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1238 on: October 14, 2017, 05:58:22 AM »
I want in on this cut!

I basically just cut out the conspiracy that needlessly drags out 20 minutes after the story's emotional climax and doesn't actually change any of the consequences (Cruise's character already disproved pre-cogging in the most meaningful of ways).

Then you liked the movie  :badbone:

You may be right! I see now you weren't any more thrilled by the plot than I was. For some reason I got the expectation, probably from the hyperlative reviews, that the story was going to be some mind-blowing feature going in, so I was continually looking for payoffs there rather than the film's actual strengths (atmosphere, visuals, tone, world, emotion, etc).

As for some of your other observations: the resolution didn't really mean much to me because it was between two characters with about fifteen minutes of combined screen time in a three hour movie and didn't really change anything. It was pretty much a MacGuffin payoff, whereas the original used the events of the film and the experiences of the characters to build to its conclusion and give it weight (I couldn't help but regard Ford's final question to K as unintentionally revealing, as in the answer should be "not much," for the audience as well). I also agree with you about a certain character and subplot that could have been cut altogether, but at least there was something there for the protagonist as Incantation pointed out (this movie is almost more a subplot itself around events that would be a sequel to the central conflict in Blade Runner, but it never really gets there either). I just don't think that character and what she represented was developed enough as a concept and should have been employed either more or much less (it also kind of confused the main theme unless it was supposed to be so obviously "less than" to bolster the case for the replicants). Finally, I thought the "big questions" got muddled and lost in favor of a pretty damn reductive, and ludicrous without further explanation, biological litmus test that shouldn't define one's humanity in any case. Han Solo: That's not how personhood works!

So, more story bitching from me, but I get the appeal too, I wasn't having a bad time watching the movie, I was into it and enjoyed the experience and just being there in that world. Plus it did its own thing and wasn't generally embarrassing or cringe-worthy in either reverence or irreverence, but it's also boring, nothing happens, and it never really goes anywhere (criticisms of the original to be fair) or gives you much to think about (the first did, and in this case, if you're making a movie for fans already thinking three moves ahead, there should probably should have been more than three moves =). I'll see what I think on a second viewing, but that probably won't be for a while.

Also, here's a poster for how my viewing of Blade Runner 2049 got started:




No match for the real thing of course:

« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 07:40:48 AM by Griffith »

Offline NightCrawler

  • Of the Vortex
  • ****
  • Posts: 1728
  • Karma: 6
  • Gender: Male
  • Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1239 on: October 14, 2017, 07:48:51 AM »
I hate it when posters don't match the names with the faces.
Berserk isn't really "dark fantasy" either. It's plain fantasy
Miura has been very protective of Berserk

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1240 on: October 14, 2017, 03:34:29 PM »
Fixed.

Except the other error there is that "Deckard" is actually wearing a costume instead of his around-the-house clothes from Target.


Pictured: The 2049 costume department.


Kidding aside, another random note on the film's immersive atmosphere and even more depressing than 2019 world was all the Fallout vibes I got from it, particularly Fallout: New Vegas (I don't think I've seen it better portrayed in a movie). That was a new twist for Blade Runner, and it felt like a more sparse world overall, despite Los Angeles 2049 being more jam-packed than ever (you can hardly see the obtrusive advertising from the air between the cracks in the apartment buildings as Wally noted). It's a far more devastated and dystopian future. Oh, and the location of Los Angeles' dumping grounds got a smile out of me. =)

On a much more random note: Channel surfing this morning we came upon the memorably putrid robot child sitcom Small Wonder, which I liked as a kid, but which my wife revealed to me gave her some existential crisis or "reality spiral" about whether or not she was or the woeld was real and how could she tell!? :magni: so, her big mind expanding/blowing "Blade Runner" or Matrix experience was Small Wonder. :ganishka:

BTW, I think 2049's cut and dry Human/Replicant themes also suffer in the wake of Westworld, which was like a 10 week course on the subject by comparison.


Update: Bummed the box office numbers aren't better for 2049; it's not even competing with something in it's class, but then the original Blade Runner was a box office failure too (and it's not THAT bad yet) so maybe this is a cred builder longterm. If it was some popular Star Wars-like blockbuster then it wouldn't be Blade Runner. Too bad that's what it takes to make sci-fi hit though.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 10:12:40 PM by Griffith »

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1241 on: October 20, 2017, 07:26:20 PM »
Hey, HELLO!? Is anybody out there? Don't mind the double post because it's the only Breeze post since my last; this is my de facto blog now. :slan:

Anyway, 2049 has stayed with me, a good thing, and thus my stance on it has softened around it's admirable traits as a worthy visionary successor rather than persisiting technical difficulties (like a DNA test? =). Before I see it again without the clouded eyes of expectations I've been scratching the itch it through other media, and came by this review by none other than Hideo Kojima:

http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/kojima-dreams-of-blade-runner-w509779

"Starring George Harrison" Now THAT would be a technical marvel, but I'm blaming a caption editor for that one. :ganishka:

Anyway, I appreciated the insightful, personal and straight-forward analysis of the piece and joked to myself if it's truly representative of his work it should go completely off the rails with confused metaphors in the second half... and then he did with the weird replicant motif! But not much, just a little nonsensical, and mostly superficial, which is kind like 2049 to the original (but with more heart and emotionally resonant storytelling throughout).
« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 07:37:14 PM by Griffith »

Offline Aazealh

  • 髑髏の騎士
  • Administrator
  • Of Terror
  • *****
  • Posts: 18419
  • Karma: 629
  • Gender: Male
  • そうはいかぬ
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1242 on: October 26, 2017, 07:21:43 PM »
Can't be bothered to read all those posts (please forgive me), but here's my take on Blade Runner 2049: I thought the movie was good enough. There's some nice photography in there, although the shots are way too clean. They lack the grit of the original, they often feel sterile and some scenes really look CGI'd (specifically at the beginning when we see the car in the rain). But it is a visually pleasing movie.
The music also did a decent enough job evoking Vangelis, if somewhat crudely.

The story's not too bad, although it's got its share of inconsistencies. But it's not stupid and it tries to have meaning. In that regard the movie could have been much much worse. That being said, the Joi subplot really overstays its welcome and feels like it wanted to be its own movie but was grafted onto this one instead. I appreciated that for all its artificiality, the story played her character straight (she appears to have her own will all along), that lends it more depth than it ought to have. But still, I think those themes were better addressed in Star Trek Voyager.

Harrison Ford basically plays himself and not Deckard (like he does in all movies these days), which is unfortunate. The limitations of Ryan Gosling's acting are also visible despite his character being emotionless on purpose, which says a lot. I did like Leto's portrayal of Wallace, though the drones felt totally unnecessary and seem like some that will age terribly. I think Luv was well-acted too.

Anyway, did this movie need to exist? No. But I'm Ok with it existing. I'm also fine with Villeneuve trying his hand at Dune (my favorite novel).

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1243 on: October 26, 2017, 10:26:41 PM »
Can't be bothered to read all those posts (please forgive me)

You could at least pretend :judo: ... like me. :griffnotevil:

here's my take on Blade Runner 2049: I thought the movie was good enough. There's some nice photography in there, although the shots are way too clean. They lack the grit of the original, they often feel sterile and some scenes really look CGI'd (specifically at the beginning when we see the car in the rain). But it is a visually pleasing movie.

Yeah, for the world being worse off everything seemed somehow more clean and uniform (and some of those exterior landscape shots were indeed looking like fog in a video game, but I think the change(s) in style befit the changes in the times and the director. It's its own style of Blade Runner, yet somehow nothing can top those practical and composite effects from fucking 1982. I mean, it looks more real because it was more real. It was Replicant versus Joi technology; we didn't know any better than to actually build it. =)

The music also did a decent enough job evoking Vangelis, if somewhat crudely.

*BRRAAAAAANG* I didn't know I signed up for the vibrating X-D experience, but it apparently came free.

The story's not too bad, although it's got its share of inconsistencies. But it's not stupid and it tries to have meaning. In that regard the movie could have been much much worse.

I didn't realize until I saw his name that Hampton Fancher had come back, which helps explain how it's such a comfortably elegant offshoot of the original rather than a ripoff or totally out there re-imagining like these things usually go when a "fan of the original" gets hold of it. Feels like an authentic sequel and organic follow-up, albeit clearly of a different cinematic age and ilk. It basically feels like a next generation sequel to a classic game.

That being said, the Joi subplot really overstays its welcome and feels like it wanted to be its own movie but was grafted onto this one instead. I appreciated that for all its artificiality, the story played her character straight (she appears to have her own will all along), that lends it more depth than it ought to have. But still, I think those themes were better addressed in Star Trek Voyager.

:ganishka:

What hasn't Star Trek done better (and worse =)? But yeah, I couldn't really get with Joi in the moment, though it added another layer most films (including this one according to the box office=) cannot afford. And the final inference that it was all bullshit, in contrast to the "more human than human" Replicants, was satisfying to me since that was pretty much my visceral reaction. I look forward to the day when I have to apologize for this and all my virtualphobia on twitter before my cyber identity is formally executed and I have to live in exile with the troglodytes, a fate worse than death.

Harrison Ford basically plays himself and not Deckard (like he does in all movies these days), which is unfortunate.

He was a feisty Ford, but no not very much like "cold fish" Deckard. I don't really see how living in exile for decades would unlock his passions either, but maybe he went stir crazy. Again, it probably didn't help they didn't even try a costume or hair and makeup or anything. Harrison Ford looks the same in all his interviews as his movies nowadays. Try a little theater magic, guys, just put the old costume on him and see what happens. BTW, I also wasn't sold on the romanticizing of his relationship with Rachael. It wasn't some great ideal love, far from it, and it was desperate and ultimately about survival for them both and that's what I liked about it. It was like that thread in 2049 followed the studio's theatrical ending instead.

The limitations of Ryan Gosling's acting are also visible despite his character being emotionless on purpose, which says a lot.

He was a bit of a noble cipher for us and the Relipcants as a group I felt.

I did like Leto's portrayal of Wallace, though the drones felt totally unnecessary and seem like some that will age terribly. I think Luv was well-acted too.

These two had the most interesting performances but the least to do and we don't really get to the bottom of them! Leto is just mysteriously evil and Luv seems to have a lot going on under the surface but we don't really get at it besides her misused Replicant pride. Also I didn't think those drones looked good NOW; it was like the scarabs from Brendan Fraser's The Mummy or something.

Anyway, did this movie need to exist? No. But I'm Ok with it existing.

This is basically the softer interpretation I've come around to from my initial disappointments. The movie does some good or even great things and ultimately does no harm so I'm happier that we have it than don't. It's about as sincere, faithful and worthy an effort at a follow up like this that could be attempted at this point... so of course Ridley Scott had relatively little to do with it. :ganishka: Even it's box office shortcomings give it a badge of honor in my eyes; they went for the real ponderous sci-fi shit and oaid the price rather than make some nightmare Michael Bay version of Blade Runner (like Scott did with Alien, ironically).

I'm also fine with Villeneuve trying his hand at Dune (my favorite novel).

As long as he doesn't have the same reverence for David Lynch's version that he clearly does for Blade Runner. :ganishka:

What if Ridley Scott had done Dune back in his prime and we ended up with an impeccable sci-fi trilogy of Alien, Dune, and Blade Runner... Of course, we might not have got Blade Runner then, at least not the same one, and no guarantees anybody, even 79-82 Scott, can pull off Dune (and some would argue Lynch didn't do half bad for a supposedly "unfilmmable" work).
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 10:45:55 PM by Griffith »

Offline Walter

  • 賢者
  • Administrator
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 15883
  • Karma: 469
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapter ≠ Episode
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1244 on: October 27, 2017, 12:45:48 AM »
As long as he doesn't have the same reverence for David Lynch's version that he clearly does for Blade Runner. :ganishka:

I don't think there should be any concerns for that. Lynch's Dune has never been regarded as the authoritative take on the book, so it wouldn't make much sense for Villeneuve to attempt to mimick it.

Instead, I imagine (hope?) that Villeneuve will attempt to offer his interpretation of the novel. This both excites me and makes me uncomfortable. The novel is epic science fiction, and has long deserved a more dignified seat at the table among sci-fi films — if anything, just to get more people to read the damned book and realize how awesome it is. The problem is, I don't think Dune is something you can comfortably squeeze into a feature-length film. Even ignoring the vast amount of set up time necessary to digest the arrangement of houses, economy, technology, history that makes the scale of the opening act carry weight, there's a lot of character development, passages of time, that don't lend themselves to a single breezy sit-down experience, even at 2h 44 min. And if the solution is to trim those aforementioned parts, then like Studio4C cutting out the inconvenient Bonfire of Dreams sequence, I'd rather the attempt just not be made. But I'm getting ahead of myself  :void:

Quote
What if Ridley Scott had done Dune back in his prime and we ended up with an impeccable sci-fi trilogy of Alien, Dune, and Blade Runner...

It's funny that you bring that up, because a significant chunk of the creative energies behind Jodorowsky's ill-fated Dune were eventually what gave birth to Alien.
:femto: :slan: :ubik:

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1245 on: October 27, 2017, 02:29:43 PM »
I don't think there should be any concerns for that. Lynch's Dune has never been regarded as the authoritative take on the book, so it wouldn't make much sense for Villeneuve to attempt to mimick it.



Instead, I imagine (hope?) that Villeneuve will attempt to offer his interpretation of the novel. This both excites me and makes me uncomfortable. The novel is epic science fiction, and has long deserved a more dignified seat at the table among sci-fi films — if anything, just to get more people to read the damned book and realize how awesome it is. The problem is, I don't think Dune is something you can comfortably squeeze into a feature-length film. Even ignoring the vast amount of set up time necessary to digest the arrangement of houses, economy, technology, history that makes the scale of the opening act carry weight, there's a lot of character development, passages of time, that don't lend themselves to a single breezy sit-down experience, even at 2h 44 min. And if the solution is to trim those aforementioned parts, then like Studio4C cutting out the inconvenient Bonfire of Dreams sequence, I'd rather the attempt just not be made. But I'm getting ahead of myself  :void:

Yeah, it's the same problem with a lot of huge book to film adaptations: it needs the Harry Potter multi-film slow roll treatment to even have a chance of being done right (Dark Tower being the latest grand failure), but few things have the juice, or the irrational commitment from masses of fans that the films don't actually need to be objectively good or even very entertaining (hi again, Harry!), for that huge commitment upfront, and I don't think Dune is one of them despite being perhaps the most renowned sci-fi novel of all time (my first generation nerd dad is still so proud of his first edition :carcus:). On the other hand, I don't even think a film series is the best choice for something like this for the reasons you laid out, and a TV series is obviously no longer the death sentence by low expectations it once was, but rather often finer drama than anything at the movies these days (like I said, as good as 2049 was, it can't help but feel shallow compared to, say, Westworld). Calling HBO? Netflix? Amazon (which we heard wants it's own GoT)? You guys have any billions left to bring Dune to life, even as a write off? It'll be better received now than the Confederate fanfic written by male Hollywood power players, I promise! =)

It's funny that you bring that up, because a significant chunk of the creative energies behind Jodorowsky's ill-fated Dune were eventually what gave birth to Alien.

Oh yeah, that mini-golden age was so incestuous! I heard Walter Hill talk about it a bit on the WTF pod, I don't know if you heard it (I know you've been a listener in the past) but it's worth it for that alone.

Offline Walter

  • 賢者
  • Administrator
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 15883
  • Karma: 469
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapter ≠ Episode
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1246 on: October 27, 2017, 04:44:26 PM »
On the other hand, I don't even think a film series is the best choice for something like this for the reasons you laid out, and a TV series is obviously no longer the death sentence by low expectations it once was, but rather often finer drama than anything at the movies these days (like I said, as good as 2049 was, it can't help but feel shallow compared to, say, Westworld). Calling HBO? Netflix? Amazon (which we heard wants it's own GoT)? You guys have any billions left to bring Dune to life, even as a write off? It'll be better received now than the Confederate fanfic written by male Hollywood power players, I promise! =)

Part of me wants it to be a film for esoteric nerd reasons, but a series would more easily fit the mold. That being said, I can count on one hand the number of serialized dramas that have left an impression on me, particularly recently. I feel like these studios have become pros at pushing out lots of content, creating a container with a substantial pitch, pilot and conclusion, and then just filling the rest of the glass with piss. Netflix is in particularly guilty of this, stringing out their series' structure with filler, dragging B-plots on for 5 episodes and then resolving them suddenly in minutes. Ugh... Hey speaking of which guys, Stranger Things 2 is out!

Quote
Oh yeah, that mini-golden age was so incestuous! I heard Walter Hill talk about it a bit on the WTF pod, I don't know if you heard it (I know you've been a listener in the past) but it's worth it for that alone.

Nope! I'll look for that one. I have a road trip this weekend.

 I check in on the show every 6 months or so. Sometimes that show is amazing. But it's absolutely contingent on the guest being solid and receptive to Maron's conversational style. Much of the time, it's just boring to me, or feels like they're running down the clock as much as they can. I have the same problem with WTF as I do with the Jimmy Pardo podcast -- both can  be phenomenal, but it's too much inside baseball. Whether it's comedy or Hollywood, the way they talk about those industries lifts the curtain in a way that's just really off-putting to me.
:femto: :slan: :ubik:

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1247 on: October 27, 2017, 07:24:14 PM »
Part of me wants it to be a film for esoteric nerd reasons, but a series would more easily fit the mold.

Well, there's something to be said for a truly transcendent film, but the problem is the likelihood of that is so small, particularly because it's rarely even attempted over making it more commercial. Blade Runner 2049 is a great example; they really tried in earnest to do it "the right way," and largely pulled it off, but were not rewarded.

That being said, I can count on one hand the number of serialized dramas that have left an impression on me, particularly recently. I feel like these studios have become pros at pushing out lots of content, creating a container with a substantial pitch, pilot and conclusion, and then just filling the rest of the glass with piss. Netflix is in particularly guilty of this, stringing out their series' structure with filler, dragging B-plots on for 5 episodes and then resolving them suddenly in minutes. Ugh... Hey speaking of which guys, Stranger Things 2 is out!

Fair point, I'm also looking at the exceptions, The Sopranos, GoT, etc rather than the rule, which is that most TV is still bad or disappointing, even if there's infinitely more attempts at worthwhile content (or the meaning of that isn't the same as "good" these days). Still, I feel like there's a way better chance and it would be easier to do it justice as a big budget prestige TV project than finding the patience and lightning in a bottle to do a worthwhile film, let alone film series. One advantage Dune would have on TV is they already have plenty of material and another longform media platform would give them the best chance to just make a yeoman's work filming it and let the source do the talking and shine through, so they shouldn't need to resort to the piss jar as you say. Doesn't mean they wouldn't, of course! :carcus: Anyway, I guess they're already doing it as a movie so this is academic at this point, and I agree with the sentiment that Villeneuve giving it a shot is about as promising as anything I can think of, even if it still seems doomed to fall short.

Nope! I'll look for that one. I have a road trip this weekend.

I check in on the show every 6 months or so. Sometimes that show is amazing. But it's absolutely contingent on the guest being solid and receptive to Maron's conversational style. Much of the time, it's just boring to me, or feels like they're running down the clock as much as they can. I have the same problem with WTF as I do with the Jimmy Pardo podcast -- both can  be phenomenal, but it's too much inside baseball. Whether it's comedy or Hollywood, the way they talk about those industries lifts the curtain in a way that's just really off-putting to me.

Cool, but yeah, it has to be a guest I'm into or it's just listening to Maron talk to himself, which if you've heard once is probably enough. The only pods I can stand to listen to semi-regularly are The Bill Simmons podcast, WTF, and... that's about it. I try listening to the Deadcast sometimes but they're awful, and used to listen to Carolla back in the day but again it was the same thing all the time, and Keepin' It 1600/Pod Save America was promptly discarded on November 9th. :ganishka:

Offline ThePiedPiper

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1248 on: November 04, 2017, 02:31:10 AM »
I saw Thor Ragnarok in theaters today. My spoiler-free review is as follows: I give the movie a 9.5/10; it was hilarious, badass, and written and paced in a way that was thoroughly enjoyable. What keeps it from being a complete 10 is that there were, in my view, a couple [very minor] things that kept it from getting there. I am simply hard-pressed to give out perfect 10's, but that does not take away from how much fun the movie was. It wiped the floor with the first two Thor films, and had the energy of a Guardians of the Galaxy film. There were surprises, even for myself who had prior knowledge of the original comic book story. As far as the Marvel comic book geeky aspects go, I think it is one of the greatest movies made so far.
Currently playing-
Kingdom Hearts Re:Chain of Memories
Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus
Super Mario Galaxy 2

Offline MiyamotoPuck

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1249 on: November 10, 2017, 10:14:32 PM »
I finally watched "I Saw the Devil" today, it has been recommended to me here quite a long time ago after I watched Oldboy. A very well orchestrated revenge story, it was great. I recommend it to anyone who might be interested if some violence doesn't bother you too much.