Old Random Thoughts or OT Chit-Chat Thread
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 55 of 100123 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 ... 9899100
Author

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector

Posts: 4748
Joined: Oct 31, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 18, 2021
Location: Garland, TX

Post Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:17 pm 
 

Agent Cooper wrote:BADMIKE-
Where do you see the complete Twin Peaks for sale?
To my knowledge, only season one, minus the pilot, has been released on DVD (in region one).  I'd love the whole series.  I'm a bit of a fan, if you can believe it.
:D




http://www.amazon.com/Twin-Peaks-Defini ... 571&sr=8-1



There you go.


You don't like your job, you don't strike. You go in every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way. - Homer Simpson

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5626
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:34 pm 
 

The only Twin Peaks I'm interested in watching are the ones at our local strip club.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7949
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 15, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:51 pm 
 

Agent Cooper wrote:BADMIKE-
Where do you see the complete Twin Peaks for sale?
To my knowledge, only season one, minus the pilot, has been released on DVD (in region one).  I'd love the whole series.  I'm a bit of a fan, if you can believe it.
:D


Sorry I should have guessed you were a fan...duh!

I let Kingofpain handle the hard stuff, like the links to Amazon..sounds like a pretty sweet deal through them, $35 off the price.  I'm going to save up a bit and get it myself.  Nice they finally included the pilot with the main seasons episodes.

It's impossible to relate the "Twin Peaks" effect to you young'uns that weren't sitting in front of the TV that night in 1989 (1990? Can't remember).  It's the only show pilot I've ever watched that I immediately REWATCHED (through the miracle of VCR taping technology), then watched AGAIN the next night (as my brother hadn't seen it, I taped it for him to watch), and it still was amazing. Nowadays, with all the Lost/24 crazy stuff on TV, it's not quite the bombshell it was then (in the days when the Golden Girl's characters going through menopause was "cutting edge"), but still pretty incredible stuff.

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 518
Joined: Oct 26, 2005
Last Visit: Mar 25, 2021

Post Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:50 pm 
 

KingofPain:  Thanks very much!  *hat tip*

Badmike: "in the days when the Golden Girl's characters going through menopause was "cutting edge"  :lol:

That really ought to be on the DVD back cover.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:19 am 
 

Speaking back to the Blade Runner discussion....

There has already been a director's cut.  Does this mean that the director unreasonably censored himself in his own re-cut of his own movie?

I prefer the theatrical version with the much-derided detective-style voiceovers.  I think the narration in Deckard's voice adds a great deal to both the feel and the meaning of the story.

The director's cut is a darker story, but it also leaves us hanging and deletes Deckard's final monologue, which is some of the best writing in the script.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:08 am 
 

FormCritic wrote:Speaking back to the Blade Runner discussion....

There has already been a director's cut.  Does this mean that the director unreasonably censored himself in his own re-cut of his own movie?

I prefer the theatrical version with the much-derided detective-style voiceovers.  I think the narration in Deckard's voice adds a great deal to both the feel and the meaning of the story.

The director's cut is a darker story, but it also leaves us hanging and deletes Deckard's final monologue, which is some of the best writing in the script.


well this apparently has everything in it for the first time and with it all being restored to its true original form, you will apparently see properly for the first time that Deckard is also a replicant too. thats what is rumoured anyway, but you know how these things generally work.

i've been holding off watching bladerunner again just for now as i want to save it for this release....

Al



  


Sage Collector
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 2726
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 20, 2021
Location: Olde London Towne

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:16 am 
 

FormCritic wrote:Speaking back to the Blade Runner discussion....

There has already been a director's cut.  Does this mean that the director unreasonably censored himself in his own re-cut of his own movie?



Not sure what his reason is, perhaps he decided that after a period of time, there were still improvements that could be made.  Often films are limited by time, budget, and the committments of cast & crew.  Besides you know what it is like if you revisit any major project you have 'finished'.  It is difficult to resist going back after a period of time, and tinkering with it.  Or maybe Ridley Scott is just looking to move house.  :D


FormCritic wrote:I prefer the theatrical version with the much-derided detective-style voiceovers.  I think the narration in Deckard's voice adds a great deal to both the feel and the meaning of the story.


Actually I do too, even though I think that the critical consensus is that the voiceover makes for a weaker film.


Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height!

  


Verbose Collector

Posts: 1324
Joined: May 28, 2007
Last Visit: Aug 27, 2011
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:54 am 
 

FormCritic wrote: I prefer the theatrical version with the much-derided detective-style voiceovers.  I think the narration in Deckard's voice adds a great deal to both the feel and the meaning of the story.

The director's cut is a darker story, but it also leaves us hanging and deletes Deckard's final monologue, which is some of the best writing in the script.


I prefer the director's cut to the theatrical, but I'm glad I did see the theatrical since there are things explained in the voiceovers that are left unexplained otherwise.)

But the final narration...  When I first saw the theatrical release, the entire room burst out laughing when it came on. ;)

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:33 pm 
 

killjoy32 wrote:
well this apparently has everything in it for the first time and with it all being restored to its true original form, you will apparently see properly for the first time that Deckard is also a replicant too. thats what is rumoured anyway, but you know how these things generally work.

i've been holding off watching bladerunner again just for now as i want to save it for this release....

Al


ALERT! SPOILER HERE!





















The director's cut reveals...albeit very subtly...that Deckard is a replicant.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."


Last edited by FormCritic on Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:35 pm 
 

g026r wrote:
I prefer the director's cut to the theatrical, but I'm glad I did see the theatrical since there are things explained in the voiceovers that are left unexplained otherwise.)

But the final narration...  When I first saw the theatrical release, the entire room burst out laughing when it came on. ;)


Why did they laugh?

"I didn't know how much time we had.  Does anybody?"

Great line.  What was funny about the final narration?


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  


Verbose Collector

Posts: 1324
Joined: May 28, 2007
Last Visit: Aug 27, 2011
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:41 pm 
 

I think it was just the entire juxtaposition of the entire scene to the rest of the movie.  It just seems out of place.

Never asked anyone why they laughed, though.

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 518
Joined: Oct 26, 2005
Last Visit: Mar 25, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:36 pm 
 

BLADE RUNNER SPOILERS BELOW***********************














KILLJOY-
Alot of people think Deckard is a Replicant.  But I have to disagree.
He really can't be a replicant.  The film leaves it to make you wonder, but if you think about it:

1. If D was a replicant, he wouldn't get thrown around like a ragdoll by the other replicants when he engages them in combat.  The replicants are obviously many times stronger than him, and overpower his puny human strength easily.

2.  When Roy breaks Deckard's fingers in the deserted building, Deckard bleeds real red blood and this obviously causes him intense pain.  Replicants don't feel pain.  (Remember Roy grabbing the eye out of the Liquid Nitro tank in the plastic surgeon's office?)

3. When Deckard is climbing around and through the deserted building trying to evade Roy, he becomes fatigued and is obviously winded.  Replicants don't get winded!  And why run through the rooms of the building when you can take a shortcut and just tear through a wall or two like Roy does?  Because you can't if you're just a human.

4. In the last building scene, as Deckard is holding onto the building many floors from the street, he eventually becomes exhausted and loses his grip, and would have fallen when Roy saves him.
Replicants don't get tired of holding on to things!

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:59 pm 
 

Agent Cooper wrote:BLADE RUNNER SPOILERS BELOW***********************














KILLJOY-
Alot of people think Deckard is a Replicant.  But I have to disagree.
He really can't be a replicant.  The film leaves it to make you wonder, but if you think about it:

1. If D was a replicant, he wouldn't get thrown around like a ragdoll by the other replicants when he engages them in combat.  The replicants are obviously many times stronger him, and overpower his puny human strength easily.

2.  When Roy breaks Deckard's fingers in the deserted building, Deckard bleeds real red blood and this obviously causes him intense pain.  Replicants don't feel pain.  (Remember Roy grabbing the eye out of the Liquid Nitro tank in the plastic surgeon's office?)

3. When Deckard is climbing around and through the deserted building trying to evade Roy, he becomes fatigued and is obviously winded.  Replicants don't get winded!  And why run through the rooms of the building when you can take a shortcut and just tear through a wall or two like Roy does?  Because you can't if you're just a human.

4. In the last scene, as Deckard is holding onto the building many floors from the street, he eventually becomes exhausted and loses his grip, and would have fallen when Roy saves him.
Replicants don't get tired of holding on to things!


1)  Consider how hard it is to kill Deckard...including having one replicant try to twist his neck around to no avail.  

Priss tries to twist his head off, but can't.

Zhora tries to strangle him, but quickly gives up.

Either one of them could have almost instantly killed Deckard...just as Roy killed his creator simply by squeezing his head.

This leaves two possiblities:  

a)  Deckard is hard to kill.

or

b) Priss and Zhora have different abilities than Roy...which would also mean that replicant Deckard might have different abilities.

And replicants do in fact have blood of some sort.  All of them bleed in some way, including Roy.

2-4)  Deckard is a replicant made to hunt replicants....he is a better model and more humanlike.  We don't actually see him fall or suffer any other form of lethal damage, so we don't know what would happen.  He's a special model, just like Rachel.

One might ask..."If the Nexus 6 models are the latest type of replicant, how can Deckard be a "more human than human" updated model?"

The answer is that Deckard does not predate the Nexus 6 models.  He was only recently created...like Rachel...as an advanced prototype.  His memories of a career as a Blade Runner are false memories.

5)  There are a couple of broad hints in the director's cut version:

Deckard has a dream about a unicorn.  Apparently, it is a dream shared by all replicants.  

The policeman played by Edward James Olmos knows this...which is why, in the final scene, Deckard finds that the cop has left a unicorn origame figure outside Deckard's door.  It is also why Deckard nods in understanding as he realizes the truth about himself.

The director's cut of the film ends as Deckard closes the apartment door.  The nod about the the unicorn is the final revelation.

Also, both Deckard and Rachel can play the same song on the piano.  Deckard tells us that he dreamed the song and then wrote it down.  Rachel is able to play it spontaneously.  It is another memory shared by all replicants.

7)  Most importantly, director Ridley Scott has stated, in an interview for the film's 20th anniversary, that Deckard is indeed a replicant.

All of this departs sharply from the Philip K. Dick storyline, but that is hardly a tragedy.  In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep there are several moments when the main character suspects that he may be a replicant...a twist that would be typical of Dick's writing.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  


Sage Collector
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 2726
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 20, 2021
Location: Olde London Towne

Post Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:23 am 
 

Personally I don't think it matters.  What is important is that the possibilities and personal doubts are available.  Which is part of what (I think) this kind of story has to offer, for example, that we may actually be the same as those against whom we are in conflict, and/or that our personalities and dreams are in some ways less certainly ours but also shared or created by others.  

Which is also why a director would never enter into a debate on an over-literal interpretation of his work...  even if it was the last good film he made*.




* the others being the Duellists and Alien.  Since then it goes sharply downhill with the possible exception of Themla & Louise.


Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height!

  


JG Valuation Board

Posts: 149
Joined: Dec 23, 2006
Last Visit: Jul 26, 2012
Location: Whitley Bay,Tyne and Wear

Post Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:41 am 
 

I thought Kingdom of Heaven was alright... :oops:

  


Sage Collector
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 2726
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 20, 2021
Location: Olde London Towne

Post Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:03 am 
 

Well, I haven't seen it, or indeed every one of his films, so he might be making a quality comeback.  I also hope I don't sound like a film snob, but I just find as I get older that my quality tolerance threshold goes up and up - for books, films, lots of stuff (including rpgs) :D


Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height!

  


JG Valuation Board

Posts: 149
Joined: Dec 23, 2006
Last Visit: Jul 26, 2012
Location: Whitley Bay,Tyne and Wear

Post Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:28 am 
 

red_bus wrote: but I just find as I get older that my quality tolerance threshold goes up and up - for books, films, lots of stuff (including rpgs) :D


Absolutely agree 100% ....and I thought (and so did my wife :wink: ) it was just me!!!! 8O  :D

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector

Posts: 4748
Joined: Oct 31, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 18, 2021
Location: Garland, TX

Post Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:23 am 
 

red_bus wrote:Personally I don't think it matters.  What is important is that the possibilities and personal doubts are available.  Which is part of what (I think) this kind of story has to offer, for example, that we may actually be the same as those against whom we are in conflict, and/or that our personalities and dreams are in some ways less certainly ours but also shared or created by others.  

Which is also why a director would never enter into a debate on an over-literal interpretation of his work...  even if it was the last good film he made*.




* the others being the Duellists and Alien.  Since then it goes sharply downhill with the possible exception of Themla & Louise.


I do like the idea of not knowing the truth about Deckard.  I for one never thought he was a replicant, even after seeing the Director's Cut for the umpteenth time.  I guess I just don't want him to be.

As far as Hollywood directing goes...Ridley Scott hasnt really done that much.  Compare the number of movies that he has directed (29) and the number that he has produced (38.) with the number that Spielberg has directed (49) and produced (112) and it is shockingly low.  A lot of directors are unhappy with the end result of some of their movies but from what I have read, Ridley Scott is unhappy with all of his movies.  Maybe he is a perfectionist and because of that need to keep trying to make his movies better he has gone overbudget on every movie he has ever made and has managed to piss off just about every movie studio in Hollywood and that is why he hasn't made a lot of movies in his time.

Or maybe he just has better things to do....I dunno.

Red_bus...you should really give some of his other films a chance.  While I agree that The Duellists, Alien, and Blade Runner are three of his masterpieces I also thought that Legend, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and especially White Squall were all very good films.  Kingdom of Heaven wasnt bad but it wasnt a great film IMO.  I never saw Thelma and Louise or 1492 so I can't comment.  Black Rain was entertaining but I didnt much care for Hannibal or G.I. Jane.


You don't like your job, you don't strike. You go in every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way. - Homer Simpson

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:52 pm 
 

i personally thought black hawk down was a great film - superb battle scenes.

kingdom of heaven was "ok" just too unrealistic. nobody goes from a blacksmith to a fully fledged knight who can kill anything that moves so fast....just isnt gonna happen.

but hey.

Al

ps. i liked GI jane. only cos demi had a short hair-cut - shw looked well delicious :) hannibal didnt impress me too much, legend is a classic man!



  


Sage Collector
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 2726
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 20, 2021
Location: Olde London Towne

Post Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:40 pm 
 

Kingofpain89 wrote:

Red_bus...you should really give some of his other films a chance.  While I agree that The Duellists, Alien, and Blade Runner are three of his masterpieces I also thought that Legend, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and especially White Squall were all very good films.  Kingdom of Heaven wasnt bad but it wasnt a great film IMO.  I never saw Thelma and Louise or 1492 so I can't comment.  Black Rain was entertaining but I didnt much care for Hannibal or G.I. Jane.


Sounds cool.  More films to add to my must see list  :D


Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height!

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 55 of 100123 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 ... 9899100