[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i was coherent enough not to insult you while explaining why i haven’t paid that much attention to nolan’s work, but i guess could start going off about the moronic mass audiences looking in overproduced blockbusters for some deeper meaning that’s just not there—or nah, i just won’t. who has the time?

Okay, I yield! Yield!!!

yeah i’ve been reading reviews by women and the issue with female representation is brought up often but not always negatively— one critic i read was saying that the film does not portray an idealized world but rather the world as it is (as blade runner does) and therefore it’s clearly justified in its depictions, even though they are, in themselves, bothersome.

Ah. See, I hadn’t thought about it like that. I’ve been steering clear of the reviews on this one because this was, honestly, a fucking HUGE thing for me, and I’ve been hoping for something like this — but ONLY if it could be done PERFECTLY— for actual decades. So I want to make sure my opinion is mine, and not colored by the reviews. But this is pretty interesting. I’d love to read a female’s take on the “Joi” character, for instance... so maybe I will read past the simple “5 Stars” and “90-something percent” now that I’ve had a week to let the thing sink in.

i wasn’t suprised by gosling. he managed to carry drive with an even more inexpressive face than this one. but yeah that movie lasted 1/2 the time as this one.

but you gotta remember though— the other character here is the cinematography itself and all those moody, abstract shots. so it’s kind of a tag-team job.

what i was suprised with is that i could not just endure but actually enjoy all of the ambient shots. usually i’m first to condemn what i see as such gimmicks. but here, with a great display of balls for an “action” movie, it works very well. and extra thanks to the director for not filling the whole 3 hours with explosions.

You’re absolutely right about Drive. That’s the one that made me notice him as an actor. And the “carrying” he did in that films was probably quite a bit more intense. Close-ups and slow zooms and what not. Lots of his face and silence. So that was no small feat. But I feel like Drive was peppered with several pretty juicy smaller parts — Bryan Cranston, Carey Mulligan, Oscar Isaac, Albert Brooks — that helped make the thing flow. In BR2049, Gosling was the emotional center of everything the audience experienced. It was almost like watching the movie THROUGH him. Not to say the other actors weren’t good in this, because they were. I rarely find Harrison Ford so palatable. And yeah, the runtime.

Anyway, I felt the exact same way about the ambient shots.
I too have a rough time with that kind of thing when it’s just filler, or explosions and nonsense to compensate for a lacking script, and I’ll admit I was apprehensive when I walked into the theater, thinking “Man, I’m gonna wish I was at home if this starts to drag.” But I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of it too. I don’t think I looked away from the screen once. Not at my phone or my watch or my Red Vines. I was glued to this thing.

And the cinematography — just, fucking hell. Incredible. The cinematography in the original was great and definitive as well, and I feel like they maintained the spirit of that by making it an equally important player in the sequel... just adapted for new technologies and modernized, but with the same immersive awesomeness as the first. Only, like you said, with added elements and explosives and a much more expansive perspective.

I actually even kind of liked the way Leto played Wallace as sort of a pompous, country preacher-mad scientist hybrid. I almost expected him to say “Carole Aaaaaan!” a few times. I didn’t hate that affect. I think there are probably other actors who would have been better and more powerful in the role, but I was expecting to fucking hate him as I always do, and I was pleasantly surprised. I think this director, Villeneuve, brings out the best in everyone a bit.

Comparisons to Nolan aside... really I just think they have a similar flair for tension and a similar love of memory and perception and whatnot. Also some stylistic similarities, in color and tone and stuff, but whatever.

Blade Runner, bitches!

[!@#$%!]

i knew it was gonna be a home run for me when i caught myself smiling several times during the movie. not because the movie itself was a happy one but because i was getting a sense of something so very well done.

and then instead of feeling anxious about the plot i started feeling anxious about the movie stepping on a banana peel. and there were some minor banana peels for me but they were not catastrophic.

SPOILERS SPOILERS

one was the digital recreation of rachel. it was too obvious and heavy handed and it looked weird and flat anyway, like a cardboard cutout. i don’t think that it even was necessary for that scene. it ruined it for me a little.

the other heavy handed moment is when the movie doesn’t end with k on the steps of the lab. i wanted the movie to end there. this was the end of his job and therefore his film. but no, they had to had deckard putting his hand on the glass. agh! just that last shot.

so i wasn’t gonna start reading reviews for a while and let the movie seep into my deep brain first but turns out i got into a fight of sorts with a feminist friend who saw nothing but shit in this film— gave it an overly straight, square reading (in the sense of a certain political orthodoxy)and had nothing but condemnation—which puzzled me because i thought i had seen a much more ambiguous piece in this. so i went on to find other feminist readings of it and found a healthy diversity of opinions among a variety of writers. but some people just can’t stand diversity or difference of opinion, and hence... i’m good at pissing off dogmatic people haa haaa haa.

—

eta: i’ll have to say though, i’ve found a lot of women enraged beyond reason lately. i’ve found myself being yelled out instead of argued with in recent months. i sympathize/understand that the current climate we live in, with president pussy grabber being rewarded for his predatory behavior, must have tipped some people over the limit. we’re at a turning point in more ways than one—the patriarchy is fighting for its last gasps of air. so i understand the pent-up rage. at the same time, i still can’t be persuaded by dogmatism and yelling— the only force i’ll voluntarily submit to is the one contained in a good argument.

[demonrail666]

 

Fingered

Say no more

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i knew it was gonna be a home run for me when i caught myself smiling several times during the movie. not because the movie itself was a happy one but because i was getting a sense of something so very well done.

and then instead of feeling anxious about the plot i started feeling anxious about the movie stepping on a banana peel. and there were some minor banana peels for me but they were not catastrophic.

SPOILERS SPOILERS

one was the digital recreation of rachel. it was too obvious and heavy handed and it looked weird and flat anyway, like a cardboard cutout. i don’t think that it even was necessary for that scene. it ruined it for me a little.

the other heavy handed moment is when the movie doesn’t end with k on the steps of the lab. i wanted the movie to end there. this was the end of his job and therefore his film. but no, they had to had deckard putting his hand on the glass. agh! just that last shot.

so i wasn’t gonna start reading reviews for a while and let the movie seep into my deep brain first but turns out i got into a fight of sorts with a feminist friend who saw nothing but shit in this film— gave it an overly straight, square reading (in the sense of a certain political orthodoxy)and had nothing but condemnation—which puzzled me because i thought i had seen a much more ambiguous piece in this. so i went on to find other feminist readings of it and found a healthy diversity of opinions among a variety of writers. but some people just can’t stand diversity or difference of opinion, and hence... i’m good at pissing off dogmatic people haa haaa haa.

—

eta: i’ll have to say though, i’ve found a lot of women enraged beyond reason lately. i’ve found myself being yelled out instead of argued with in recent months. i sympathize/understand that the current climate we live in, with president pussy grabber being rewarded for his predatory behavior, must have tipped some people over the limit. we’re at a turning point in more ways than one—the patriarchy is fighting for its last gasps of air. so i understand the pent-up rage. at the same time, i still can’t be persuaded by dogmatism and yelling— the only force i’ll voluntarily submit to is the one contained in a good argument.

SPOILERS!


Was it a digital recreation of Rachel? I actually couldn’t tell. Looked like it might have been a different actress, made up and filmed to look just like her. At least in that sequence when she comes out and talks to Deckard. The first time we saw her it felt more like a flashback, like digitized footage from the original movie. I really wasn’t sure about all of that, but I agree it was a little off. Not off enough to create a problem for me with the movie, but it was certainly a hiccup.

That’s a trend these days. Like in Captain America: Civil War, when they used old footage of RDJ to “de-age” him and turn him into a cartoon, essentially, that did what they wanted him to do. It may have started with Benjamin Button (which used old Brad Pitt footage to digitally put a younger face on 50-year-old Pitt’s body) or maybe it started with that Michael Jackson hologram or some shit. I dunno. Imagine how godawful it’s all going to look in a few years.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by Severian

SPOILERS!


Was it a digital recreation of Rachel? I actually couldn’t tell. Looked like it might have been a different actress, made up and filmed to look just like her. At least in that sequence when she comes out and talks to Deckard. The first time we saw her it felt more like a flashback, like digitized footage from the original movie. I really wasn’t sure about all of that, but I agree it was a little off. Not off enough to create a problem for me with the movie, but it was certainly a hiccup.

That’s a trend these days. Like in Captain America: Civil War, when they used old footage of RDJ to “de-age” him and turn him into a cartoon, essentially, that did what they wanted him to do. It may have started with Benjamin Button (which used old Brad Pitt footage to digitally put a younger face on 50-year-old Pitt’s body) or maybe it started with that Michael Jackson hologram or some shit. I dunno. Imagine how godawful it’s all going to look in a few years.

You couldn't tell?! You blind or summat? As soon as she spoke you could see it. It didn't look as bad as Leia in the last star wars films but it was bad.

I'm gonna go see it again on Friday I think. It'll be interesting to see if it holds up on second watch.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

You couldn't tell?! You blind or summat? As soon as she spoke you could see it. It didn't look as bad as Leia in the last star wars films but it was bad.

I'm gonna go see it again on Friday I think. It'll be interesting to see if it holds up on second watch.

Well, I do have really, like EPIC shitty vision, but no... in all honesty I couldn’t quite pin it down. One second it looked like all effects, the next second it looked like a different actress, layered with make-up and effects, but still an actual person.

I’m not sure why it was hard to tell. I guess I assumed, because it’s Blade Runner, that they would use as much non-digital effects as possible in the spirit of the original. I was able to tell BIG TIME with Leia, and with RDJ in Civil War, so either, yeah, I’m blind, or their tactics have improved just over the past year.

[evollove]

I've noticed more than once that digital effects can seem obvious when watching in a theater, but look fine at home, even on a big screen TV. I don't know why this is.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by evollove

I've noticed more than once that digital effects can seem obvious when watching in a theater, but look fine at home, even on a big screen TV. I don't know why this is.

Must just be my big fat dumb stupid ass then, right? Yeah, I read you dickhead.

Nah I’m just fucking.

I think I was too focused on trying to figure out which it was — pure digital effects or digital effects plus a different actress — that I got my mind all tied up and couldn’t focus on what was probably the obvious answer.

I mean, it was SUPER obvious that SOMETHING was off, so I just sat up and zoomed way in and got in my own way.

Anyway, still wasn’t enough to ruin or even slightly smudge any portion of the movie for me.

[Rob Instigator]

Am I the only one that thinks Blade Runner OG looked amazing, but was like 85% BORING FUCKING SHIT? The last 20 mins are great, but oh my fuck is it just a dull fucking movie for the most part. I get it's importance, and I have seen it countless times, but everytime I think, this movie is duller than 2010...

Also, the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep SUCKS. In fact, everything I have ever read by william gibson SUCKS. Fucking boring ass writer. deadly dull. I think people overvalue BladeRunner because it was so different visually.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Am I the only one that thinks Blade Runner OG looked amazing, but was like 85% BORING FUCKING SHIT? The last 20 mins are great, but oh my fuck is it just a dull fucking movie for the most part. I get it's importance, and I have seen it countless times, but everytime I think, this movie is duller than 2010...

Also, the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep SUCKS. In fact, everything I have ever read by william gibson SUCKS. Fucking boring ass writer. deadly dull. I think people overvalue BladeRunner because it was so different visually.

i’ve never been able to finish the book but it was written by philip dick. he was a sloppy writer though, often worked on amphetamines to get paid quickly.

did like his ubik. did not like the tv version of man in the high castle.

gibson however is addictive and have read most of his stuff (not all i admit).

anyway, generally speaking to all the rest you say—no

[Rob Instigator]

hahaha. I forgot. my mistake. I like 3 or 4 PKD books. his ideas were better than the writing.

I stil contend william gibson is dull as fuck.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

hahaha. I forgot. my mistake. I like 3 or 4 PKD books. his ideas were better than the writing.

i agree. i think he’d agree if he was alive. had a bunch of alimonies to pay or something. wrote, knowingly, in a huge rush

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I stil contend william gibson is dull as fuck.

contend all you want but neuromancer alone changed the landscape of the culture forever and helped science fiction break through to the mainstream like never before

sure he had cohorts and predecessors and all that context which should not be forgotten, but there was a before and an after him no doubt. and part of it was because he was hugely readable, not just smart.

plus at heart he’s a bit of a poet which made for his colorful images and vivid descriptions and all that. i mean. the first lines of neuromancer: “the sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel”. brilliant. you’re old enough to remember that picture so well (and the sound).

i contend that your doubling down on “boring” is boring

[!@#$%!]

btw im not trying to say that gibson is above criticism but the blanket one you use so often isn’t helpful— would be good if you aimed at the actual jugular, i.e., criticized specifics, which you do so well in your published reviews

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Am I the only one that thinks Blade Runner OG looked amazing, but was like 85% BORING FUCKING SHIT? The last 20 mins are great, but oh my fuck is it just a dull fucking movie for the most part. I get it's importance, and I have seen it countless times, but everytime I think, this movie is duller than 2010...

Also, the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep SUCKS. In fact, everything I have ever read by william gibson SUCKS. Fucking boring ass writer. deadly dull. I think people overvalue BladeRunner because it was so different visually.

Blade Runner is not boring. It’s majestic and incredible.

Also, “Do Androids Dream of Elecrric Sheep?” was written by Philip K. Dick. You’re thinking of “Neuromancer.” An easy mistake if you’re not intimately down with the genre. “Neuromancer” is actually a MUCH better book than “DADOAS?” But Blade Runner > Neuromancer. Make sense? No? Good.

I don’t like the book much. I’ve managed to convince myself that it’s great in between readings, but I always go back and realize it’s not.

“The Man in the High Castle” is better.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

btw im not trying to say that gibson is above criticism but the blanket one you use so often isn’t helpful— would be good if you aimed at the actual jugular, i.e., criticized specifics, which you do so well in your published reviews

William Gibson is not boring. “The Differnce Engine” is one of my favorite books.

But PKD is indeed a bit overrated in hindsight. A lot of his writing was kooky and haphazard in a weird, babbling way. I read his stuff and I like the ideas, but I wish Bradbury or someone had been manning the old typewriter.

Still a PKD fan, but not as much as I once was.

Love Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 more than any of what he wrote.

Never saw much of the “Man in the High Castle” series, but I did watch enough to know that it was straying even further from the source material than Blade Runner was from “Androids.” Only in this case I like the book more.

Love the movie of Minority Report. Can’t temember the story very well at this point.

PKD is definitely inconsistent.

Proud of you for standing up for “Neuromancer.”

[!@#$%!]

i didn’t stand up for neuromancer, just for accuracy and useful criticism (count zero and mona lisa overdrive were a bit of a letdown, btw, like they were driven by the inertia of the first book— still entertaining though)

[tw2113]

Once Bitten. Yolo

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i didn’t stand up for neuromancer, just for accuracy and useful criticism (count zero and mona lisa overdrive were a bit of a letdown, btw, like they were driven by the inertia of the first book— still entertaining though)

Well, whatever. You were right about it.

[gogologogolo]

Just saw the new Blade Runner 2049. I feel a bit conflicted. Beautiful visuals and cinematography and a great soundtrack by Johann Johannsson. But the story made little sense and honestly, I think the movie would have been better if it wasn't a sequel. I honestly believe that Harrison Ford didn't need to be in the movie, and it would have been better if they had just removed him entirely. Also the CEO guy in the watery room was spouting some serious bullshit lines. Who wrote that nonsense?

Still, Villeneuve is a master and he did the original a lot more justice than most directors would have.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by gogologogolo

Just saw the new Blade Runner 2049. I feel a bit conflicted. Beautiful visuals and cinematography and a great soundtrack by Johann Johannsson. But the story made little sense and honestly, I think the movie would have been better if it wasn't a sequel. I honestly believe that Harrison Ford didn't need to be in the movie, and it would have been better if they had just removed him entirely. Also the CEO guy in the watery room was spouting some serious bullshit lines. Who wrote that nonsense?

Still, Villeneuve is a master and he did the original a lot more justice than most directors would have.

Johan Johannsson did not do the score. He left the project officially a few months ago. Pretty sure it was Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch.

Anyway, your issues with the move make no sense to me. Remove Harrison Ford? Like, just him, or remove Deckard from the film’s mythology? No tie-in to the original? Uh. No. I don’t think that would have been better, or good.

It sounds like you’re saying they should take a great story and turn it into not a story at all, or something totally different than what it was. And I disagree. The story was excellent, and without Ford it would have been considerably less so. Without any Deckard/Rachel/Tyrell tie-ins at all it would have been... not a story.

So yah, I’m confused.