List some movies you've watched recently. Theatre, rental, TV... and give a */10

Page 611 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,406
1,421
126
ah yes, Blade Runner. 2049.

i'm gonna wait. for a few years.
i'm sorry but i just KNOW it's gonna suck. Harrison Ford is not a respectable actor and i cannot forgive him for The Force Awakens, or .. that thing .. that THING, with the skulls .. and the refrigerators .. omg.
He hasn't done a decent film in 30 years; it's time to realize he never again will.

American Made will probably be awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ichinisan

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
81,411
14,538
126
For some reason you guys mentioning Blade Runner got me thinking about Runaway.
I know it was not a great film overall, but Runaway accurately predicted the future better than most movies I've seen.

We have utility robots. We have cars with smart features and are very close to self-driving cars. Most technology hasnt actually changed the face of the world, things look pretty similar we just have a few more gadgets floating around.
If any film needed a remake, that would be it.

(We do have cameras on guns but not self-guiding bullets.)


I give Runaway 8/10, mostly for the science, not for the poor story.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
81,411
14,538
126
I started watching Castle.
It is irritatingly formulaic, but the characters are likeable and also it seems to have run for 8 years, which is 8 times longer than Firefly ran. So I guess it must get better as time goes on.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,535
444
126
ah yes, Blade Runner. 2049.

i'm gonna wait. for a few years.
i'm sorry but i just KNOW it's gonna suck. Harrison Ford is not a respectable actor and i cannot forgive him for The Force Awakens, or .. that thing .. that THING, with the skulls .. and the refrigerators .. omg.
He hasn't done a decent film in 30 years; it's time to realize he never again will.

American Made will probably be awesome.
I saw it last night for the Thursday preview. It's actually pretty good I think. It's just that after so many movies and even some TV shows covered the same ideas (which were regarded as quite new and perhaps original for the time in movies) that the 1982 original brought up Blade Runner 2049 just can't be on the same level as Blade Runner. Too much time has past.

However, the movie is long but I was engaged for the entire time and didn't feel as if I sat in the theater for over 2.5 hours. It felt like a more normal length film to me at least.

I'll give it a 8/10 if you watched the 1982 movie in it's various versions and do ask yourself, argue with others over, or have decided on the answer to the question
"Is Deckard a replicant or not?"

Visually it's 9/10 or maybe 10/10

For anyone who hasn't seen Blade Runner 7/10 I would think.

*edited to add*
Also the answer to the question above from 1982's movie does impact a plot point that reveals that Rachel from the original was even more special than Tyrell told Deckard.


__________
 
Last edited:

kn51

Senior member
Aug 16, 2012
692
110
106
Well "Tin Star" on Amazon I'll give it 2/10.

One of those series you give a couple episodes in thinking yeah it will turn around since it is getting better. Then it really gets bad.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
828
126
I started watching Castle.
It is irritatingly formulaic, but the characters are likeable and also it seems to have run for 8 years, which is 8 times longer than Firefly ran. So I guess it must get better as time goes on.
Well, it is like most of those shows -- House, NCIS, Bones, etc. If you like those type of formulaic shows then yes. I started watching Castle late as well, but I'm a Nathan Fillion fan and while not the best show on TV there is plenty of Firefly nods in it as well as cameos.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,406
1,421
126
have decided on the answer to the question
that has literally never been a question, and the answer is no. aside from the ridiculous reasons why that question even exists (Scott trying to drum up DVD sales when the film was falling into obscurity) and the AUTHOR OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL SPECIFICALLY STATING THE ANSWER WAS NO, the proponents of that question fail to consider, you know, EVERYTHING, such as all the other characters involved in the story.

my question is, was Ford at his usual "form" (i.e Episode 7) or was he any good?
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
828
126
that has literally never been a question, and the answer is no. aside from the ridiculous reasons why that question even exists (Scott trying to drum up DVD sales when the film was falling into obscurity) and the AUTHOR OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL SPECIFICALLY STATING THE ANSWER WAS NO, the proponents of that question fail to consider, you know, EVERYTHING, such as all the other characters involved in the story.

my question is, was Ford at his usual "form" (i.e Episode 7) or was he any good?
He's freaking old. I'm not sure what you guys expect. I thought he was fine in Ep7....certainly better and more charismatic than the main cast...and infinitely better than eps1-2-3
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,535
444
126
that has literally never been a question, and the answer is no. aside from the ridiculous reasons why that question even exists (Scott trying to drum up DVD sales when the film was falling into obscurity) and the AUTHOR OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL SPECIFICALLY STATING THE ANSWER WAS NO, the proponents of that question fail to consider, you know, EVERYTHING, such as all the other characters involved in the story.

my question is, was Ford at his usual "form" (i.e Episode 7) or was he any good?
The movie is an adaptation and not a 100% faithful adaptation of the book... I have read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" more than one although not within the past couple of years and quite remember some of the major differences.
One being that the Bounty Hunters... Blade Runners was a name invented for the movie... do take the Voight Kampff test while in the movie when Rachel asked Deckard if he did but he (as I recall) didn't answer. The movie in my mind is ambiguous on the matter... even more so in the final cut. Whether the writer of the screenplay intended that or not and Ridley Scott changed it I don't know but even in the version with the narration it's a bit ambiguous.

The point is for the original material Deckard is not a replicant but in the movie it is not as clear cut as you say, imho, because it is more of a loose adaptation than a more by the book faithful adaptation of the book that might have been filmed.

2049 even touches upon such ambiguity with a few bits of dialogue...

As for Harrison Fords performance he does seem to range from usual form to actually good depending on the scene.

For the other cast members I'd say they give good to excellent performances barring one exception (but that may be for the reason that his part seems to be written much like others of the type) Sylvia Hoeks is, I believe, a standout in the role as the henchperson to Jared Leto's character of Wallace (the new Tyrell), while Dave Batista also does a lot with his part imo.




___________
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,406
1,421
126
because this is inevitable, the reason is that deckard is a person known to others to have had a past. either everyone he's worked with, including his chief of police, is in a conspiracy aimed at testing prototypes - i remind you that nexus are NEW TECH and therefore NOTHING like rachel has every existed before - or he is human. occam's razor, one explanation is more reasonable than the other.

this doesn't even being to consider the basic implication of WHY would anyone - in the world the film is set in - want to build a replicant that is INFERIOR to their current model, just to test if they can have emotions; why would they test it unsupervised, in the wild; why place it in a situation where the testers might lose the test subject. and why the fuck implicate so many people who otherwise have no relation to the test.
this is about as believable as the moon landing hoax, explained HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
87,683
10,721
126
that has literally never been a question, and the answer is no. aside from the ridiculous reasons why that question even exists (Scott trying to drum up DVD sales when the film was falling into obscurity) and the AUTHOR OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL SPECIFICALLY STATING THE ANSWER WAS NO, the proponents of that question fail to consider, you know, EVERYTHING, such as all the other characters involved in the story.

my question is, was Ford at his usual "form" (i.e Episode 7) or was he any good?

The question of Deckard being android or not is covered in The Edge of Human, follow up to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
 
Last edited:

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,406
1,421
126
seriously, before i even consider another "deckard is a replicant because" post, i need your answer to this question:

DID GREEDO SHOOT FIRST
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,406
1,421
126
The question of Deckard being android or not is covered well enough in Blade Runner and the answer is no. It's not "possibly" or"it could be, really" but simply no.
 

Artorias

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2014
1,760
993
136
Please tag spoilers for the movie Blade Runner 2049. Its like going through a minefield.

The original is in my top 3 favourite movies of all time, this one is actually good?

Is it so action oriented as the trailers make it out to be?
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,406
1,421
126
i know you are talking books. Philip K Dick , *cough* stated: "no, that's stupid, Deckard is a human. that's the whole point of the book."

you know that scene, in Star Wars the-one-not-called-a-new-hope, Obi Wan says "i knew him", implying they were friends a long time ago, right?
And Grand Moff Tarkin, tells Vader "you are all the remains of your ancient religion". And Han Solo scoffing at "the force, LOL".
Throughout the film they imply that Jedi are about as well known as Sorcery. People literally do not believe they exist any more than we believe in dragons. Most people have never seen a Jedi or even heard of one. NOT like they were the official pacekeeping force of the just-defunct Galactic Government and "there are two Jedi here to see you" was a common phrase just 40 years before; in a universe where there were enough Jedi to do Jedi stuff, that you could easily pick a couple hundred of them JUST to go fight a small war on a barely-relevant world.

these things grate against what has been done in the prequels. it is simply not believable that the Jedi were common and then suddenly vanished from reality, taking their very memory too. The blade runner rehash attempt that Scott did is just the same.

1. people do not consider what it was like to make films in the 80s. That awesome film The Thing still has a massive loophole in it, there is one character who gets infected but nobody knows how. And there's dozens of different timeline conjectures on the web, all using physically-possible-but-extremely-unlikely solutions, but nobody ever says "the guys who did the storyboard screwed up".
It's a film. it's fake. There's the scene with the defibrillator, where you can clearly see Dr. Copper try to DIVE into the chest, instead of simply leaning the paddles against his chest.
This is due to the need to activate the collapsible prop, but if there was relevance to a paranoid theory from the internet, someone would say "see, thats unnatural - HE WAS CLEARLY IN ON IT".

2. the source material is about how a human becomes more machine, and how a machine becomes more human. There are many implied rules about the modern world that make it impossible for Deckard to be a replicant. He's too old and predates the Nexus 6 series, much less the prototype. He behaves like a human, while Rachel does not. When he figures out she's a replicant, she doesn't break down in tears, she just stares ahead. She's too new, hasn't developed the "faults" that the other Nexus 6 have, and it's why she fails the voight-kampff test.

See, i know that this is because Sean Young is an absolutely garbage actress, but it's convenient to my narrative, so i'm going to lie or purposedly ignore details to make it seem like i'm right.

3. the unicorn does not symbolize ANYTHING, aside from the fact that it's spare footage that Scott had left over from Legend. But if you really want to be anal, then i can be anal too. The unicorn symbolizes Gaff, Deckard's failure in life, the pressure from the police chief. It symbolizes the world that Deckard wanted to leave, the world of responsibility, of work, of reality. Deckard had quit the force, and since this is a film noir, we have the same exact character as Rick Blaine - he needs to moan "leave me alone" before he can be the hero. And for the same reason that he is a film noir protagonist, when he's asked if he has taken the voight-kampff himself, he doesn't answer - BECAUSE FILM NOIR ANTIHEROES DO NOT GIVE STRAIGHT ANSWERS. Now the nerds on the internet have the unicorn unequivocally mean that Deckard has fake memories.

4. Zhora, a pleasure model, takes a bullet from the-gun-specially-designed-to-kill-everything and keeps running. You might have missed this, but in the years before this "Deckard is a replicant" bullshit, the nerd fanbase of the film went to great lengths to how awesome thing gun was and how stronk the recoil was and this and that. Replicants are strong because they are machines. They look organic but are about as organic as plastic.

the world of balde runner is, surprisingly enough, fake. It's a film. There is no reason to have a company manufacture a replica of a living owl, if there are at least two owls left in the world, because - surprise - biological reproduction is cheaper. And this is still assuming that replicants even eat (which Deckard does), at which point i'm not sure why you would even want replicants, when the rules of teh film clearly state "we're overpopulated to extinction". USE HUMANS ! THEY ARE CHEAPER AND IDENTICAL!!
But they are not, because we know that replicants are really, really strong, WHICH DECKARD IS NOT, because Leon beats the shit out of him, he can't run as fast as Zhora, he can't stand up to Pris, and Roy casually crushes his fingers.

So you want to tell me that there is a secret program in which the government is in, where the police force is all pretending to have known Deckard, and Deckard was specifically made to study the faults present on the Nexus 6 at the same time that there exists a a law that makes presence of Nexus 6s on earth illegal, but was made NOT as all the other Nexus 6 (likely invalidating any study) but instead made identical to a human, also implying that all replicants also eat, which makes them synthetic biological entities. Why not just have replicants breed?

A replicant is a machine. It's probably got a plug somewhere. It might have parts that resemble humans but it is not artificial life, because if it was, you wouldn't need to manufacture them. They were given brains to make it easier for them to be commanded, but the last model was so good it became self aware. Deckard states clearly (and is not-given-a-negative-answer) that the Nexus 6 know that they are machines.

And i'm not even done. It takes Deckard a minute of time to completely mess up Rachel's mind. Rachel needs to be kept in a contained environment because (well, it's illegal for her to exist on earth) otherwise she would become self-aware. With all likelyhood Rachel has just come out of the research laboratory and is a few days old. her brain must have been deliberately forced into a situation where it ignores her own memories of self. The implanted memory of Eldon's nice must contain images of Eldon's niece, it shouldn't be hard for anyone to notice that when you think about your past, you notice how, idk, you were taller, or your hair is of a different color.
Sentience in the Nexus 6 series si something which Tyrell didn't even think possible - it's not technology over which they have control.

And finally, there is the point that the film simply isn't about that. This is what everyone just blatantly ignores. It's as if you read Animal Farm and genuinely thought it was about animals. It's the story of US, who are the protagonist, who are against enemy-because-different Replicants, and we then find out, we're not so different, you and i. What if Roy wasn't an android, but was actually human. What if the whole film is a dream, and reality is what we see in the billboards. What color is happiness.

because if it was, then it would have been told as you tell a film, about someone not knowing THEY ARE A CLONE ON THE MOON, sorry, i mean about not knowing they are a replicant, as you tell a a story about someone not knowing they are a replicant. You know, there's the bit where you discover you are a clone. And this becomes a rather important thing, because it's quite a big thing in your life when you discover that you are not really Rachel omg i did it agin, im sorry, that you discover you are not who you think you are.

because, you know, ALL blade runners could be replicants. They could be a model that has a human brain inside a replicant skeleton. they could be augmented. they could have cell walls reinforced with nanites. maybe EVERYONE has bioengineered components in their body, and just about everyone is vat-grown, but while everyone essentially still is human, the Nexus are just big machines, like the terminator. That's why replicant humans are ok and replicant replicants are a no-no. And this DOES NOT enter the story, because the story isn't about the cell structure of Deckard, but about him facing an enemy, and their differences uniting them.

When Clockwork Orange was released, people approached Kubrick and told him how happy they were that finally someone understood their need for ultraviolence. When Starship Troopers was written, it was criticized as being a hymn to fascism. There's idiots everywhere, and now it's even worse, there's idiots with computers. While it's easy to say "Scott tried to sell more Blade Runner DVDs by claiming there was a secret in the film we had not discovered (the man must google himself incessantly)" people who have absolutely no life are desperately trying to find a reason for their own existence by crapping all over a good film, regardless of the damage they make to its legacy. Because people are shit. Like, for example, the "actor" who wore the greenscreen suit on which Jar-Jar Binks was superimposed, who "admits that the theory where Ja-Jar is a Sith Master is true" because WHO THE ***** WOULD INTERVIEW HIM OTHERWISE, HE WAS JAR-JAR BINKS THE WORST CHARACTER EVER PUT ON FILM.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-the-darth-jar-jar-binks-theory-is-partially-true-says-actor-a6923351.html
https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Jar-Jar-Binks-Sith-Lord-Star-Wars-Theory-Isn-t-Crazy-You-Think-98257.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/3qvj6w/theory_jar_jar_binks_was_a_trained_force_user/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charmonium

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,406
1,421
126
i mean, the amount of stupid in this theory has no end. What if Goeff really was there to kill Deckard because he's a replicant on earth. Well but they had him in the police station. And if they used him to kill the other nexus, why make him so crap, and not strong? If Goeff could have killed Deckard, could he not have killed the Nexus 6 ? Deckard must have been a well known and efficient Blade Runner for them to want him for this job, a reputation he must have built IN THE PAST. Why would we assume that replicants age in any way as a human does. Does a toaster age the same way as a cat? Also, wouldn't that imply that the police have known he was an illegal replicant all along, but they are paid by the lawbreaking Tyrell to keep their mouth shut about it and pretend they've known him for ages. And why not just implant the memories of Geoff so he doesn't have to be persuaded to hunt the Nexus 6 ? And if he was built to study how replicants develop emotions, why make him a balde runner, and not instead keep him under observation, as Rachel? he must also be very new, as rachel is already starting to suspect she is not a human. And did Tyrell really not have any reaction when Deckard shows himself to him? He surely did have it when a mass-produced Nexus showed up. And why was another blade runner assigned to the case before Deckard, if this was an elaborate setup? Did he agree to get murderd? The Nexus are already illegal, they dont need excuses to kill them. And if they wanted to study this defect in Nexus 6, why build a different prototype and not capture the nexus who are showing the defect and are conveniently on Earth, especially when you have the illegal control of the police?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY