What do you hate about Blade Runner?
Mellorman
but... there are a couple of things which I would really want to change. For
example:
(i) at the end when Batty chases Deckard, his wolf-howls do not lip-synch
properly which looks really tacky (well, it really bugs me anyway)
(ii) the 'romance' scene ('Say "Kiss Me"') which borders on domestic
violence - I cringe every time I see it!
(iii) the way Deckard talks to the Esper and the way the Esper responds - he
starts off with defined commands ("enhance 420 to 1066" and all that) but by
the end he is talking to it informally ("hold it... give me a hardcopy right
there..."). The Esper just seems to do whatever it wants in any case.
OK, straw poll time. We know the film is full of impossibilities, plot
flaws, continuity errors and lip flaps, not to mention the optional
tacked-on ending and cheesy voice-over. But, other than those, what about BR
do you hate the most?
Rob
M Merced
Mellorman wrote in message <7jtseo$j68$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
I hate the fact that there are so many people thriving on Earth, despite the
fact that most animals are extinct, animals that could live in much more
adverse environments than people could. Why are they terraforming other
planets when they could apply the same technology and re-terraform Earth.
Michael Rush
>OK, straw poll time. We know the film is full of impossibilities, plot
>flaws, continuity errors and lip flaps, not to mention the optional
>tacked-on ending and cheesy voice-over. But, other than those, what about BR
>do you hate the most?
Other than those? What else is there? ;)
The clear winner is the dubbing of the Egyptian & Deckard. Followed by
Zhora's wig when she gets shot. Then the wires holding up the spinner.
:}
--
Mike
Stanster
>
> OK, straw poll time. We know the film is full of impossibilities, plot
> flaws, continuity errors and lip flaps, not to mention the optional
> tacked-on ending and cheesy voice-over. But, other than those, what about BR
> do you hate the most?
>
> Rob
For me it would have to be (besides the stupid howling scenes), that the Esper
is able to take a 2d photo and make it 3d, finding images in a 2d photograph,
that could not possibly be in the said photo. Perhaps if a short explantation
was offered that photos in the year 2019 were holographic would, at least, not
have pissed me off. :-o
--Stan--
IAN SMITH
Mellorman wrote in message <7jtseo$j68$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>OK, straw poll time. We know the film is full of impossibilities, plot
>flaws, continuity errors and lip flaps, not to mention the optional
>tacked-on ending and cheesy voice-over. But, other than those, what about
BR
>do you hate the most?
>
>Rob
>
>The date and location titlecard at the start. 2019? PLEASE- that was
ridulous back in '82 and it gets worse every year.
-Ian
Peter Fehrs
<I...@clairestheboss.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Why is that so ridiculous? 2019??? The flying cars or what?
-p
--
Peter Fehrs
fe...@CUTMEteleport.ANDMEcom
Remove the CUTME's to respond
Eberhard Schefold
"Mellorman" <rj.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
> what about BR do you hate the most?
A minor thing that bugs me are those forcedly "futuristic" (yeah,
right) numbers on the spinners. (I seem to remember you see them e.g.
behind Bryant when he talks to Deckard after Zorah's retirement).
But what really pisses me off every time I see it is the scene when
Deckard sits in his car and the Police spinner arrives, and they ask
him what he's doing. This is to a hundred percent pure pointless -- and
then you see those cables SOOOOOOOOO big when the spinner lifts off.
At this point we've already seen those spinners a thousand times, so
what's the point in the whole scene?! The effect is pissed, so why not
cut the whole thing?! (Still getting annoyed after all those years. <g>)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Lukas Mariman
berichtnieuws
fehrsTHISISTHEPARTYOURSH...@i48-08-25.pdx.du.teleport.c
om...
> In article <7k0fmp$r33$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "IAN SMITH"
> <I...@clairestheboss.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Mellorman wrote in message
<7jtseo$j68$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
> >
> > >OK, straw poll time. We know the film is full of impossibilities, plot
> > >flaws, continuity errors and lip flaps, not to mention the optional
about
> > BR
> > >do you hate the most?
> > >
> > >
> > >The date and location titlecard at the start. 2019? PLEASE- that was
> > ridulous back in '82 and it gets worse every year.
> >
> > -Ian
>
> Why is that so ridiculous? 2019??? The flying cars or what?
I disagree as well; if you go by that kind of reasoning, "1984", "2001" (and
no doubt many other classics) are, or are about to become, absolute rubbish.
--
----
Lukas Mariman
E-mail: lukas....@skynet.be
URL: http://users.skynet.be/mariman/
Ian MacDonald
<bs24...@skynet.be> writes
>> > >
>> > >The date and location titlecard at the start. 2019? PLEASE- that was
>> > ridulous back in '82 and it gets worse every year.
>> >
>> > -Ian
>>
>> Why is that so ridiculous? 2019??? The flying cars or what?
>
>I disagree as well; if you go by that kind of reasoning, "1984", "2001" (and
>no doubt many other classics) are, or are about to become, absolute rubbish.
>
months ago. You wouldn't be trying to bait me would you, Lukas? :)
--
Ian MacDonald
Remove 'nospam' to email.
Lukas Mariman
8YNADRAa...@abank.demon.co.uk...
> In article <7k2r64$27r$1...@news1.skynet.be>, Lukas Mariman
> <bs24...@skynet.be> writes
> >> > >
> >> > >The date and location titlecard at the start. 2019? PLEASE- that was
> >> > ridulous back in '82 and it gets worse every year.
> >> >
> >
> >I disagree as well; if you go by that kind of reasoning, "1984", "2001"
(and
> >no doubt many other classics) are, or are about to become, absolute
rubbish.
> >
> I seem to recall having a lengthy argument about this topic several
> months ago. You wouldn't be trying to bait me would you, Lukas? :)
Who, me? Nah. :-)
I do seem to remember something like this came up around december last year.
I don't remember everything that was posted, though.
Ian MacDonald
<bs24...@skynet.be> writes
>> >> > >
>> >> > >The date and location titlecard at the start. 2019? PLEASE- that was
>> >> > ridulous back in '82 and it gets worse every year.
>> >> >
>> >> Why is that so ridiculous? 2019??? The flying cars or what?
>> >
>> >I disagree as well; if you go by that kind of reasoning, "1984", "2001"
>(and
>> >no doubt many other classics) are, or are about to become, absolute
>rubbish.
Okay, I've been persuaded. I agree with Ian Smith on this one. To
reiterate something I spoke about last year, I think setting the film in
the year 2019 was a bit ridiculous. It's only twenty years away and we
can't hope to reach the level of technology shown in the film in such a
short timescale. Yes, I know it's a fictional future, but even so,
setting it such a short time away will, I feel, detract from the film
come the year 2019. It should have been set in a more distant future in
my opinion, in order to keep that feeling of awe about things to come.
Now don't get me wrong, I think Blade Runner is a great film and twenty
years from now it still will be, but I think the 2019 opening heading
should be edited out in the future, when the Los Angeles on the screen
bears no resemblance to the real one.
With respect to 2001 A Space Odyssey, again I think the film and the
book are great works of art. But when the book was written, I believe
that the 2001 in the book *was* a possible future in reality. Had the
level of progress in space exploration witnessed during the space race
continued, I think we could have been looking at space ships en route to
Jupiter by now. But come two years from now, we'll be watching 2001 and
thinking : that's supposed to be now? As we did with 1984. And as we
will with BR in 2019.
Which begs the question - was there any point in apportioning a
timeframe to BR? It's quite obviously set in the future, so why not
just leave it at that and let our imagination work out when it is
supposed to be? That way, the year stated doesn't come and go and we
realise nothing much has changed. Not that I ever expect the future to
be like the one in BR, but why 2019? It's not as if the year has any
relevance to the story.
All the above IMHO of course.
Martin Gilbert
<blah...@hotmail.com> writes
>But what really pisses me off every time I see it is the scene when
>Deckard sits in his car and the Police spinner arrives, and they ask
>him what he's doing. This is to a hundred percent pure pointless -- and
>then you see those cables SOOOOOOOOO big when the spinner lifts off.
>
>At this point we've already seen those spinners a thousand times, so
>what's the point in the whole scene?! The effect is pissed, so why not
>cut the whole thing?! (Still getting annoyed after all those years. <g>)
>
OK, but if they'd cut that scene, we'd never have heard 'Have a better
one' :->
Have a better one.
Martian "Kobayashi Rasputin GX04 Villeneuve Seventh" van der Mc.Giblet san>
mailto:cer...@bigfoot.com http://fast.to/ubik ICQ:2241243 >
Eberhard Schefold
tWxHIGAx...@ubiksys.demon.co.uk...
> OK, but if they'd cut that scene, we'd never have heard 'Have a better
> one' :->
Really, I never was so wild about that one either. But I realize many people
are. I guess I'm just biased against anything from that scene. :-)
Peter Fehrs
> thinking : that's supposed to be now? As we did with 1984. And as we
> will with BR in 2019.
> Which begs the question - was there any point in apportioning a
> timeframe to BR? It's quite obviously set in the future, so why not
> just leave it at that and let our imagination work out when it is
> supposed to be? That way, the year stated doesn't come and go and we
> realise nothing much has changed. Not that I ever expect the future to
> be like the one in BR, but why 2019? It's not as if the year has any
> relevance to the story.
>
> All the above IMHO of course.
I think with all three movies: BR, 2001, and 1984... the dates are good to
have. They detract not at all. I think, in fact, it's far better to have
the dates: it's not as vague as "Star Wars," say. If you look at time as
nonlinear in movies, then it all makes sense.
-pete
Eberhard Schefold
Newsbeitrag:
fehrsTHISISTHEPARTYOURSH...@i48-26-36.pdx.du.teleport.c
om...
> the dates: it's not as vague as "Star Wars," say.
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ..." -- I wouldn't call that
vague, really. Star Wars is set into "fairytale time" which defies our time
scale.
Lukas Mariman
Eberhard Schefold <eba...@hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3767a...@news.munich.netsurf.de...
> Peter Fehrs <fehrsTHISISTHEP...@teleport.com> schrieb in im
> Newsbeitrag:
>
fehrsTHISISTHEPARTYOURSH...@i48-26-36.pdx.du.teleport.c
> om...
>
> > the dates: it's not as vague as "Star Wars," say.
>
> "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ..." -- I wouldn't call that
> vague, really.
In a way, you can't get more vague than this...
> Star Wars is set into "fairytale time" which defies our time
> scale.
... but I know what you mean. :-)
--
danger...@my-deja.com
- No fat replicants
- Should take place in Bayonne, NJ
- Deck doesn't wear Gap khakis
- Tyrell Corp should be "MouseWorks"
- Needs a couple of really nice show tunes
~~
probebly be that advanced in something like 2040-2060 AD, not 2019 AD!!
Maybe cause it was made in 1982. 2001: A Space Odyssey was really off as
well, I mean it starts in like 1999 going to Jupitar?!? We havent even send
a man to mars for godsakes! But that was in 1968..then again you look at
todays movies such as "Event Horizon" which takes place in 2032, going to
Neptune?!? Then there's "Wing Commander" 2654 AD? Machine guns? small
little space ships? I mean come on people. "Fifth Element" 2250 AD? That
could be a little reasonable for the technology there. "Lost In Space" 2058
AD? What?!? *confused*. "Star Wars" a long time ago...im not even gonna say
it.
The thing i hated was how it was so advanced, too many spinners for 2019
AD!!!!
Tyrell Building? that was HUGE, it would take like 50 years to build that
god damn thing. Blasters? Too advanced once again. The whole Nexus/Rep
thing was too advanced. We have hardly began to clone humans at the moment,
let alone making them by our selves with termination dates. "Weather is
ruinied?" how could that be? bad pollution levels? which would cause "ACID
RAIN".
~AB~
No Identity
Peter Fehrs wrote:
> In article <7k0fmp$r33$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "IAN SMITH"
> <I...@clairestheboss.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >The date and location titlecard at the start. 2019? PLEASE- that was
> > ridulous back in '82 and it gets worse every year.
> >
> > -Ian
>
> Why is that so ridiculous? 2019??? The flying cars or what?
Well, the flying cars, the fact that there was no sign of any 'old-style'
architecture or design (even today our cities are filled with very old style
buildings and houses constructed decades ago), and, mainly, the fact that they
have fully functioning androids capable of duplicating humans exactly. None of
this is going to happen by 2019, no matter what (unless some friendly advanced
alien society decides to come here and share their technology in exchange for
our planet's population of cats or something). Maybe 2119, but certainly not
2019.
Best,
Gregory Scott-- AKA 'The Evil Dr. Scott'
(jox...@swbell.net)
— I don't believe in editing or revising email. Any grammatical or typing errors
were caused by brain-to-hand bottlenecks and/or environmental distractions. If
you've got any problems with this, then screw you.
Lukas Mariman
01beb86e$02d85d40$7d1567d1@sukhi2...
> The world in 2019 AD would not be so damn advanced!!!! I mean we would
> probebly be that advanced in something like 2040-2060 AD, not 2019 AD!!
> Maybe cause it was made in 1982. 2001: A Space Odyssey was really off as
> well, I mean it starts in like 1999 going to Jupitar?!? We havent even
send
> a man to mars for godsakes! But that was in 1968..then again you look at
> todays movies such as "Event Horizon" which takes place in 2032, going to
> Neptune?!? Then there's "Wing Commander" 2654 AD? Machine guns? small
> little space ships? I mean come on people. "Fifth Element" 2250 AD? That
> could be a little reasonable for the technology there. "Lost In Space"
2058
> AD? What?!? *confused*. "Star Wars" a long time ago...im not even gonna
say
> it.
Maybe you are taking these movies' time settings too literally. I'm sure the
makers of these movies were not trying to make an accurate prediction for
the future, you know, maybe they just wanted to tell a good story.
So what if the real world can't keep up with the artists' original visions;
that's society's problem, not theirs. :-)
> The thing i hated was how it was so advanced, too many spinners for 2019
> AD!!!!
Too many spinners? Huh?
> Tyrell Building? that was HUGE, it would take like 50 years to build that
> god damn thing. Blasters? Too advanced once again. The whole Nexus/Rep
> thing was too advanced. We have hardly began to clone humans at the
moment,
> let alone making them by our selves with termination dates.
So what? You almost sound disappointed, BTW :-)
Isn't the fact that it's not happening (yet) a GOOD thing?
> "Weather is ruinied?" how could that be? bad pollution levels? which would
cause "ACID
> RAIN".
About the weather, industrial pollution seems to have played a big part in
BR (and added to that, I like the idea of a post-nuclear war setting, as was
the case in Dick's original DADoES setting); since IMO weather is already
being screwed up, that's not such a remote notion - unfortunately...
Anyway, my point: IMO the point of giving these movies a near-future date is
to show people situations that *could* happen in the not-too-distant future,
not to state these things *are* going to happen; I don't think predicting
the future, or trying to predict it, is the main concern of SF.
JennyPeery
What about Dune? I forget the year
but it's "out there"...
212/196/180
Michael Rush
>What about Dune? I forget the year
>but it's "out there"...
10,191 according to the opening monologue.
--
Mike
JennyPeery
that one wrong when the time comes
212/193/180
BubbCoop
why would that be ridiculous? the flying car is already out.
~~
JennyPeery <jenny...@aol.comsatan> wrote in article
<19990620125838...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
rattus
is quite a dickhead !!
Rattus
~~ <su...@sprint.ca> wrote in article
<01bebe9f$2c042820$681567d1@sukhi2>...
~~
rattus <rat...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
<01bec09f$26d55200$0f0265cb@default>...
hotdogf...@gmail.com
On Thursday, June 17, 1999 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, ~~ wrote:
> The world in 2019 AD would not be so damn advanced!!!! I mean we would
> probebly be that advanced in something like 2040-2060 AD, not 2019 AD!!
> Maybe cause it was made in 1982. 2001: A Space Odyssey was really off as
> well, I mean it starts in like 1999 going to Jupitar?!? We havent even send
> a man to mars for godsakes! But that was in 1968..then again you look at
> todays movies such as "Event Horizon" which takes place in 2032, going to
> Neptune?!? Then there's "Wing Commander" 2654 AD? Machine guns? small
> little space ships? I mean come on people. "Fifth Element" 2250 AD? That
> could be a little reasonable for the technology there. "Lost In Space" 2058
> AD? What?!? *confused*. "Star Wars" a long time ago...im not even gonna say
> it.
>
> AD!!!!
> god damn thing. Blasters? Too advanced once again. The whole Nexus/Rep
> thing was too advanced. We have hardly began to clone humans at the moment,
> RAIN".
>