CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › BLADE RUNNER 2 Pre Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BLADE RUNNER 2 Pre Release - Page 20

post #951 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post

Except that LEGEND is unwatchable.
I don't have a leg to stand on in defending Legend. It's a movie that I have ZERO trouble seeing that some might not like it at all. I like it though. And the reason is the visuals and dream logic-ness of the "story", the strangeness and, of course, Tim fucking Curry as one of the most incredibly unsubtle depictions of evil I've ever seen..
Edited by Fraid uh noman - 9/30/17 at 9:30pm
post #952 of 1173
I hate to allude to an unmentioned site with a toxic rep, but the best thing about the Matrix sequels was that Neill Cumpston review for Reloaded.

When I discovered that trail of writing, I couldn't stop laughing at ALL.
post #953 of 1173

It's far from unwatchable. I can't say it's really any good but fascinatingly watchable.

post #954 of 1173

Lynch's Dune is what I would call unwatchable.

post #955 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

 

Slow down there cowboy.  Film is a visual medium, but the visuals are a storytelling AID, they are not the story.  The script and actors, their dialogue, inflections, sound, etc... all huge parts of a story unfolding.

 

Tell that to Metropolis, Sunrise, The Passion of Joan of Arc, M, City Lights, etc...

 

Look Ambler, I know you're just grindin' the axe here, but you love 2001: A Space Odyssey, right? So you know what we're saying. Films have the ability to transcend literal restrictions through the power of image. Enhanced sometimes by words and performances and music, sure, but moving images, brought together in patterns and forms, is the heart of cinema. They don't even have to have actors or a script or dialogue to tell a story or be powerful... look at shit like Koyaanisqatsi, the work of Brakhage, hell, Eraserhead barely has much in the way of performance or dialogue or a traditional narrative.

 

It's fine for films to deliver stories in a more standard narrative fiction way, it's fine for films to focus on things like actors or dialogue... but ever since the talkie film era began, the great majority of film tends to focus on things like this because they are more accessible or directional in terms of what they are trying to get the audience to think or feel, as opposed to the great power of those best silent films or the works of the great directors like Kubrick, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Dreyer, Kurosawa, Ozu, and so on, who were not simply telling their audience things, they were SHOWING them, they were sharing a VISION.

 

To say Blade Runner is just a visual feast when then visuals of the film are how it speaks, the visuals are the poetic language by which the film communicates its emotions, concepts, and themes... it's like trying to downplay the very thing that makes Blade Runner great. You're free not to like it but, like, who gives a fuck about plot when the movie doesn't, other than that the plot is cogent and connected just enough to carry its mood, its themes, its indelible moments.

 

This is also me saying that for me, personally, plot is way, way overrated. as Matt Zoller Seitz recently said on Twitter, plot isn't even in the top ten things he cares about when he watches a film, and I agree with him. I rarely rewatch a film for its plot. Now, yes, some plots are constructed elaborately and well, like Swiss clockwork, and that can be impressive and fun to revisit a couple times. But usually I just find films that focus on plot to be overly convoluted or too messy and hole-filled to really soak them in. I prefer a simple plot as a construct for image, mood, idea, character, and theme to be carried forth and embedded in our minds.

post #956 of 1173
wasp is my new god.
post #957 of 1173

good waspin'

 

and I'm not even a fan of Blade Runner beyond its aesthetics!

post #958 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasp View Post

 

Tell that to Metropolis, Sunrise, The Passion of Joan of Arc, M, City Lights, etc...

 

Look Ambler, I know you're just grindin' the axe here, but you love 2001: A Space Odyssey, right? 

 

Contrary to popular belief, 2001 does have an actual plot and it's great.  The visuals aid in communicating that plot.  But the visuals themselves are not the story.  Just like a man reading a book is not the story... he is the method by which the story is being told: his voice, inflections, mannerisms, etc.  That was what I was clearing up.

 

I don't care if people like Blade Runner, it's a pretty looking hollow movie with a bored Harrison Ford at the center that was made popular by architectural students and cyber punk fans.  Its ideas and story have been done better by better movies, some of which predate Blade Runner itself.  If you like that, great.  I don't.  

post #959 of 1173

I refuse to see your view that Ford was bored in Blade Runner. His character? Sure. But it was his choice. The other characters that populate its world fit in with that kind of performance. He's a character that is tired with himself, the world he inhabits and the views he has. Even though we're dazzled by that world's special effects and Oz-like wonder, Deckard can't be. To him, he's lived in that hell hole his whole life. 

post #960 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

I refuse to see your view that Ford was bored in Blade Runner. 

 

Ok.

post #961 of 1173

Best response award goes to Ambler in the BLADE RUNNER 2 thread.

 

"I was left speechless." 

 

WHO WANTS TO DEBATE ME NOW, BEYOTCHES? 

post #962 of 1173

I agree that the plot of 2001 is great. it's also very basic (but not conventional, just very simple). it's more a framework for complex concepts and ambitious thematic work. as good as I think the plot is for being the bones of the movie or the starting point for what it's trying to do, 2001 would be nothing without the aesthetic. the images of the film are what make its meaning resonate. you take the same plot and give it to a much lesser director, the movie falls flat on its face. Kubrick took the most minimal rendering possible of the novel he was adapting, and used image (and sound) to open it up into something that was perfect both in its epic reach and its enveloping ambiguity. it's a large-scale, thematically universal movie without at all being a trite one... rather, it is profound and enlightening and moving in a way that is absolutely non-didactic, and I think it is able to do that by telling its story almost entirely through aesthetic, as opposed to exposition, performance, dialogue, etc. (something I believe Malick's Tree of Life also achieved to a lesser--but more personal/intimate--extent).

 

I also think the plot-story/aesthetic dynamic in Blade Runner--while very different from 2001's--works very well for very similar reasons. But obviously you disagree, and that's fine.

 

Okay, I conclude my portion of the derail. I think as a side note to all of this, it's easy to see where my reticence for this sequel is coming from. Even the positive reviews where they are talking about how it expands on the world and ideas of the original... just the very idea of trying to expand, or elaborate upon, that core of what Blade Runner was, even if it is done really intelligently and artfully, doesn't seem like something I can be fully down with. But I understand, too, not simply retreading the exact essence or simplicity of Blade Runner, either. It's probably a no-win situation from my perspective, which is probably why I never wanted a Blade Runner sequel, anyways. That said, this isn't going to rape my childhood or anything, the Star Wars prequels and Hobbit movies are already filed away in a dark place that no light reaches. And Blade Runner 2049 does sound like a really well-crafted, smart film, so I do look forward to it, whatever it is. I think I am most thankful for Bilge Ebiri's comment that it's a good movie but can't replicate the "sublime slipperiness" of the original or however he put it. But then he adds that whether that even matters is completely up to the viewer. That's a good way to look at it.

post #963 of 1173
Ambler's best argument: "Nah."
post #964 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning Slim View Post

Ambler's best argument: "Nah."

 

It's not worth arguing because it's not going to change anyone's mind.  

post #965 of 1173

98 percent on RT.  You can see my boner from space right now.  

post #966 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

 

It's not worth arguing because it's not going to change anyone's mind.  

 

My point was Ford isn't bored, his character is. But yeah. 

 

Sure. 

post #967 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

98 percent on RT.  You can see my boner from space right now.  

Analog Olmos, can you get NASA to confirm?
post #968 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

98 percent on RT.  You can see my boner from space right now.  

 

That's the great wall of China, Freeman. 

post #969 of 1173

post #970 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

 

Contrary to popular belief, 2001 does have an actual plot and it's great.  The visuals aid in communicating that plot.  But the visuals themselves are not the story.  Just like a man reading a book is not the story... he is the method by which the story is being told: his voice, inflections, mannerisms, etc.  That was what I was clearing up.

 

That's a good opinion. 

post #971 of 1173

Alright, good opinions in one pile and bad opinions in the other.


We separate them by kind. Don't want to start a war!

post #972 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

98 percent on RT.  You can see my boner from space right now.  

MCC confirms - its actually causing some issues with weather tracking so if you could calm down just a little till Friday that'd be swell.
post #973 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

 

My point was Ford isn't bored, his character is. 

 

Once Deckard decides to take the mission and realizes Rachel believes herself to be human, the character isn't bored anymore, he's intrigued, he's (supposed to be) engaged.  But Ford still looks bored.  That "I don't wanna be here" look he gave in Return of the Jedi.  He literally did not want to be there and it showed.  He hated making Blade Runner too.  Scott basically gave him nothing in terms of collaboration and Ford likes and needs strong directors.  While the character was supposed to be somewhat of a burn out, I feel an element of disconnection in the performance.  Even in basic terms, Ford's performance isn't even a standout element in the film, like it was in his previous movies.  Something was missing.

 

And everyone knows Ford hated making Jedi, so an actor's experience on a set can bleed into their performance.  Jedi shot 5 months after Blade Runner wrapped.  My theory is he was fed up with sci-fi movies where the special FX and design took precedent over the actors.  He didn't make another sci-fi movie for almost 30 years.  And I suspect that bad experience on BR carried over into ROTJ and sealed it for him.

post #974 of 1173

I don't think Ford is unengaged. He also doesn't really see much action in the movie except for some of the middle and third act, where he's taunted and beat up. He looks pretty engaged for those scenarios. And let's not forget his awkward yet funny interviewer personality he decides to push on one of the replicants. There's a disdain under his veneer that I really love, and that shows in the big scene between him and Sean. Whether that was the real Ford seeping through based on a shoot he hated can't be clear, but if it was, it makes his performance dynamic that way by consequence. 

post #975 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

I don't think Ford is unengaged. 

 

I think he is as engaged as he was on Jedi.  He hated both shoots.

 

That's the last I'll say on it.

post #976 of 1173

Ambler ends the show with the last word!

post #977 of 1173
Anyway, this looks pretty good.
post #978 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

Ambler ends the show with the last word!

 

post #979 of 1173

I don't believe you, Brad. 

post #980 of 1173
Should we go back to Chudsplaining what movies are?
post #981 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

He hated making Blade Runner too.  Scott basically gave him nothing in terms of collaboration and Ford likes and needs strong directors. 

 

Supposedly, Cruise had similar problems with Scott on Legend. Hence the two never worked together again nor has Cruise ever publicly commented on the film since.

post #982 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Should we go back to Chudsplaining what movies are?

 

::goes to Urban Dictionary for definition:: 

post #983 of 1173
That Ford was bored in the role and it shows in his performance sounds like an expansion of the old canard that he did the voiceover narration for the theatrical badly on purpose, which Ford has said was not the case. And it's a weird knock on an actor who's considered-- not least by himself, natch-- to be a consummate professional and craftsman... Yeah, we know for instance that Ford wasn't super happy with the Han Solo role in "Jedi" from behind-the-scenes Star Wars lore, but I don't think you could honestly say he's just mailing it in for that movie, just watching it, without that kind of outside knowledge.

It's a notion that might hold more water for "Blade Runner", I guess, if so many others in the cast weren't also underplaying, or playing in a un-naturalistic way. It looks to me like a deliberate choice that goes hand-in-hand with the movie's mid-century noir aesthetic, a mannered, deadpan style that wouldn't be out of place in a Warners crime movie from 40 years before. It also happens to dovetail thematically, as most of the wit, charm and emoting is given to Roy, the supposedly expendable killing machine who feels more deeply than the humans in the system that created him, or have the task of destroying him.

I think it's one thing to enjoy that approach or not, as always YMMV-- or to find something incompetent, which always shows through whatever the intent. But it's another to assume bad faith on the part of artists who generally know what they're doing just because you don't enjoy it... Hell, I believe I've read that Ford himself isn't a fan of the movie, but I don't think that means he showed up for work and sandbagged it.

This kinda goes along with "Blade Runner"'s rep for being an excercise in style over substance, which I couldn't disagree with more. There's more to the world-building than just the production design. And yes, it has a rather spare detective plot-- but it's one on which hang many little stories, practically one for each character who appears, even if they consist of only a few scenes. It's a marvelously tight, well-written scenario with no shortage of memorable dialogue-- people coulld take lessons from it, if you ask me. And yes, the Big Ideas it deals in had been kicking around for a long time in literature, if not in other movies. But few movies have pulled so many elements all together the way it did. They're not making a sequel to it 35 years on just because of its cool cityscapes-- which have, after all, already been aped ad fucking nauseum ever since. It resonates, as a story.

So, on the sequel... I just assumed the new movie couldn't capture that lightning-in-a-bottle quality, and would in fact be a stylistic exercise in the current mania for leaving no IP un-retreaded-- so much so that I didn't even set aside time to see it next week. I'm shocked but pleased that people are saying its a worthy successor. Don't want to get my hopes too high, but I'm now excited about seeing it, after largely ignoring that it was coming out.
Edited by Slim - 9/30/17 at 10:46pm
post #984 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

It looks to me like a deliberate choice that goes hand-in-hand with the movie's mid-century noir aesthetic, a mannered, deadpan style that wouldn't be out of place in a Warners crime movie from 40 years before.

I should think it's pretty obvious that this is the answer. That entire post is great, by the way.
post #985 of 1173
Good one, slim, basically what I was attempting to say but you expanded on it a great deal. It's the film's style. 
post #986 of 1173
Slim is not a Replicant.
post #987 of 1173
a what?
post #988 of 1173
More human than hunnam.
post #989 of 1173

OH!!

 

who isn't??

 

maybe jai courtney...

post #990 of 1173

Dammit, I want a Captain Boomerang movie with Jai Courtney!

 

Say what you will about the movie, but the world needs a lovable, debauched Australian stumbling into crime!

post #991 of 1173
Jai Courtney got a C-minus on the V-K test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I should think it's pretty obvious that this is the answer.

Well, there are a lot of things I think go without saying-- and it turns out they don't. wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Slim is not a Replicant.

Eh. I have been having unicorn dreams lately...
post #992 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

So it's been a couple of days and people are still calling this a masterpiece. Robbie Collin tweets:
Damn fanboys, they say shit like this every time.

Just don't read what he said about the last two 007 films. He writes about them like they belong between Godfather 1 and 2 on the all-time list.
post #993 of 1173

Don't you FUCKERS bring that Jai filth into this thread.  Let em rot in Genysissieesesis where he belongs!

post #994 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Don't you FUCKERS bring that Jai filth into this thread.  Let em rot in Genysissieesesis where he belongs!

We'll always have Spartacus and Jack Reacher #JaiBless
post #995 of 1173

Has anyone photoshopped Dustin Hoffman as Deckard in the 2049 poster yet?

post #996 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post

We'll always have Spartacus and Jack Reacher #JaiBless

Yes excellent. Jack Reacher one of the few performances where his unlikability works in his favour. Tom cruise hanging up on him and threatening to drink his bluud from a boot is most excellent.
post #997 of 1173

He IS legitimately good in Spartacus though. Such is the power and awesomness of that amazing series. 

post #998 of 1173
Stop bringing that up in his defense!!! A fluke!
post #999 of 1173

Good God! Have we come to this? Three things that derail EVERY thread...

 

Star Wars

Batman

and JAI FUCKIN' COURTNEY!

post #1000 of 1173

I can't help it that Spartacus is just that good! 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › BLADE RUNNER 2 Pre Release