So hype.
Printable View
So hype.
I didn't realize the Prisoners/Sicario/Arrival dude was directing this.
So hype indeed.
So, I'm assuming Deckard IS a Replicant, and Gosling is hunting him down?
They gave him a hell of a shelf life, if that's the case.
He's a Nexus 6. We don't know how long they last for.
I heard a rumor that Josh is a replicant.
I heard a rumor that your mom is a replicant. A basic pleasure model.
Oh shit
Basic bitch imo
I wanna know how Ford is keeping his shirts so clean in that desert hideout.
HE SAY YOU BRADE RUNNAH
This reminds me to watch the original, will try to stay awake this time.
Josh and I were talking about that Monday. I told him I was gonna do the slow moving sci-fi endurance test of Final Cut and Akira back to back
Good luck with that. I know I won't be able to stay awake, just not getting enough sleep these days.
I would take 3 days to watch it between the two jobs lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
Rachel didn't have a limited lifespan, did she?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Might as well throw 2001 in there and make it a real challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
Blargh. I get that film is important but holy shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
FWIW, Star Trek The Motion Picture Extended + Akira + 2001 = impossible. Bladerunner Final isn't nearly as sleep inducing as either ST or 2001
That first Star Trek movie suuuuuucks.
It's got five solid minutes distributed out over two hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I think there is a really good episode of TOS in there if you had someone edit it to like, 45 mins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Looks cool. It's great seeing all these big budget sci-fi movies lately.
Starting to get excited.
Just watched the second trailer... I don't think this is going to be a good movie, guys. This is a trope-y motherfucker right out the gate.
Rutger Hauer IS Blade Runner. He ain't in this.
I'll put it this way, Ridley Scott has proven himself to be no George Miller.
This certainly is a 2017 sequel to a beloved 30 year old property. Fury Road was the exception that will forever prove the rule on that one.
It can't be worse than the original Blade Runner.
I feel like most people probably feel that way. The original is a tough watch for a lot of folks in 2017.
It was a tough watch back then too.
It's like Akira.
Yeah, I said it.
slow burn art flicks
Mileage may vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Akira is a two hour master class in animation and a pretty bad story. Very good comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
This is spawning a cartoon spin-off that I think is more interesting than the actual film.
https://youtu.be/pwjGlAa3-F4
I still find Blade Runner plenty watchable.
Considering it's 35 years old it holds up really well visually.
I watched the 1997 cut of Blade Runner not that long ago and thought it still held up okay.
People's expectations of sci-fi movies have definitely been pushed toward action oriented popcorn flicks, so I can understand why it would be underwhelming to some.
It's visually amazing. There's no question of it "holding up well" in that regard.
It's just boring as hell.
Just like Akira.
OK
I'm sure it will be fine. Just not very bladerunnery.
Like that new judge dredd movie that is mostly ok if you ignore what it should have been.
I didn't like that the new Judge Dredd movie was stuck in one building. I feel like if we're going to do the 2000AD thing I want to see crazy stuff in big settings and mega cities. I don't think the Stallone movie is very good but I think it's closer to what I want out of that property setting wise.
The new dredd wasn't so much Dredd, as it was fanfiction for "High-Rise"
Its like someone read/watched that story and said to them self, "what is the outcome of this story? There is still a world out there. There is still a State with police and laws." So they wrote a script for the Law dealing with the events of "High-Rise"
The new bladerunner will probably be ok as long as you pretend it is about the fully human cop from Ghost in the Shell.
The Robocop remake was terrible Robocop but pretty great ESwat.
I thought that remake was pretty good!
Philistine.
The new one lacked any kind of punch and tried so hard to parody steve jobs ( which was pretty so so) it didn't do much else.
The first did a pretty good job of making fun of 1980s us industry and media and greed. And the new one was missing a lot of that.
The new one forgot to have jokes, yeah, but at least it kinda realized who the original joke was on.
It's not amazing, but as far as 21st century remakes go, just about every other one is much, much worse.
Ah, so the bar is "not be horrible"
Yes, it wasn't horrible. But it was forgettable. I will never watch it again if left to my own devices and desires. It will have to be one of those "the only thing on at fam's house" kind of things, and even then tremors or the fifth element will be on probably.
Have they remade tremors yet? That seems kind of obvious in the current anti intellectual pro rural American climate of today. Cross promote by making the two dudes really sexy. Or the redneck from walking dead that girls oddly like .
Kevin Bacon is doing a Tremors TV show for some network.
The last movie (5) came out in 2015.
Yeah, most are. Notable exceptions: Battlestar Galactica & Planet of the ApesQuote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Battlestar Galactica wasn't that good. I think people will see that in another 5 years.
I hate being that guy, but it's far better than a lot of sci fi out there. It absolutely went to pot the last couple of seasons or half seasons or whatever you want to call them. But I've watched it beginning to end 3x since it aired and aside from the things I complained about back when it aired (constant crying balthar and shit like that) it hasn't soured for me yet.
The show felt unnatural to me. People go through a grieving process for loss. And people cope in different ways like dark humor.
I think I watched 6 episodes of the first season and people never dealt or got over shit. The overall feeling was tense and depressed and you didn't get a variety of coping attitudes. It felt unnatural and like bad writing.
I hate to be a weeaboo but the original macros did a better job of showing how humans cope with that scenario. People rebuilt. They try to recreate normalcy. Some joined the military to gain a sense of control over their now ruined lives.
The new Battlestar was just way too flat in how it wrote people. Like a soap opera for men.
Everything is a soap opera. Not saying that as a defense, but it's how it is these days.
So, when it's 19 years old instead of 14 people will see it wasn't that good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Best sci-fi TV show in the history of television, IMHO.
(Edited to reply to what you wrote)
Personally, I think it's probably difficult to prognosticate how devastated you'd be if your family was murdered, humanity across (12?) planets has basically ended, you're being chased by a superior race that wants you eradicated and had no time to prepare for that while trying to escape on a ship that's so old it's being decommissioned with a bunch of other ships that can't defend themselves.
I'd be depressed too. That darkness makes the triumphs that much more satisfying. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
That's the thing, we do kind of know. We actually have a lot of data on grief and greiving. People study it a lot. Depression and unhappiness are where the money is. People pay to not feel that way.
I'm sorry, but Macross just did it better.
Personally, I blame J. G. Ballard. All this shit goes back to his writing style. Which goes back to how his family was treated in captivity. Walking dead, Battlestar, the new dredd, they all drink from that specific moment in time as it was perceived by a child.
Firefly was better than Battlestar Gallactica and it only had 11 episodes.
Only three of those 11 were any good, let's be real. Serenity was a Scifi Channel Original Movie
Though that objects in space episode was better than the rest of the series by a country mile. Having a compelling villain did wonders for that show. Shame it was the very last episode.
Nah. Not only did the universe expand well, there were entire character arcs that unfolded.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
The movie wasn't great though. I'll grant you that.
It's not a flavor I'm ever going to need to revisit, but people really love it and that's cool too.
Oh, that other garbage show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I think there is a deep fetish for brown leather that no one has fully exploited for financial gain like with black leather. Steam punk and space cowboy shit just barely touches on it and people use it as an outlet.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Also, steam punk is 95% garbage
Sounds like you just have poor taste.
If you can still handle Joss Whedon dialogue in 2017, hats off buddy.
Meh. We can dissect this as much as you want and, if I'm reading correctly, you watched 6 episodes and passed that judgment. Apologies if that's incorrect. All of this is obviously subject to personal taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
You can make the argument that there should be more dark humor and I can counter with that maybe there was but that's not what the creators of the show wanted you to see in the limited time they had each week. Gaius was enough of a humor element that I don't think dark humor was necessary.
And, yeah, Firefly was better but I can't give it best TV scifi show just because of how short it was. I thought Stargate Universe was pretty good, too.
Some people think OG Bladerunner is boring and unwatchable? Hmmm. It was pretty stunning when it came out, and still an impressive piece of film making, imo. Although, if pressed, I might agree that Harrison Ford was boring (and the only boring thing about it). Hey, it could have been worse...if it was made 10 years later, it could have starred Kevin Costner.
it's really good... people are idiots.
They find it boring because they think that Sci-Fi should have tons of special effects and action scenes, instead of being more about thinking how intelligent synthetic lifeforms could integrate within a human society. The movie influenced so many things like Hideo Kojima's Snatcher, and James Cameron's Terminator. 2001: A Space Odyssey also delved into that subject, and you could say that it too, didn't resonate with a lot of the viewers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Planet
I don't agree with Planet of the Apes. It was bad enough that they destroyed the impact of the 1st film with those goofy movies like Beneath the Planet of the Apes. I think that the new versions are just horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
Your previous post really pisses me off. No one has said anything like that.
watQuote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Don't forget Francis Ford Coppola's Star Wars.
Brain Fart.Quote:
Originally Posted by BerringerX
Fixed it. ;)
I just read Linda Hamilton's now going to be in a newly-announced Terminator sequel for whatever damn reason anything happens anymore.
Shinichiro Watanabe is a good name to attach to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
It was not a sci-fi movie that generated a lot of word of mouth, and back then, word of mouth was how a movie generated interest. My old old man liked sci-fi and he took us to see Star Wars and Close Encounters at the Drive-In. Blade Runner didn't generate that kind of hype, because it wasn't a movie for the more casual viewer. We didn't go see Blade Runner at the theater, and the 1st time I saw it was on cable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_...ical_reception
Quote:
Initial reactions among film critics were mixed. Some wrote that the plot took a back seat to the film's special effects, and did not fit the studio's marketing as an action/adventure movie. Others acclaimed its complexity and predicted it would stand the test of time.[100] Negative criticism in the United States cited its slow pace.[101] Sheila Benson from the Los Angeles Times called it "Blade Crawler", and Pat Berman in The State and Columbia Record described it as "science fiction pornography".[102] Pauline Kael praised Blade Runner as worthy of a place in film history for its distinctive sci-fi vision, yet criticized the film's lack of development in "human terms"
It's often said that trailers are the movie the studio wishes they made. Fight Club was another one that took a big hit because of that, and history has redeemed it similarly.
I've fallen asleep 3 times watching the original.
Because you're a terrible person.
I mean I have too, but I've also watched it about a half million times.
Because Hollywood sucks and has mostly sucked? Thank god Marvel is handling their shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
ha ha ha ha ha.
It has gotten so bad, that someone in Hollywood thought it would be a good idea to bring back Flat-Liners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Haha. A friend of mine was working on that.
I hope they kept the little black girl that calls people candyass.
Here's the Watanabe short!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNVPl3NavWM&
Early impressions sound good: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com...waited-sequel/
I want to believe.
Same
I'm leery, but optomistic. I just hope Harrison Ford brings the same sort of general malaise and indifference again.
I finally watched Blade Runner Final Cut last night in anticipation of this, since I'm tagging along with someone to see it tonight. I'm not sure why I never got around to watching this movie before.
I enjoyed it a lot, considering I didn't give it my full attention while I was doing other things. It really nails atmosphere and it's the kind of movie that gives you a glimpse into this world that feels fleshed out, but doesn't try to tell you all about it. That fantasy world really captures the imagination. The atmosphere also does a great job setting the mood for the existential crises the characters go through. Rutger Hauer is the best part.
I want to watch the theatrical cut, because I can't imagine how anyone saw this and thought "you know what this is missing, a narrator to completely take you out of these moments."
The trailer for 2045 captures none of what stood out to me as special from the original, so I hope I'm not too disappointed. This plot to uncover conspiracy seems so impersonal. The cast looks good, though.
All the YTers are raving about this. I am waiting for the backlash.
The back story behind the narrator is that the studio thought the average moviegoer wouldn't "get it" without it. Hence the Final/Directors cuts which was more what Scott wanted to actually be released.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunlap
Hey, so, this movie hit the Fury Road level. It’s paced like the first, so if you couldn’t watch that slow stuff you won’t be able to watch this. It was gorgeous and I think did some good with quietly asking some questions about the human experience and the waifu romance worked so much better than the forced romance from the first.
I also really enjoyed all of the actors’ performances. Sylvia Hoeks isn’t Rutger Hauer, but she was pretty charming in her own robotic way.
It did a lot of things really well. It is definitely one of the best 80s nostalgia revivals, and it didn't feel like an unnecessary retread. But it did leave a lot of dangling plot threads and questions, and not in the provocatively ambiguous way. I really would have liked to have some of the holes in K's backstory explained better. He's thrust into the middle of this story but it's never totally explained why or how he got there. The way replicants seem to be re-imagined as wholly organic also seems to undermine the notion that they're a form of AI.
I'd give it a solid B+. Not quite Fury Road level.