MovieChat Forums > estocade > Replies
estocade's Replies
SO... it made a lot of greens after all. Goes to show if you release a pile of shit in the right place at the right time the chronically bored idiotic sheeple will eat it all up. Mmmmm yum. Let's clap to Sony for studying its audience well. Well done.
Am I the only one who does not like how he ends his films on a cheap sentimental note? Someone please tell him that he's a pussy.
0.68 million whoa I thought there was only me and a few others. I love the show.
Hate is the action but anger and then hate are the products of pain/fear. My belief is that mr robot is justified in his world as an agent of change, like a forest fire or an earthquake, whereas elliots rebellion against mr robot justified in his own where he wants to give the afflicted ones a chance to reflect and not just perish, but I;m not sure if elliot understands his actions fully. Both worlds are part of a bigger reality so they have to come to terms, both cannot win nor lose. If they just sit down and reflect, instead of attacking each other, why would elliot not try to figure out mr robot, who he really is, I mean figure out the darkest corner of his mind.
Mr robot has to be elliot's repressed hurt/pain personified as his genius father. The newborn entity has an enormous presence. But still, why did it materialize as is father?
Did Elliot "decided" that ecorp has betrayed his father and he has/had all the right to come back to have his revenge. But it is unknown whether his father was a vengeful type of person.
We see people the way we want to see them and not the way they really are. I for example want to see people as one single individual (for simplicity sake) but in reality people have more than one personality in them, some are rare to pop out, some are still developing.
Much darker too.
I would recommend to watch the original and skip the sequel. But then we all know you will not listen to anyone and will decide on your own.
Isn't that the generator?
I know. I was disconnected the whole time, yet waited for something to happen which would hook me, but nothing came. Also I thought there would be an easter egg and we could find out maybe what the hell tannhauser gate was. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Bull-shit. Unimaginative. Shallow. Hollow. How this got a rating above 8.0 is beyond my comprehension. Also soundtrack was laughable, even cgi was 10 times less spectacular than the 1982 original. What was the point of the film? To keep the industry going no other reason.
Yes Scott has changed the term android or andy to replicants and I got no problem with that. The title of the book is "Do Androids dream of electric sheep". No matter how sophisticated and close to real humans they are still machines. Fyi some of them prefer to be called "artificial person" haha
But then think about it, if you give them a reproductive function and erase the knowledge of their creators from their memory would they start to call themselves human or something like it? Are we human? Or another species of machines...
Couldn't understand what they were saying in the trailer, very british humor, also everyone's british. When a guy says "you can kiss my russian ass" I find it a bit dry and not convinced. But I'm sure if I watch the whole film I might bite it.
Fair enough. Imo you found it dry and dull because your mind is conditioned to accept what's on the surface of the story, the picture, negating what's underneath, dwelling in the unconscious.
DADoES has everything I ever wanted in a scifi novel, and... everything I didn't wanted.
I enjoyed Blade Runner for its visuals, atmosphere and the characters.
The book imo wasn't based on technology but the tech was based on the philosophy behind the story, for example an empathy box is an obscure object, all we know what it does but how it works is of no importance, in fact no one really knows, and even till the end "the great reveal" doesn't really reveal much as the finale is ambiguous and spreads the ambiguity to the finale of the ecranisation.
The whole of the book is set in only one day, only a moment in time... Characters try to hold on to objects and beliefs but the objects pile up and then break apart under its weight, the beliefs caught in the grind between illusory and the real. It is our future, the legacy of our minds and it is dark, damp and violent.
It happened again. First this year it was GITS. Now BR.
The sequel is an extremely hollow copy of the original and will not stand the test of time.
Some scenes of course are good but they will not save the whole production.
It has nothing to offer but nostalgia.
8.8 (now 8.6) screams of some serious denial.
The book is deeper still so some who haven't read it they should. It's illuminating. My favorite sci-fi book.
I've read it more than once. It is very different from the films, much more philosophical, religious, with very dark humor, brilliant situations and dialogues.
Those fat nipples were very pleasing to the eye.
Highly agree with you op, first they mangled ghost in the shell now blade runner, this is some kind of unholy ritual against art.
Why can't they just go and make original stories, you know use their own imaginations, just slap some stars here and there to attract the farm animals into the cinema.
On a GOOD note, the originals will get more publicity. BUT it is not necessary as they already are cult classics which will never be forgotten.
The movie is not garbage but it would've went under the radar if not for the Christopher Nolan™ above the title.
You don't have to see the movie to know that this is the SEQUEL right? It will just follow the old formula and would have nothing in common directly with the book. The adapted source is the source, which is diluting already a shallow material. But I don't want waste my energy arguing, time will tell, and if I'm wrong then who cares right?
Well, you have convinced yourself, and I'm not saying you're wrong because it works for you.
Positive relative to what? Transformers? Well ok not the best example. I will go watch it simply out of how dry the industry has become that you have to squeeze any bit of creativity to bring any mild satisfaction for your senses. And that is why it had a good reception I'm sure, simply the rest is so mediocre that the one which is less mediocre has to be considered a masterwork. All is relative isn't it? The TRUTH is they had no VISION to make a new version, the one closer to the rich source material, yes which would be harder to adapt to the big screen without taking risks. But I would've digested it, sad thing that many would not, a prime example the Southland Tales, glorious as life but so not synced with the expectations of the average viewer.
Comparing to the book yes it was very basic, but it had enough inspiration to make it a great movie. Now the 2049 does make no sense since it only dilutes what the original has got away with.