zombie84

Blade Runner has Pris and Batty, Prometheus has David, who I think is more interesting than them. The first five or ten minutes of the film when it's just David's life on the ship, trying to learn human behavior, is brilliant.

And just like Blade Runner, it's a film about identity and humanity. What does it mean to be human and where did we come from? And for David, this takes an extra twist in that he is not human, tries to be human, but ultimately goes beyond his flesh and blood counterparts who treat him as a tool.

Prometheus has almost no science to it, I'll give you that. But it was never really trying to. The life-cycle of the alien substance is biologically plausible and interesting, and that's about all the science there is to the film. Much like Blade Runner, actually, which shows science but never really explains how it works or anything (the Tyrel speech excepted). Again, that's because it is about ideas and themes more than plot and character, which are really just vehicles used to convey those ideas. I mean, who is Deckard? No, who is he? What are his interests, where did he come from, who is really inside? We never get any glimpse, his dialogue is mainly about the plot, and Ford played it pretty interior/deadpan. We get some hints here and there, and his performance has charm because it is Harrison Ford, but he is barely developed as a character, and other characters like Gaff are developed so subtly that it takes multiple viewings to realize there was any character motivation there at all. When you stack it against Prometheus' Vickers, David, and the performance of Noomi Rapace, I think we are on pretty equal ground.

And Blade Runner has had two directors cuts, by the way. The theatrical cut looks nice, but it's not the greatest film ever made, and it's bad in some places. Prometheus felt a bit rushed in places, but Scott is also working on a directors cut, so I think it's better to compare apples to apples for now.

Oh come on! Blade Runner makes no sense. The whole Deckard-replicant thing was tacked on at the last moment and has absolutely no logic to it. Once you actually think about how it could be possible and the implications it raises the entire idea falls apart. Whatever answers you provide on your own are inevitably reaching and would be considered unrealistic and implausible in any other movie. In fact, most of the plot is utterly implausible, starting with the year 2019 and on through just about every element in the story. There are holes in that script big enough to pilot a spinner through. Plus the characters are rather thin and the acting is a bit stiff. Why do you think so many hated it in 1982?

But it's brilliant. It's brilliant because it's not about the plot or the characters in the sense of traditional drama, it's about ideas, philosophy, visuals, atmosphere and creating a world. That's why Blade Runner has any merit to it, and that's why it was misunderstood, because people thought the film was about detective Han Solo chasing robots in a trenchcoat. Go read the negative 1982 reviews of Blade Runner and you will be able to substitue the word "Prometheus" and magically end up with the same reviews as 2012. It's fitting since Scott admits that Prometheus is more a spiritual sequel to BR than Alien, since it deals with the same themes and ideas.

Bingowings said:

If only the film was as good as these vignettes.

I'm going to go on record and say Prometheus was the best film I saw this year, as much as liked stuff like Avengers and Dark Knight Rises. Mark my words, this film is Ridley Scott's follow up to Blade Runner and it's basically being treated the same way, for every negative review I have ever read you could swap the titles and get the exact same thing, it's a bit uncanny. I imagine this will become one of the bigger cult sci-fi films within the next ten or twenty years.

But then I guess that depends tto some degree how Prometheus 2 is constructed and if Ridley Scott actually follows through with his silly Space Jesus idea...

DominicCobb said:

Jesus it's a 5 second shot! We're talking about RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK here! IN IMAX! GO SEE IT!

(Kind of annoyed because I might not be able to go because of my work schedule)

But SERIOUSLY guys!

Oh I'll see it if I can, but it's a huge buzzkill. If it were a full-out Special Edition, like Star Wars, it might actually be easier. But when you're watching this super-authentic restoration of the film and then all of a sudden--HEY! BAD CG SHOT!!!--and then back to the regular film...it's so jarring. I mean, really, what in gods name is the point if it's just that one shot, which was fine anyway?

But like I said...almost. ;)

The argument is moot anyway since it doesn't appear to be playing in my country though. Guess I'll have to stick to the beat-up 1981 prints they show around here once or twice a year.

Trooperman said:

There was only one thing wrong- George Lucas apparently snuck in the CGI shot of the truck going over the cliff in the chase.  When I saw that I was livid.  It took me about 5 minutes to get over it. 

 

what.the.fuck.

It almost makes me not even want to see it.

Almost.

Bill Pulmonary Embolism said:

3 Inches of Blood are great. A buddy of mine who went to school in British Columbia turned me on to them a few years back.

Yeah, when I was living in Vancouver in 2004 I saw their very first CD being promoted in a store and I took a gamble because the cover art seemed cool (judging metal solely by cover art: never let me down in almost 20 years!) and I was really impressed. Back on the topic of sci-fi metal, they actually have one or two sci-fi tracks that are really good (Wykydtron, for example). But it's too bad that whenever people think of sci-fi metal they think of stuff like Bal-Sagoth because, while they are okay, I think the genre needs a lot more diversity than the handful of examples I've seen. I guess Iron Maiden can be commended for making an entire sci-fi album in Somewhere in Time, although they did get a lot of criticism when it first came out because of the synths.

In terms of Star Wars, I don't know if anyone knows Blind Guardian, but they totally incorporated the "jedi" theme from Star Wars in the intro to Times Stands Still (At the Iron Hill) from  Nightfall in Middle Earth.

Well, when it comes to thrash my listening is a bit limited, if only because I find many bands tend to sound so similar but I like the usual stuff like Overkill and Annihilator, and maybe Helstar but people tend to consider them "speed metal", but the difference between "speed metal" and "thrash metal" is often a bit blurred. My music taste is a bit more European-leaning so I usually enjoy bands more when they incorporate elements of thrash but wouldn't be consider thrash proper. There is a really good band from Canada called 3 Inches of Blood that is a sort of thrash/power-metal/NWOBHM/death-metal blend and they are really good and tend to tour with bands that are probably more up your alley like Overkill and Goat Whore, you might enjoy some of their stuff.

I was wondering when someone would think of doing this. I can't believe it's 2012 and this is the first time I've heard of the notion. Because I mean, if Blind Guardian can make an entire career out of adapting Tolkien, why couldn't someone do something similar with Star Wars?  There really isn't a lot of sci-fi themed metal compared to fantasy, and there really should be.

I'm more of the classic/power/speedy genre fan than the death metal stylings of you guys, but the recording quality is really, really good. Sounds pro!

I follow these guys' comedy skits on Youtube and they do a pretty mean Bane impersonation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyBJ5nTiv-c

Big Lebowski, Billy Madison and Happy Gilmour

Drinking games were involved.

Unfortunately only got one hour into Big Lebowski before pitchers of white Russians were empty (yes, pitchers). The drinking games for that film are kind of ridiculous when you consider how often people say "man" and "the Dude" or whatever rules you are playing by.

Not a big Adam Sandler fan but those two early films of his have an inspired level of absurdity to them, especially Billy Madison. The actors in that film must have thought Adam Sandler was actually retarded to be trying to pass off his performance as entertainment. But the effect is so over-the-top and random that it works, and really well. I always thought this film was overrated when I was a kid but I appreciate the stupidity of it much more as an adult, ironically enough!

Also watched Jackie Brown (sober!), which always remains as good as the first time I watched it. Probably my favourite Tarrantino film.

Baronlando said:

Tobar said: It just seems to me that he, like many, aren't aware of what's happened to Star Wars. Which is a sad state of affairs that should compel us to enlighten the uninformed, not berate them.

Well, we're not talking about a child, these guys I'm talking about are plenty educated. This situation has existed for 16 years now, with the educated people being mostly just fine with it. I think the high road is pretty useless at this point.

I think the real reason is that there used to be a convention sub-culture of hardcore devotees, but now that there is this "nerd chic" thing going on the last decade, you have seen a huge explosion of the convention scene. Do you remember anyone talking about Comic-con in 1997? Did you even hear about it back then? For most people the answer is no. But stuff like anime conventions, comic conventions, and the idea of going to a Star Wars convention, that's a popular mainstream thing. And that's cool. But what happens is that 50% of the people there are casual fans, they are part of the "nerd culture" I guess you could say, in that they may watch Pokemon and Cowboy Bebop, and know most of the characters from Star Wars, and read Death Note manga and follow Doctor Who on TV, etc. But they may not be hardcore Star Wars fans like us. They like Star Wars, and they like to cosplay, to meet cool people, etc. Nerd conventions are a mainstream social event these days. If you said you cosplayed in 1997, after you explained what that term meant, people would assume you were a 40 year old virgin. Now, you get jocks that do that sort of thing. Totally different world in 2012 than even ten years ago. So, it's the same amount of hardcore convention goers of 1994, but now you have an additional 200% of people on top of that now that it's a huge thing who are more casual because this sort of thing is mainstream, and in anything mainstream most people don't actually know that much about it compared to an expert.

So, you have fans that like Star Wars, that aren't there just because they want to be cool or some other write-off explanation like that, they are real fans, but they don't know the history like we do, they know the basics and they may remember hearing about how it was restored with improvements in 1997 but they may not really know what that means, or care about it. People also tend to go in groups, so if there is a group of five people, maybe two of them are hardcore fans and they know all this stuff, but then the other three are casual fans who are going because the first two sold them the idea, and why not, they like Star Wars, this sounds like great fun.

I have a lot of friends who are these people, and like most who go to these conventions they tend to be in their early 20s. Rather than being experts at one thing like we are, they are nerds with a very broad sense of taste, which means they like all sorts of nerdy things like anime, comics, toys, movies, video games, etc., but because there are a million of these things nowadays they only know a little bit about the history, or variations or releases, etc.

If that sheds any light on the issue.

doubleofive said:

I'm looking forward to R2 freaking out and EVERYTHING COMING RIGHT AT ME!



(Truthfully, I'm not giving any more money to Lucas unless its for the OOT)

(And yes, they replaced his chest area panel with CG so it could flip out better)

Is that a photoshop job or is that the 2011 BD? No, seriously.

I know Jay and anyone else who programs for this site is busy with many things...but this is something that has been a bit bothersome for at least four or five years now. And that is, the search function basically doesn't work. The forums are unsearchable. It's almost impossible to track down information easily. Would it be too much to ask for a search engine that actually works? Doesn't Google provide a plug-in of sorts that can reference a particular site? It's one of the only complaints I have about this board. The search engine is absolute garbage and should have been completely re-built years ago. Is there any hope of this being changed or do we basically have to make do with what exists? It's not like it is impossible to find things, it's just that it is often so much of a pain that I give up. I know I'm not the first person to mention this. The site has so much information--really, this place is one of Star Wars fandom's biggest goldmine's--but much of it is essentially lost due to a virtually unusable search function. It would benefit a lot of people if this could be revised somehow. Just a suggestion. :)

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/battleoftheprimitives.html

In case anyone is interested. Nothing much new, but the stuff on ESB is still relatively unknown at this point.

Fox killed Firefly the same way they killed Futurama: they changed it's timeslot around, didn't give it enough promotion, and aired the episodes out of order. The awesome Pilot was actually showed close to last. They didn't even air the last three or four episodes, period! It's no wonder it wasn't performing to their expectations.

Bingowings said:

This is still one of my favourite youtube videos, the sound the guy makes around the 4.06 mark is hilarious and I love his little shuffling moves to try and avoid the inevitable.

I remember Frink not being impressed by this when I posted the subtitled version so here it is as naked as the day it was born.

Pewdiepie, but Japanese and years earlier. :p

bkev said:

I have to say cap, I disagree on this one. These covers are much, much better than the batch they did for the UE ones. While I'd be happier with some poster art (and who wouldn't be?), these are solid photoshop jobs that conform to the norm. I especially like the ones for From Russia and Goldfinger, but we can agree to disagree.

Yeah I don't think they are that bad either. Some of them look kind of cool.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I paid about $50 for it in 2004 or whenever it came out.

I never understood the big deal about Vertigo, to be honest. I found it boring and plodding. Psycho and Rear Window are easily twice as good, to say nothing of stuff like North by Northwest. I mean, it's a well-made movie, but it's not even the best Hitchcock film in my opinion. Maybe I just need to watch it again.

yes, 1950s-1970s colour Eastman stock was among the worst ever made for professional productions. Nitrate was very unstable, but at least it looked nice. Early colour stocks traded clarity for colour, but they got it sorted out as the years went on.

I wonder if they did some clean-up for the BD already...the 70s releases are decent, Eye of the Tiger and stuff like that, but stuff like Jason and the Argonauts and One Million BC look pretty grainy just on DVD. Maybe a lot of it was dirt. The 50s films blend the best IMO because the grain is consistent in the live-action scenes too.

skyjedi2005 said:

Would not any of the HarryHausen Dynamation films look like shit on this format?

Otherwise i would say Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, Golden Voyage, Jason and The Argonauts or the clash of the titans.

They look bad enough in 35mm as it is, unfortunately. They would have to go and do a grain-deduction pass or something. I haven't seen any of them on BD (are they on Blu?) but I have about four or five on DVD, and these are remastered from high-quality source material. It's fine for a DVD of an old film, but I doubt anyone would be able to stomache such high levels of grain in the VFX sequences on that large a size.

I have to say though, I'd be all for a cleaned-up Harryhausen IMAX release, purists be damned!

Ziggy Stardust said:

I bought the Criterion for 2 bucks yesterday

You theif, you! Good find for that price.

Looks like no Canadian dates. Sometimes they just don't announce them on American websites though. Waiting with hope!

Yeah, I was thinking of the X-Box.