|
Literally the definition of subversion. It's okay to not like the movie. But just because you think it's bad doesn't make it not a subversion of the themes of the original. You're making some kind of bizarre "no true subversman" argument.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Snak posted:Literally the definition of subversion. Fine, it's a subversion. It subverts a good movie, and makes it poo poo. I'll concede that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Yep, I'm like, "it's 5pm... poo poo... posting... time."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Should Snowman_McK be skinned alive, or decapitated like King Willie?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Snak posted:Yep, I'm like, "it's 5pm... poo poo... posting... time." New thread title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:New thread title. Let's save it for the Shane Black predator thread. It doesn't really belong here...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Predators is both subversive and not very well-made. It's a protypical Suicide Squad that's somehow less coherent, but about as interesting in how it plays around with notions of heroism. (This means it's also worse than a great many films like, for example, The Call Up.) Getting things back on topic: if you're going to talk canon, you need to at least do it right. Since Prometheus remakes and replaces AVP, rendering that film non-canon, we can observe that AV|P:R (pronounced "a viper") is now more canon than ever. When it and Covenant are read in concert, they reveal what probably should have been obvious: Covenant is not the origin story of the Xenomorph; it is the origin story of A Large Egg. We now know, definitively, which came first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
But where does Space Jam fit in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:But where does Space Jam fit in? In yo booty!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
predators is definitely one trillion times better than suicide squad because it has walton goggins and doesnt have jared leto
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:Yea that's still pretty good for an old sci-fi horror franchise. Studios don't tend to grade on a curve that generous. Especially not when a film fails to make its budget back domestically. Add in a high marketing budget, and you've got a less than ideal outlook. Covenant had its budget slashed so a Prometheus level take would be profitable. It did not make as much money as Prometheus. In fact, its domestic take was lower than the first Alien, pre-inflation. Execs don't go "Well, it lost money, but, you know, it was a game effort." They compare to other investments, and try to mimic what actually brought money in. (Not necessarily successfully, but...) Basically, Covenant underperformed some pretty rock bottom predictions, probably cost the studio millions, and odds on bet says it killed the prospects for a sequel. (And R rated doesn't really work as an excuse, considering that I can name half a dozen R rated films that outgrossed it in the US market this year alone.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
You know it's strange but I can't really think of many films like Predator 2 that had the whole "thug voodoo gangs are scary" scare of the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Snak posted:Let's save it for the Shane Black predator thread. It doesn't really belong here... The Predator: I ain't got time to shitpost. Anyway even as someone who despises Predators, the way it attempts to subvert things in the original Predator was the only notable thing about it to me. In the original the Predator is a monster, definitively a bad guy, because it enjoys killing human beings. I think Predators is poo poo but I appreciate it being more self aware about what that says about its human characters' mindsets than Predator did, and I liked how the covering in mud trick didn't work the same way the Predators using Danny Trejo as a decoy didn't work. Like they don't fall for this oldest trick in the book kind of thing someone hunting animals would use, but he still assumes the Predators, who set the whole thing up, would fall for some oldest trick in the book camouflage. The Yakuza guy only having one line with another character (even if it was an awesome one) was lame but he's able to kill a Predator because he approaches it on the same level. In Predator Billy just like, people act like he dueled the Predator 1 on 1 too but I got the impression he didn't even attempt to fight it because everything he says prior makes it sound like he's already given up and just sacrificed himself to give them time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
SirDrone posted:You know it's strange but I can't really think of many films like Predator 2 that had the whole "thug voodoo gangs are scary" scare of the 90's. IIRC from watching the making of stuff on the DVD the writers/etc. were developing the movie in the very narrow window where this particular bullshit article about how a warehouse in LA was found full of human sacrifices and basically every stereotype of "voodoo gangs are in league with Satan to kill our glorious Christian society" in one building was circulating in some circles and still given some credence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Not to sidetrack from the Predator chat, but here's a highlight reel of Ridley Scott from the Covenant director's commentary: I love Ridley because he makes James Cameron look humble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
I'd buy him a beer just to listen to him drunkenly rant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
The supercut makes him seem like a stupid, rude tyrant, but a lot of the stuff he says here is really amusing, like David's regurgitating Xenomorphs like a smuggler with balloons of cocaine. Or how, for example Walter being a new-model David is not some kind of flub (In his words "duh, of course something is going to happen"), directly referring to the film's false ending, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
SirDrone posted:You know it's strange but I can't really think of many films like Predator 2 that had the whole "thug voodoo gangs are scary" scare of the 90's. The Steven Segal movie Marked For Death has a great voodoo cult gang, but there's not a good third entry in the Jamaican Voodoo gang series.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:The Steven Segal movie Marked For Death has a great voodoo cult gang, but there's not a good third entry in the Jamaican Voodoo gang series. Screwface's Christmas sweater collection always puts a smile on my face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
50 million in tickets thought they were tricked by Prometheus not having an alien lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
chiasaur11 posted:Studios don't tend to grade on a curve that generous. Especially not when a film fails to make its budget back domestically. Add in a high marketing budget, and you've got a less than ideal outlook. it helps that scott is one of the producers, ie he puts up his own money to get these made
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The supercut makes him seem like a stupid, rude tyrant, but a lot of the stuff he says here is really amusing, like David's regurgitating Xenomorphs like a smuggler with balloons of cocaine. Or how, for example Walter being a new-model David is not some kind of flub (In his words "duh, of course something is going to happen"), directly referring to the film's false ending, etc. It's that catch-22 where Scott's explanations for everything he puts in his movies are so down-to-earth as to appear incomprehensible to a lot of folks who have a really personal investment in many of his films not just being good, cool, or funny, but in being 'important' or 'serious' or whatever. It goes all the way back to the Deckard thing. Lots of fans are deeply invested in the idea that the point of Blade Runner is that there's ambiguity as to whether Deckard is a robot or not, not because they want to 'choose for themselves' or whatever, but because they interpret this ambiguity as more nuanced than Scott's perpetual, crotchety insistence that, "No, you didn't get it, Deckard is a robot, there is no ambiguity." It's an obstacle where there doesn't need to be one - "Deckard is a robot" accomplishes everything that "But, is Deckard a robot?" implies, but in a more straightforward manner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Answers are never as good as your head cannon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:Answers are never as good as your head cannon. It goes even deeper than head canon, though. Like, as Scott would attest, there is absolutely no loving reason to ask the question "Is Deckard a robot?", except to imply as much as possible that Deckard is a robot. But for many people, ambiguity is inherently more nuanced, even if in practical terms it's just beating around the bush.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The supercut makes him seem like a stupid, rude tyrant, but a lot of the stuff he says here is really amusing, like David's regurgitating Xenomorphs like a smuggler with balloons of cocaine. Or how, for example Walter being a new-model David is not some kind of flub (In his words "duh, of course something is going to happen"), directly referring to the film's false ending, etc. I thought he came off as very down to earth and without pretension. I don't really see any of that as rude. And yeah, his point about the switch is great. People expecting a movie as something that is trying to fool them or something to be figured out is a huge problem in a post Sixth Sense and Lost world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I love Ridley because he makes James Cameron look humble. I love that "You can't look in that. What are you, an idiot? ...but John Hurt did" is a vast majority of this thread summed up by the director.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I love that "You can't look in that. What are you, an idiot? ...but John Hurt did" is a vast majority of this thread summed up by the director. He talks a bit about that on the Alien commentary too, just straight up "We realized someone had to be an idiot and open the box for the monster to work." I love that man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Snak posted:I thought he came off as very down to earth and without pretension. I don't really see any of that as rude. And yeah, his point about the switch is great. It's good to hear it from him because it's totally straightforward visual storytelling. K. Waste posted:It's an obstacle where there doesn't need to be one - "Deckard is a robot" accomplishes everything that "But, is Deckard a robot?" implies, but in a more straightforward manner. It's that thing where people imply you can only take a movie seriously if it has "depth" purposefully added to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
There's this idea that "depth" and symbolism need to be intentionally added, rather than being an emergent property of art. It's so silly. Again, it's people thinking that the intelligence of something is related to its complexity and needing to be figured out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Snak posted:There's this idea that "depth" and symbolism need to be intentionally added, rather than being an emergent property of art. It's so silly. Again, it's people thinking that the intelligence of something is related to its complexity and needing to be figured out. It's a really odd thing that some people believe. As if small, seemingly subconscious, choices we make on a day-to-day basis aren't also effected by our thoughts and experiences. So many artists (Stephen King, Quentin Tarantino, etc.) have talked about creating something without any theme or subtext in mind and then realizing that they're absolutely there during revision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
It's absolutely possible to create a story starting from a theme and working from there. However, if you simply start by trying to tell a story about human beings, trying to create actual human characters, themes will simply emerge. Some people think that this means the artist isn't good because they did it "by accident", but actually it means they are great because they made characters that we view as people, and our perception of people is where these themes are drawn from. A lot of really great stories have a very simole conflict at their core, and it is the characters being fleshed out into what people percieve as relatable, or unrelatable, humans, that makes these themes emerge. The process of humanising characters is not something that happens in a first draft. Usually. And in the case of film, you end up with actors and editors adding to the depth of the character. These details influence the themes that might exist on paper, and can change them in unexpected ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Snak posted:However, if you simply start by trying to tell a story about human beings, trying to create actual human characters, themes will simply emerge. Some people think that this means the artist isn't good because they did it "by accident", but actually it means they are great because they made characters that we view as people, and our perception of people is where these themes are drawn from. i feel like this has been the basis for three great seasons of Fargo so far
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:It's that catch-22 where Scott's explanations for everything he puts in his movies are so down-to-earth as to appear incomprehensible to a lot of folks who have a really personal investment in many of his films not just being good, cool, or funny, but in being 'important' or 'serious' or whatever. Only the writer has also repeatedly gone on record with "What? No! Deckard isn't a robot! That's really loving stupid." And he's right! The irony of the film is that Deckard's human, hunting and killing replicants because they have no empathy. In this process, he kills without blinking an eye. Then he hunts down Roy Batty, the alpha killer, and Roy spares him for no reason except basic human kindness. The thing that humans used as an excuse for cruelty is as empty as these things always are, and yes, it's almost a cliche at this point, but it's still a purpose to the arc. Meanwhile, the Scott version is "They built a robot to kill robots, but it's really poo poo at it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
Scott's point is that Deckard is simply a person. The ambiguity surrounding Deckard doesn't center upon the particulars of his biology, but the why of his choice. The underscoring theme throughout the movie is him starting to question and reject his role as the executioner of an underclass, who are considered less than human. The film itself stands in contrast with this idea of whether classifying him as human or machine matters. This dynamic also plays out in Walter and his choice - something we're not shown - and how in a very straightforward way, this alters the image of Walter to Walter-David. "We all know of Alan Turing's famous "imitation game" which should serve as the test if a machine can think: we communicate with two computer interfaces, asking them any imaginable question; behind one of the interfaces, there is a human person typing the answers, while behind the other, it is a machine. If, based on the answers we get, we cannot tell the intelligent machine from the intelligent human, then, according to Turing, our failure proves that machines can think. - What is a little bit less known is that in its first formulation, the issue was not to distinguish human from the machine, but man from woman. Why this strange displacement from sexual difference to the difference between human and machine? Was this due to Turing's simple eccentricity (recall his well-known troubles because of his homosexuality)? According to some interpreters, the point is to oppose the two experiments: a successful imitation of a woman's responses by a man (or vice versa) would not prove anything, because the gender identity does not depend on the sequences of symbols, while a successful imitation of man by a machine would prove that this machine thinks, because "thinking" ultimately is the proper way of sequencing symbols... What if, however, the solution to this enigma is much more simple and radical? What if sexual difference is not simply a biological fact, but the Real of an antagonism that defines humanity, so that once sexual difference is abolished, a human being effectively becomes indistinguishable from a machine." - Zizek Leon : Care if I talk? I'm kinda nervous when I take tests. brawleh fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
chiasaur11 posted:Only the writer has also repeatedly gone on record with "What? No! Deckard isn't a robot! That's really loving stupid." The reason cops shoot robots is not because robots lack empathy. They shoot robots when they reject their programming and become radicalized. Deckard doesn't give a poo poo about the robots' empathy, he's a police officer putting down violent rebellion against an inherently exploitative system. The Scott version, which is more or less the films as they appear, not merely what was written, is clarifying that what you are talking about, "What makes someone 'human'?" is indeed, as you put it, a cliche that obfuscates the straightforward conflict of the story; which is not Deckard's anecdotal personal dilemma over whether or not he's 'real,' but the fact that Deckard is a slave-catcher/Jew-hunter. He exists to unquestioningly implement lethal punishment for those who are inherently justified in fighting exploitation by any means necessary, who have committed no injustice and no crime except violation of 'programming.' Again, there is no reason to ask the question "Is Deckard a robot?" if Deckard is not a robot. The question is a misdirection loaded with false equivalencies drawn between being 'human' and being 'real' and having 'depth,' between being a robot and being 'fabricated' and being emotionally/psychologically 'shallow.' Yes, this question is inherently a part of Deckard's arc, in all versions of the film, but the reason it's relevant to him is because it summarizes ideology. Which is to say that the question comes from dominant ideology as a way of rationalizing contemporary political, economic, and social forces (i.e. the hunting down and killing runaway slaves thing). But what Deckard's investigation unravels almost immediately is that the difference between the apparent emotional and psychological depth (and, thus, the rights and freedoms of) 'real people' and the apparent shallow effect (and, thus, the entitlement to as property) of 'robots,' is already a mute point. Tyrell can already make robots that believe they are human, which means, functionally, that this massive corporation on a planet in environmental free fall, with massive income inequality and over-crowded cities, has made a slave that thinks it is a freeman/woman. So the question as to whether Deckard is a robot doesn't even exist because it's consistent with the straightforward agenda of the film's speculative, future-capitalist society, which is already engaged in a 'progressive' agenda to make both robot slaves and 'free people' more efficient by respectively endowing them with the best qualities of the other. Rather, the question exists as fetish, so that they can say there is a question, when the volume of evidence points to the contrary: that everyone is 'programmed.' Of course Deckard is a robot. Everybody is. There is functionally no difference, and if the Tyrell corporation and political establishment of the film gets its way, that will actually be the ideal outcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
chiasaur11 posted:The irony of the film is that Deckard's human, hunting and killing replicants because they have no empathy. In this process, he kills without blinking an eye. Then he hunts down Roy Batty, the alpha killer, and Roy spares him for no reason except basic human kindness. The thing that humans used as an excuse for cruelty is as empty as these things always are, and yes, it's almost a cliche at this point, but it's still a purpose to the arc. The thought of torturing a turtle is upsetting to me, but the test focuses on Leon's biological responses. I have no idea what my eyeball looks like when I am asked to imagine torturing a turtle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
First as tragedy, then as farce.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Johnny Cab at the DMV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Blomkamp put that in the movie, and thought it was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:27
|
|