People say the original is slow but I could cut an hour out of the sequel and it would still be the same movie.
Problematic issues with iconic film stories
- Thread starter drusselmeyer
- Start date
People say the original is slow but I could cut an hour out of the sequel and it would still be the same movie.
They are both unnecessarily slow. But the sequel has a better story IMO.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
It makes no sense. Overly convoluted.
I find them both kinda boring, but nice to look at.
I find them both kinda boring, but nice to look at.
Cephus
Master Member
This is childish though. Neither side should be doing it, but it's dumb to say "they're doing it so we get to too!" It's not the right trying to cancel stuff said and done decades ago. It's not the right ripping down historical monuments. It's not the right screaming at the sky, literally, when things don't get their way. It's not the right having themselves fixed in protest of an election. Yes, it's dumb to demand that a game be censored, but that's incredibly minor given what we see the political left doing.
However, this isn't about politics, it's about censorship. Can we all just agree that ANY censorship from ANYWHERE is bad?
TimDRX
Active Member
I tend to disagree with the basic premise on what censorship is, tho. Like if you say something abhorrent on a social media site and it gets deleted by a moderator, I wouldn't call that censorship - that's a violation of the agreed upon rules of engaging with the space, and it should be removed.
Cephus
Master Member
There, I would agree, because it was agreed to beforehand. What we're seeing out there in reality isn't that. It's blatant censorship.
Solo4114
Master Member
I don't think Blade Runner is "slow." It's a different style of film. Blade Runner is essentially a film noir story in a scifi setting. As film noir goes, it's pretty much right on pace with the rest of 'em. As whiz-bang sci-fi action flicks go, yeah, it's slow. But that's because that's the kind of film that it is. Film noir is always "slow" or, perhaps more accurately, a "slow burn." Film noir is almost always about uncovering information and digging for some kind of truth, and that tends to require a slower presentation of information/story. The audience learns what the main investigative character is learning alongside them, and that becomes harder to filter through if it's being interrupted by constant action.
By contrast, In A Violent Nature truly is "slow" as horror films go, and that's because it is very much still a horror film, just one presented from a different perspective and therefore a different stylistic framing. But, again, that's kind of the point of the whole exercise: it's doing a horror movie from an intentionally different perspective and style.
Now, when it comes to BR2049, I can't really speak to that as much because I've only seen it once. I recall liking it, but I also recall it being...kinda convoluted? Also a lot less visionary than the original was, but that's because it's iterative by nature (I don't fault it for that). I don't remember feeling like it was "slow" as much as it was hard to see where it was going and, perhaps, less memorable in its presentation other than in the visuals.
...sounds like a blind date I once had...
joberg
Legendary Member
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
I'm sure it would be infinitely more interesting than the Blade Runners.
Tremas
Master Member
This is one of those "Once you see it..." moments.
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, when the pod is traveling to the Clavius moonbase, it approached the base and lands bottom first. But, the view from inside the cockpit (which is located on the top of the pod), shows the pilots looking at the moonscape and the base through the viewport, which should have been impossible.
Just a little thing, but still...
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, when the pod is traveling to the Clavius moonbase, it approached the base and lands bottom first. But, the view from inside the cockpit (which is located on the top of the pod), shows the pilots looking at the moonscape and the base through the viewport, which should have been impossible.
Just a little thing, but still...
Liberance
Well-Known Member
People have already mentioned Spielberg's current take on this since you posted it, but I once had the chance to ask Richard Dreyfuss about it as well, and he said the same thing: they weren't parents when they made that movie.
I think it's not just that he abandons his family following his obsession, but also that he kisses Melinda Dillon on his way to Devil's Tower.
That said,
This is an interesting way to look at it and it explains the kiss, since Dillon's character shares this weird otherworldly experience he's going through and understands him, turning the kiss more into a deep way to express "thank you" than anything else.
You asked Dreyfuss about it? Wow.
I imagine he's heard that question enough times to have an answer ready for it. That's usually how it goes with the big questions.
I think Roy Neary's wife going on about the neighbors was more of a surface-level meltdown. The straw breaking the camel's back. She would still have been scared & overwhelmed if there were no neighbors around to see it.
You can blame her for not being supportive/understanding enough. But you can also blame Roy for not controlling his impulses to build mud sculptures in the living room.
IMO it was over the line when Roy kissed the other woman. He's married.
Last edited:
What about being controlled by aliens don't you understand.
What about being controlled by aliens don't you understand.
Roy was acting abnormal. Irrational and impulsive. IMO he was getting potentially dangerous. Would you trust him around electricity or cooking stove gas in that condition? Like, with your kids under the same roof?
What if the aliens tell him to build a volcano in the living room, with real fire? What if they tell him that human kids need a hole drilled in their heads to let the evil spirits out? It's one thing to have strange thoughts, but it's another thing to act on them.
Roy's wife didn't have the luxury of knowing what kind of movie she was in. I guess I can blame her for not acting to get Roy professional help. But it was all happening pretty fast. I think she had valid reason to grab the kids and dash out of there by the time she did.
She didn't handle it as well as she could have. But neither did Roy. He could have said "Umm, honey, I'm having weird compulsions to build mountains out of everything. I think something is wrong with me. Normal people don't act like this."
It wouldn't even help much if Roy's wife did know the rest of the movie. Roy seemed sane enough when he kissed another woman and then walked into that alien ship. He had just seen other humans coming out of there after being taken for decades.
It's not entirely fair for us to judge the Nearys with 21st-century eyes. 1977 was a long time ago for mental health awareness & treatment. Men's & women's gender roles in their marriages were more rigid back then too.
Last edited:
pburgess
Active Member
Maybe these aren’t old enough to count as “iconic,” but…
Jurassic Park: there’s a not-negligible segment where Hammond makes a point of always being present for raptor hatchings, that they bond with the first creature they see as their mother. This never comes up later in the story; a prominent “Chekov’s gun” that went un-fired.
Star Trek VI: the Excelsior is studying gaseous anomalies. Later, all that gear is suddenly on Enterprise. (Novel explains it’s a fleet-wide project, but it wasn’t clear in the film’s “Captan’s log” narration.)
Pacific Rim: a couple. First, one of the Jaeger’s is testeronically described as built from “pure titanium, no alloys!” But metal alloys aren’t some kind of cheap compromise, they enhance a metal’s properties, often hardness and durability! Second, early on, the shared-mind “drift” is explained as necessary because piloting a Jaeger is too much for one brain to handle. Later, when they “drift” with a kaiju’s brain, it’s a big dramatic story point that they team up…but…this isn’t a Jaeger and isn’t being piloted. The kaiju mind should be one half of the drift, but inexplicably this is now a three-way.
Jurassic Park: there’s a not-negligible segment where Hammond makes a point of always being present for raptor hatchings, that they bond with the first creature they see as their mother. This never comes up later in the story; a prominent “Chekov’s gun” that went un-fired.
Star Trek VI: the Excelsior is studying gaseous anomalies. Later, all that gear is suddenly on Enterprise. (Novel explains it’s a fleet-wide project, but it wasn’t clear in the film’s “Captan’s log” narration.)
Pacific Rim: a couple. First, one of the Jaeger’s is testeronically described as built from “pure titanium, no alloys!” But metal alloys aren’t some kind of cheap compromise, they enhance a metal’s properties, often hardness and durability! Second, early on, the shared-mind “drift” is explained as necessary because piloting a Jaeger is too much for one brain to handle. Later, when they “drift” with a kaiju’s brain, it’s a big dramatic story point that they team up…but…this isn’t a Jaeger and isn’t being piloted. The kaiju mind should be one half of the drift, but inexplicably this is now a three-way.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
Um, it's a HUD. Yeah, that fixes it.This is one of those "Once you see it..." moments.
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, when the pod is traveling to the Clavius moonbase, it approached the base and lands bottom first. But, the view from inside the cockpit (which is located on the top of the pod), shows the pilots looking at the moonscape and the base through the viewport, which should have been impossible.
Just a little thing, but still...
View attachment 1890073
View attachment 1890074
drusselmeyer
Master Member
Story wise it brought nothing new to the table. Same old conflict redressed for a new audience:
•No resolution of old questions.
•Idiot nothingburger as a villain.
•Long, drawn out, tedious story with only a few bright spots. At least 30min too long.
•No jolting realization that the audience has been cheering for the serial killer all along and that the audience is complicit in the Blade Runners' crimes. Instead, sympathy for the bureaucratic weenie that is just following orders.
•The worst part: Deckard and Rachael's child will result in no forward progress of the story... everyone is effectively dead. K is dead. Deckard has no future. His daughter has no future. The promise of Blade Runner is over.
The death of the story is the death of the franchise.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
All creatures on the island, not just the raptors. Can't remember if it was a thing or plot point in the book. I just took it as the exentric musings of a rich old man, who thought he could make a bond with a creation he didn't understand.
Or, it could just be a sales talk, as I doubt he actually was realistically able to be present at every birth...
Last edited:
Similar threads
