TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

Thread: What have you watched lately?

  1. #3876
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Watched the 3rd episode of Star Trek Discovery. Excellent episode.

  2. #3877
    As I continue watching, I gotta say that I'm less impressed with Season 3 of Rick and Morty. The "Pickle" episode was so ludicrous that it was hilarious, as was the whole (long overdue) therapist gig.

    Rest of it isn't so good. The attempts to bring in a larger "plot" have failed and the constant abuse that is thrown Jerry's way gets tiresome. What makes it unpleasant is that the writers seem to think he deserves it for whatever reason.

    They've also gone full "secret king" with Rick....which is a term I use because I've heard it used elsewhere to refer to how a loser views themselves: they think they're secretly geniuses and that everyone else is too stupid to recognize their genius. when they try to write a character it shows in that the character is supposed to be as smart as they view themselves(really what they just imagine someone in the top 0.1% or so is like), and always has a snappy retort to every challenge (e.g. is as much of an asshole as they wish they could get away with being). Where it shows is that Rick's limitations that existed in season 1 and 2 are completely gone in this episode. Previous seasons showed a number of cases where Rick's inherent character flaws prevented him from being able to solve the situation at hand (like the parasite episode). There were also a lot of situations where some of the things he encountered caught him off guard or his own ego was used against him(Zigerians). In this season Rick always wins, is in near full control of almost every situation he enters(that doesn't involve another Rick), and isn't just viewed as some drunk schmuck by the rest of the universe.

    Not sure what the change was, but it's almost like the entire writing staff decided to regress to being 12 years old.

  3. #3878
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn

  4. #3879
    Just bought my tickets for Blade Runner tomorrow, glad to see it's getting universally good reviews. Reelviews gave it 3 1/2 out of 4. That's a good sign.

  5. #3880
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Film Fury gave it a 10/10. I trust their reviews as they've not done me wrong so far.

    They HIGHLY recommended "It" which I'd been on the fence about watching until then.

  6. #3881
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    And I went to see Blade Runner tonight.

    For a sequel it has the tone of the original down perfect. I'd also HIGHLY recommend the 3 short story prequel movies as they all play into the main movie in their own ways. Overall I found it highly enjoyable. Is it better than the original? Hell no. But what could honestly.

    If your looking for 1 to 1 style plot to the first one then you'll be disappointed as it plays out quite different. All the actors present do excellent performances. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford are great. Gosling is really starting to show just how great an actor he is, with greatly contrasting characters across his more recent movies. And he's quite different in most of them.

    I had expected this one to be a big replicant hunt as per the first one, but nope this goes off in a very different direction. Oh and watch for the Sony product placement as it is ALL OVER this movie. I counted at least 10 spots with it's logo present.

    9/10. I was left in a very, silent mood by the end. Contemplating all that went on. I see now why Film Fury had said that they were going to go watch it another 10 times to properly take it all in. I on the other hand am not so overkill. I'll just rewatch it when it comes out on Blu-Ray. I'll be very interested to see what the rest of you think of the movie.

    Oh and I really enjoyed the bits between Gosling and his hologram girlfriend. Added a touch of Battlestar Galactica in there. Though everyone could see her. I think.. They also finally answered the "is Deckard a replicant or not" question that I've heard so often. Good to know.

  7. #3882
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: Poland
    First off, long time no see! :P

    Second:
    They also finally answered the "is Deckard a replicant or not" question that I've heard so often.
    No, they absolutely didn't, and it's wonderful.

  8. #3883
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Seemed pretty clear cut to me.

  9. #3884
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: Poland
    If you mean Wallace implying that Deckard was programmed to fall in love with Rachael, that was ambiguous, especially that he then goes into his everybody's programmed and it's all chemical reactions yadda yadda thing..

    Outside of the film's text, it also helps to know that both Fancher and Villeneuve disagree with Scott regarding giving an answer to that question :P

  10. #3885
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Yeah, Wallace is all over-confident, but he can't make Rachael correctly, which implies he's full of it. Saw it tonight. Movie's really good, but... Man, it could stand to be edited down a little. Or maybe a lot. Dammit, here we go again... Blade Runner movies are like replicants. They need to be edited and iterated and are never quite right. Maybe they just can't be. Humans certainly aren't.

  11. #3886
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Oh and the CGI Rachael was fine until she got close to the camera. Uncanny valley from then on.

  12. #3887
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: Poland
    Which kind of works in context

  13. #3888
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Too true .

  14. #3889
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Also, Blade Runner 2049 takes a literal dump on my hometown.

  15. #3890
    I thought the new Blade Runner was awesome. Very true to the original, great music, visually outstanding, perfect atmosphere. Loved the cameo from Edward James Olmos. It didn't bother me that much, but I sort of agree with Pyrian in that it could have been made shorter and been just as good. After just watching the new Twin Peaks, I was getting big time David Lynch vibes with some of the shots, really drawn out sequences with nothing really happening. But it wasn't awful, and the visuals and music made it more tolerable.

    I definitely plan on a 2nd theater viewing, there was a lot going on and I think things will make more sense the 2nd time through.

    I know Ford and Scott disagree on the topic, but I always wanted to believe that Deckard was human. I didn't see anything definitive that proved me wrong.

    Btw, how does Scott do such a great job here, but he continues to struggle mightily with his other blockbuster franchise? I know he didn't direct this one, but still.

  16. #3891
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Brethren View Post
    Btw, how does Scott do such a great job here, but he continues to struggle mightily with his other blockbuster franchise? I know he didn't direct this one, but still.
    Probably because the themes, style, and setting in Blade Runner are still rife for exploration, while Aliens is built upon a pretty basic premise that's been beaten to death three times over by now.

  17. #3892
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: Poland
    Scott barely had anything to do with this, which is good. As far as I can tell, the only time he's good is when he's constantly challenged during production by people smarter than him. When he's treated like a god it results in mediocrity.

  18. #3893
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    I'm still not entirely clear why Wallander believes replicants raising babies is supposed to be quicker or more efficient than them being grown in a vat ("millions into billions"), but otherwise, yeah, awesome. I particularly liked that the film is the exact opposite of the usual hyperkinetic action blockbuster; the action scenes that ARE there are far more impactful because of it.

  19. #3894
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: Poland
    Probably because it's more feasible to let physically strong and resistant individuals reproduce naturally without a robust factory production line in place on budding colony worlds. I don't know how exactly the technology works of course, but that's my thought on this.

  20. #3895
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I guess the vats are easier to operate than to, erm, replicate? The nice thing about natural birth is its exponential growth rate.

  21. #3896
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: Poland
    Just by the way, one possible neat reference I caught: Wallace talks about "nine worlds" he's managed to colonise so far, the particular number seemed to me as a reference to norse mythology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_cosmology

    There's more possible stuff like that, here's my thoughts on K's designation/name

    spoiler:
    His designation is KD6.3-7

    KD = (Philip) K. D(ick)

    Joi names him "Joe." Thus, "Joseph K." Kafka, The Trial

    D(euteronomy) 6:3-7:

    3 Hear, Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, promised you. 4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children.

    - obedience and progeny

  22. #3897
    I guess I'll say this on the whole "Deckard is a replicant" argument - the main thing is I've never understood why people are so convinced that he is replicant. Yes, there is the whole unicorn sequence, but other than that, nothing really points to it. In the original, replicants are illegal, so it wouldn't make sense that the police would be running one around in the open. But the main thing is, let's face it, Deckard pretty much gets his ass kicked continually and consistently, in both movies but especially the first, and that doesn't match up with the fact that most other replicants are physically superior to humans. The fact that he's still around 30 years later means he must be an advanced model, but they just happened to have left the "ass kicking" part of him out of it? Doesn't seem to add up there. Plus, overall, Deckard just seems to have a whole lot more emotion going on that just about any other replicant we've seen in the movies. To me, it just makes far more sense that a Blade Runner would be human, and that they would be able to differentiate between human emotions and imposters that were programmed to emulate those same emotions.

  23. #3898
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    And how could a replicant reproduce with another. Well I get it from a programming standpoint, but putting it into actual use is another thing entirely.

    In the first movie I always thought of Deckard as human.

  24. #3899
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: Poland
    Regarding getting his ass kicked - potentially, the Nexus 7 design had to sacrifice some of the enhanced strength etc. to gain the reproductive capabilities.

  25. #3900
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I think the "gets his ass kicked" is a bit overstated. Aside from the final boss, he gets his ass kicked in the same way Jackie Chan does - while still winning. He repeatedly hunts down and kills these physically superior replicants. It always made more sense to me that he was a replicant - you don't send chickens to hunt hawks.

Page 156 of 206 FirstFirst ... 56106111116121126131136141146151152153154155156157158159160161166171176181186191196201 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •