This was the whole ethos of the first Star Wars films - Lucas made a point of getting everything look worn, to the point of having a term for it: the "used universe". Exemplified by C-3PO's whole look, Luke's clothes or even Han Solos's sweaty shirt.
It's a shame he seems to have completely forgotten this when it was time to make the prequels...
I'd argue it wasn't forgotten in the prequels. Most of the characters and plot revolves around and is supported by very large well funded organizations (Republic, Trade Federation, ect) which means the clothing and equipment they have is less likely to be worn down. The same can be seen in the original trilogy with the Empire, storm troopers and imperial ships are well polished and not "used".
I gave it a read and there's some interested takes but overall disagree and I think this particular read may miss some of the best parts of what make Blade Runner work. To just respond to the surmise, since all 10 points to me are more like 7 and even those 7 kind of just come down to these 3, lol.
First and foremost, its pacing is fine. Bad pacing in a movie is far worse, like Anna, and even pacing in a good one like Dune, doesn't mean anything necessarily - Blade Runner does a fine job if you are able to pay attention, I guess. Personally it seems a little odd to blame being molded by contemporary media to be the reason why an older film no longer holds up. Let me put it this way though - We have Drive (2011) and Baby Driver (2017). In a lot of ways, these movies are exactly the same at times being almost shot for shot early on (likely homage). But Baby Driver is an extremely fast paced movie, and Drive is an extremely slow burn. Both of these movies, like Blade Runner, do something different, so of the critiques there can be I'm not fully on board with this one, unless the argument is that old movies should be able to take any viewer out of their subjectivity mold, I can't really agree with the takeaway from this. I had a harder time watching the new Dune than I did Blade Runner, does that make Dune's pacing worse than Blade Runner or is Blade Runner's pacing better than Dune? See what I mean? I might feel different had there been any examples, but it seemed that it just found a "Blade Crawler" comment and made a point about it, and now that's bad because... movies are faster paced? Nyeh, not sold, lol.
Decker is no more than an analogue for the viewers to be in the world, he may be the protagonist but Decker, IMO, is far from the main character. I also disagree about him lacking complexity, however I would say that it is indeed because he is 100% a foil to the antagonists. Decker isn't meant to be this incredible Blade Runner that no other can live up to - he's good sure, he's alive and has his faculties and limbs, but he quite literally takes the role of the futuristic Desk Jockey, he is just the pencil pusher that grinds up the replicants. More on this later.
Whenever I watch Blade Runner I'm always surprised by how it's such a quiet film with so much exposition in just a few sentences. I don't think anything overshadows anything else. I think there is a strong emphasis on atmosphere which helps with the world building we get from the characters and interactions. It critiques hyper-capitalism by showing a world far in the future that by all accounts is exactly the same, save a few office jobs that have evolved. The underground is still working girls and chefs and the government is still uncoordinated and corrupt. Without the focus on visuals to evoke just how different this world is supposed to be, we don't get snapped back into mundanity when we see Decker ordering food and getting stopped by other officers. Moreover, the depth of the story comes specifically from Roy Batty, who as I mention should be viewed as the real protagonist. I think the movie itself argues this point to the bone, but everyone only ever seems to want to talk about Decker so maybe not.
I find it hard to see a lack of depth when Roy and Pris, literal cybernetic robots, are the most emotive characters in Blade Runner. The only other character we genuinely see some emotion from is the Tinkerer J.F. Sebastian, who has a love for his toys and makes friends with the replicants. They get inhumanly emotive at times, but they more than anyone we see express just how much they want to live. Roy's entire journey is a process of becoming human, until death when he gives birth to Decker by saving him. Roy lived as a human would have. In life, Roy was enslaved, escaped, and lived on the lamb. He sought vengeance towards God (Tyrell), found love, exacts vengeance once more before, in my opinion, realizing and accepting that God was right. There is no extending life. Not his own.
As he sees Deckard about to die, with the understanding that Roy himself will soon as well, Roy saves Deckard not as an act of mercy but as a birth. To extend life. For me, the story isn’t much about Deckard. It’s about what Deckard’s piece represents for humanity. He isn't complex, he doesn't need to be. Not everyone is. Particularly when Deckard himself isn't even the point that the film was trying to make, each and every quintessential moment of philosophy comes from the antagonists musings, not the protagonists inquisitions.
Your final act in death is to give life which you were no longer allowed.
I don’t consider Star Wars to be sci-fi. It’s a futuristic space fantasy.
Is that an unpopular opinion? Most sci-fi/fantasy fans I know would probably agree with this. I love Star Wars, but in the same way I love Lord of the Rings.
Also, Star Trek Enterprise is one of the best Trek series, IMO. Top 5.
I would say the final season of Enterprise is arguably the best single season of any Star Trek show so far. But it was a long road getting there...
The human crew (particularly Archer and Trip) were difficult to warm to in seasons 1 and 2 - I found them so much more emotional and overdramatic than an intelligent professional human would be today, and that it made it difficult for me to accept them as the bridge from today to the 23rd/24th century Starfleet we know.
Season 3 was tough for different reasons - maybe it played differently in America, but watching from outside the US a lot of it felt like post-9/11 revenge fantasy. Very proto-'America First'.
Incredible Mark Hamill Cult Classic Lands On 4K Blu-Ray This Summer
I come to Lemmy to get away from frustratingly annoying titles that intentionally miss out a key piece of information - in this case the title of the film or TV show the article is about - to trick people into loading the page, only to find is a film they’ve already seen or don’t care about or whatever.
I just ignore headlines like this now and move on, don’t give them what they want - clicks.
Rule 3: Mutual Learning and Collaboration
The federated internet community should serve as a platform for mutual learning and collaboration among its members. Encourage individuals to share their knowledge, insights, and experiences related to science fiction. Foster a culture of curiosity and intellectual growth, where members can engage in constructive dialogues and learn from each other. By embracing diverse perspectives and promoting collaboration, the community can become a vibrant hub for science fiction enthusiasts to expand their understanding of the genre.
I get ya, I hadn’t even really noticed since the movie was named in the box below.
Exactly. Content creators gotta eat too, so there are levels of 'please click on this so I can eat' that I'm prepared to accept in the landscape of 2024 digital information exchanges.
Where are you getting those numbers from? First of all, GW is a unit of power, not energy. You can’t “produce 1.21GW in a day” because it’s a measurement of instantaneous power. Some nuclear reactors produce around 1GW(e), which means 1 gigawatt hour per hour.
Yeah, and the article is wrong, though only slightly. They seem to be confusing watts (power, energy over time) with Joules (energy, power times a duration of time). They give a passable definition in the beginning ("energy transfer"), but they seem to misunderstand what the "transfer" part means exactly.
If you find-replace all instances of "watt" with "watt-hour" after that starting definition, it would be more accurate. That's why I say it's only slightly wrong.
Several works receiving large numbers of votes were ruled ineligible for unstated reasons, which from leaked emails appears to be the US-based administrators unilaterally deciding that they might cause political offence.
A number of Chinese-language nominations appear to have been entirely disallowed.
The second, in what seems to be a mass disenfranchisement of Chinese voters, means that the composition of the shortlists, as they were presented to be voted on, was entirely unreliable, with an unknown number of Chinese nominees denied their chance at contending.
I’m not thinking this is going to be good. I love Cate Blanchett, love Jack Black, and Kevin Hart… but the actors were definitely not the right choice for the roles. Kevin Hart is tiny when Roland is a massive dude, Cate Blanchett is just too old for being Lilith, and Jack Black will just be Jack Black and not Claptrap. And where’s Mordecai and Brick?
We’ll see, but video game movies are always a crapshoot because the producers rarely understand the source material.
Jack Black rarely really plays himself in voice acted roles. He really embodies Bowser in the Mario Movie, and even Kung Fu Panda he isn't really himself, so I'm not really worried for Claptrap.
As for the other examples, I don't think actors have to be young or yolked to play a character. Not that I see Hart as Roland, just that I don't think his size matters for this at all.
But yeah the movie could really go either way, there's a lot of potential but Borderlands could very easily be a franchised series so I do wonder about the casting from a different perspective.
scifi
Gorące
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.