Topic: The Movie Thread

@Th3solution You'd be surprised at the types of technology still in use by some branches of defence in developed countries.
I recall a report from a year or so ago out of the Pentagon. They were still using 8" floppy disc drives and the majority of associated legacy systems to operate nuclear launches among other things.
Hackers will hack. The technology of any given era is only as good as those trying to break it - in America alone the DOD is under almost constant attack from those trying to get in. And plenty do.

On the films - I think there's some stuff you just have to grow up with. War Games is especially a product of its time. The Cold War plot points were still pretty raw, the threat of actual nuclear war, possibility of orbital defence platforms being real and the 'Supercomputer' being a thing that made the news a lot sold it well.
There were very few people with the luxury of a domestic dial-up connection in 1983, so it was an fairly exotic thing to watch. Even by the time I can remember seeing it in '88 I had no notion of 'real people' having access to that.

I still find Blade Runner a joy (in the Director's Cut form). It's pure Scott though - Kubrick almost always makes at least half of a good film - then gets bored and makes it in to something else; not necessarily worse, but certainly its rarely where I'd want the film to go (2001 and The Shining being my only real exceptions).
Scott was the go-to guy for an engaging slow burn. Blade Runner easily still being his best work.

2049 is alright. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck... it never doesn't feel like 'someone else doing Blade Runner'; though they probably couldn't have found someone better than Villeneuve to do it (I'm glad Scott didn't, he's just the worst now)- it does enough to make you think that he cares about what he's doing.

It's pretty divisive among my friends. Most agree that it looks and sounds great. Performances across the board are strong, even Ford manages to look like he isn't just there for the cheque (like in TFA & Indy 4) - but you either go along with the core conceit, or you don't. I don't, I find it extremely silly and a bizarre extrapolation of the previous story and characters. But there you go.

@Th3solution urgh, that reads really ranty - sorry.

@Th3solution That's an issue for a LOT of movies in that the tech can become very dated very quickly. It also seems particularly bad in Sci-fi as you have much better tech now than they are portraying that we will have in the future. Bladerunner though is set in 2019 and we still don't have the flying cars and there isn't really a great deal of 'tech' in the movie. The tech is mostly the billboards and the 'replicants' of course.

Probably the greatest sci-fi movie, Alien, looks very dated if you consider the tech. All the computers with their 70's type and 'Mother' is a massive, computer with less ability than a mobile phone - at least you can speak to your phone and it will speak back (Siri for example). Talking of Mobiles, that also dates things. The amount of times that horror movies have someone breaking down in a car or similar situation that today would be a simple 'mobile' call solution instead of getting out to look for a phone and ending up at the 'creepy house on the hill' situation. Again though, you can look at these as more 'historic' settings - that the 'horror' was occurring in whatever time period its set - unless its a futuristic 'sci-fi' horror of course.

In things like War Games, despite how dated the tech is, you can look at it as a more 'historic' thing as it wasn't trying to be 'futuristic'. Its not set in 2020 for example and therefore much easier to accept that it is an 80's movie. If they made the film in 2018 and set it in the 80's, then that level of tech would still be relevant. You look at Alien though and if that was made today, I doubt it would be so technologically dated. I know it had some tech we still don't have, like those sleep pods for example that suspend life or humanoid synthetics either but the computers etc certainly wouldn't look like they do. You wouldn't expect a WW2 film to show mobiles and touch screen computers so I think War Games is OK in that its a representation of the time-period its set in - regardless of how dated the tech is by today's standards.

Bladerunner is one of the best movies of its time - although the 'proper' directors cut is the one to watch. I loved the theatrical cut because when I watched it, that was the 'only' cut of the movie (I am old) but for any newcomers, I would say watch the definitive edition, the Directors cut that Ridley Scott actually did.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I still love Alien although its becoming increasingly dated from a tech perspective. You almost have to think that the ship was built in the 1970's and been in service for centuries with a retrofit upgrade...

@BAMozzy VHS Noir, voice over version or the last stuff from the workprint boxed set?

I love the voice over. I didn't see it without the voice over until I bought the first DVD release of the theatrical cut. Much disappointment ensued.

@KALofKRYPTON I think the Final cut - the one that Ridley Scott had complete creative control over and the one without the Voice-over. I don't 'dislike' the voice over but it does change the overall vibe - it becomes more of a 30's 'detective' story and is less ambiguous too - especially the added 'ending' and removal of the Unicorn dream sequence in the original Theatre release. Those things were added/removed because the exec's didn't think that people would get it, that people had to have a happy ending and couldn't cope with some questions being left open - like was Deckard a replicant himself?

The 'best' version is open to interpretation - is it the one that the Director himself envisioned or is it the one that 'audiences' liked best. Personally I think both have merit and I do think that some of the changes to the lighting in the Final cut affect the mood as its not quite so dark. You can argue that the Dream sequence doesn't really add anything - other than more questions that aren't resolved, the voice over changes the vibe too - both are equally valid arguments for or against certain versions.

I watched the original theatrical cut first - because that was the ONLY version available. Maybe by the time the Final cut released, that 'voice over' became unnecessary because I was already aware of the dialogue and what that added in. I watched the Theatrical cut again recently as its on Sky just as a refresher before the new film and it felt lacking in some ways too - it lost some of that depth for me and the voice over felt almost cheesy now. By depth I mean that its 'telling' you rather than leaving it open for you to create your own monologue and interpretation.

Either way though, the Theatrical and Final Cut are perhaps the best two and I would argue that the Final Cut is the definitive version - the version that we 'should' of and 'would' of got had Ridley Scott been allowed the complete creative freedom to make the film in the first place.

@BAMozzy I don't mind The Final Cut, but I find Scott and his motivations ever questionable. It remains a surprise that he didn't lobby to do 2049 if I'm honest. Perhaps he's just too busy ruining the Alien story (just a bit more, every time).
According to Scott (now), there was never any intention to suggest that Deckard was actually a replicant. It's not something I've lent credence to. I also think it's a lazy story beat anyway.

I like a film that is somewhat open to interpretation, if that is the desired response. It can be a fine line to balance what the studio and director and even audience want, certainly in a case like Blade Runner where so much was shot in the end.

As I say, I'll forever prefer the 'original' home video Director's Cut. The voice-over sets the stage for me, Scott doesn't like it, Ford didn't even like recording it - but i think it creates a tighter piece of film.

In the 'Director's Cut ruining film stakes - I don't think I've ever been so put out as with Donnie Darko.

@KratosMD Great film! I'd even suggest working through the Jaws sequels, just to see how bad they get!

I would suggest watching 2001 (at least) twice before fully opining on it. There are many instant takeaways from the film - but it is absolutely worth consideration from several perspectives. A thing I've tried with a small handful of films including this; is to watch them tired; watch them drunk; watch them first thing; watch them when I'm happy; watch them sad, alone, with friends or just watching something several times within a few days. Or whatever combination of those - I've often and occasionally still do (been a while since I've watched it) come away with new impressions and thoughts on the narrative.

@KALofKRYPTON @KratosMD I’d have to agree on the watching 2001 more than once if you really want to ever like it. That movie is sorta weird. I won’t spoil it, but there are some instantly gratifying plot points and drama, but there is a lot of strange sub-narrative that can be offputting, depending how “in the mood” you are for a symbolic and cryptic experience. But it’s a space odyssey, so given your interest in Star Wars and Star Trek, it might click for you. But it is absolutely NOTHING like either of those Sci-Fi classics.

@Th3solution @KratosMD Closest any of them come is Star Trek: The Motion Picture - and even then it's largely stylistic.

Once you're done with 2001, give Naked Lunch a try.

@KratosMD 2001 is... dense. Not one of my favorite films, but I do appreciate what it was going for. It requires a lot of patience, though, so just sort of settle down and let it wash over you the first time through, I'd say.

Glad you enjoyed Jaws.

@KratosMD absolutely.

@KratosMD Yeah, my vote would be to go ahead and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey at least once. But it’s very possible that you may have the same response I did — which was, I did not like it at all after seeing it the first time. Found it boring and slow to develop and confusing. Then after watching it the second time I found it to be quite deep and fulfilling. The two viewings were separated by a couple years so it could be my frame of mind and maturity level that made the difference, who knows. But it’s kind of a rite-of-passage type movie for geeks and nerds. That music. You gotta see where that iconic Space Odyssey music comes from, if nothing else. That alone is reason enough. Plus the cultural references and quotes from it that you’ll at least be exposed to.
Kind of like when I watched “Chariots of Fire” and am glad I did just so I can identify the cultural reference of that awesome musical score. The movie itself it rather disliked and found boring.

@RogerRoger Nice work. Yeah, it’s kind of like after seeing Episode 4 in succession after watching “Rogue One”, suddenly “A New Hope” rose in my mind to be a better movie after seeing the context.
I do think Episode 3 is my favorite of the prequels, because everything comes together. And the romance is less cheesy
When Padme says, “Anakin you’re breaking my heart! You’re going down a path I cannot follow!” I actually felt like there was a relationship there, as opposed to dialogue between the two in the others.

@KratosMD Yeah, 2001 is worth watching. Even if you don't like it, I feel like it'll still have been worth your time. Kubrick's films are still a huge part of our shared Western cultural landscape.

And, you know... you might really like it! Some people think Kubrick is one of the greatest directors in the history of the medium.

@RogerRoger I mostly enjoyed Batman Ninja, although I'll admit that, near the end, it got a bit too stupid for me. And that's a pretty hard threshold to cross. I don't regret watching it, though, and it was definitely more enjoyable than something comparably dour like Gotham by Gaslight.

With all due respect, though, the best animated Batman film of all time is most definitely still the stellar Mask of the Phantasm. I also really liked Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. And Batman: Assault on Arkham, which is what Suicide Squad should have been in the first place.

I had pre-ordered Batman Ninja but decided to cancel it when one of my friends said it wasn't very good. :/

@RogerRoger Thanks. I might buy it eventually but not now since I'm a huge Batman fan and samurai/ninja genre as well. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of CGI animes but when I first saw the trailer I was really looking forward to watching it, which is why I decided to pre-ordered it. My friend then told me that some parts of the movie were pretty stupid, so I went to read some reviews and they were pretty mixed.

@WanderingBullet Batman Ninja is worth a go. I enjoyed it, it is bonkers and all the better for it.

DC rarely fumble when it comes to the animated stuff, and even when they do (Death & Return of Superman) they acknowledge it and correct it.

The latest Death of Superman is nicely done. Not particularly ground-breaking in any way, but re-tells the story to fit in with the animated feature New 52(ish) timeline. It's well acted, nicely written and does the work to set up Reign of the Superman/Return in a pretty snappy run-time.

I managed to watch Ready Player One at the weekend. And, to keep it brief - what a piece of crap. I was actually staggered at, not only how poorly adapted the film is in almost every way, but at the utter lack of emotional resonance. It didn't even feel at all like Spielberg was involved.
I understand that licencing, or the lack of it will have played a key part in what could make it in to the film and what couldn't. But even then, what's left is an incredibly shallow, even hollow notion of what the book - not exactly a sprawling master work - is. Very disappointing.

I also got to see Tag. Which was a blast.

@KALofKRYPTON I’ll agree with you that RPO was a poor adaptation and did lack some of the emotional impact. It felt rushed, as many book to movie adaptations can be. But the eye candy was nice, as were some of the gaming references. I managed to get a little bit of enjoyment out of it.

@Th3solution honestly, I'm not sure I can think of a worse direct adaptation I've seen.

There were a few fun references, but it was just throw away fan service every time; fleeting glimpses: RoboCop; Spartans; Chun Li - the utter dedication that must have been employed to license and model Serenity for her all to brief cameo speaks volumes that the film was a contractual obligation for most involved. Wreck It Ralph did a better job, it celebrated everything it managed to put on screen.

It's not only the lack of much resembling the story from the book. The whole thing drips with laziness. Even the depiction of people using VR so meticulously described in the book is junked: because reasons and this treadmill looks cool... And the people fighting in VR in the streets...

It's rare that a film I decide to watch seems so utterly devoid of a soul and apologetic for its existence. RPO doesn't even work well as the pure popcorn movie the producers clearly wanted it to be.

@KALofKRYPTON 2 hours of your life you’ll never get back. Lol
What about Eragon? I never read the book or saw the movie but the word on the street was that it was an abysmal adaptation.