this is one of the many, many reasons RT is terrible and should never be used by anyone
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Tuesday, 3 October 2017 15:56 (eight years ago)
it is completely unreliable and there are often gaping holes in many of its filmographies. I can't think why I use it more than imdb, but for some reason I do.
― calzino, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 16:04 (eight years ago)
This still of Harrison Ford accidentally punching Ryan Gosling for real during a Blade Runner 2049 scene is amazing. pic.twitter.com/3uKIxHo1AT— Toucan Dan (@GolazoDan) September 30, 2017
― nomar, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 16:45 (eight years ago)
friend saw it last night and said it was pretty but a bore and descends into the usual scifi action punchy punchy shooty shooty cliches
― jamiesummerz, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 16:47 (eight years ago)
Gosling has little about him that suggests android, unless future scientists are planning to work extremely hard on a "charmingly bemused" setting.
lol
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 16:48 (eight years ago)
(xps) "accidentally"
― Zings Can Only Get Better (snoball), Tuesday, 3 October 2017 17:50 (eight years ago)
but that is the disposition I naturally ascribe to most robots. I think
― rip van wanko, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 17:53 (eight years ago)
more bemused than human
― mh, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 17:58 (eight years ago)
Yeah, that's basically Data.
― jmm, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 18:00 (eight years ago)
Gosling in Drive seemed androidlike
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 October 2017 18:46 (eight years ago)
thx 4 nu-screenname mh
― more bemused than human (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 3 October 2017 18:48 (eight years ago)
Drive seemed like it was directed by a Tony Scott replicant as well.
― calzino, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:07 (eight years ago)
speaking of Tony Scott! NYT review:
“[Warner Bros.] has been unusually insistent in its pleas to critics not to reveal plot points. That’s fair enough, but it’s also evidence of how imaginatively impoverished big-budget movies have become.
“Like any great movie, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner cannot be spoiled. It repays repeated viewing because its mysteries are too deep to be solved and don’t depend on the sequence of events.
“Denis Villeneuve’s film, by contrast, is a carefully engineered narrative puzzle, and its power dissipates as the pieces snap into place. As sumptuous and surprising as it is from one scene to the next, it lacks the creative excess, the intriguing opacity and the haunting residue of its predecessor.
“As such, Blade Runner 2049 stands in relation to Blade Runner almost exactly as K stands in relation to Deckard before the two meet: as a more docile, less rebellious ‘improvement,’ tweaked and retrofitted to meet consumer demand.
“But now and then — when Ryan Gosling‘s K and Harrison Ford‘s Deckard are knocking around the old gambling palace; when K visits an enigmatic mind-technician played by Mackenzie Davis — you get an inkling that something else might have been possible. Something freer, more romantic, more heroic, less determined by the corporate program.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/movies/blade-runner-2049-review-ryan-gosling-harrison-ford.html?_r=0
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:12 (eight years ago)
Like any great movie, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner cannot be spoiled.
truthbomb
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:14 (eight years ago)
sometimes a classic movie gets a sequel that isn't too shabby. 2010 is not bad at all, and The Two Jakes is a bit of a mess but it's interesting and occasionally outstanding (and features a terrific supporting performance from Harvey Keitel.) I'm hoping this is similar to that, and less along the lines of what Ridley was doing w/his recent Alien followups.
― nomar, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:25 (eight years ago)
"Good news! It's the best thing since The Godfather Part III!"
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:26 (eight years ago)
apparently i said the exact same thing upthread! anyway...
― nomar, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:26 (eight years ago)
If you want to know how ridiculous Rotten Tomatoes is, the Scott review is categorized as "fresh." Low expectations run the world.
Ned otm
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:28 (eight years ago)
David Edelstein is even more ambivalent than Scott ("I thought it was okay") but I'm not sure I ever read this before:
It’s permissible to answer the question, “Does Blade Runner 2049 have any more connection to the paranoid visionary Philip K. Dick and his novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? than Blade Runner?” A bit. It’s a little less noir, a little more philosophical. Dick didn’t think Blade Runner was very Dick-ian. He didn’t live to see the movie (he died of a stroke at 53 in 1982), but he got hold of the script after Ridley Scott said in an interview that he’d found the novel too difficult to read.
Dick’s approval of the screenplay had more than a touch of irony. “It was terrific,” he wrote. “It bore no relation to the book. Oddly, in some ways it was better. What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison.” He added, “As a writer, though, I’d like to see some of my ideas, not just special effects of my ideas, used.”
http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/blade-runner-2049-cant-match-its-predecessor.html
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:37 (eight years ago)
xxxxxxxxposts RT is just fine if you do more than just glance at the numerical score and actually read the linked reviews in a "all in one place" setting.
it's just too many people mistake it for a score that an individual "Rotten Tomatoes" panel gave it
― Neanderthal, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 21:56 (eight years ago)
or think the % reflects the level of enjoyment rather than the % of critics that RT determined "liked" the movie after reading the reviews
Absolutely, it's fine as an aggregator of current reviews
― Number None, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 22:06 (eight years ago)
It's when it attempts to judge film history that it goes off base
― Number None, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 22:07 (eight years ago)
i’m going to make a site that lets you fave your trusted critics or at least shows prior movies with their reviews, then asks you if you agree with them, and caters a score just for you
― mh, Tuesday, 3 October 2017 23:51 (eight years ago)
brb patenting that
There's some PKD series on BBC 4 Amazon or something called Electric Dreams if you want to get back to the heart music
― calstars, Wednesday, 4 October 2017 00:53 (eight years ago)
If that was all it did it would be fine but it's...actually you know what I'm not gonna get on this soapbox today
Some actual critics are seeing this now and have less-than-impressed takes
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 13:37 (eight years ago)
Hi allIf I were to rewatch Blade Runner prior to the new one, is "Final Cut" the definitive version?
― Universal LULU Nation (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 16:15 (eight years ago)
there is no definitive version
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 4 October 2017 16:17 (eight years ago)
Can one even see the original June '82 release version anymore? Or has it gone to movie purgatory w/ the original Star Wars cuts?
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 16:29 (eight years ago)
There was a boxset with multiple version after The Final Cut came out.
TFC is the definitive version, I suppose, but they all have the boring middle stretch.
― Chuck_Tatum, Wednesday, 4 October 2017 16:38 (eight years ago)
what happened to the cut w/ all the buttsecks
― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 4 October 2017 16:47 (eight years ago)
Can one even see the original June '82 release version anymore
i watched it the other day! it's on disc three of my blu ray copy
― ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 16:47 (eight years ago)
the narration lives up to its reputation incidentally
― ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 16:57 (eight years ago)
you're probably thinking of blade bummer: an xxx parody, in which blade bummer dick peckhard is tasked with tracking down boy batty
― more bemused than human (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 19:11 (eight years ago)
that was on a double bill with E.T.: The Extra Testicle
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:04 (eight years ago)
Well, the original BR did lack balls.
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:11 (eight years ago)
this has been extremely helpful
― Universal LULU Nation (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:35 (eight years ago)
giggling
― fuck you, your hat is horrible (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:39 (eight years ago)
“Like any great movie, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner cannot be spoiled.
but Blade Runner is not a great movie.
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:43 (eight years ago)
I need to rewatch to assess whether it's great or not but I agree that it's spoiler-proof. It's pure ~viiibe, man~
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:46 (eight years ago)
BR and I are fundamentally are at odds because I can't chill with a movie like I can with friends.
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:47 (eight years ago)
just saw final cut. i feel like they added more rain to it.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:50 (eight years ago)
Showoff. xp
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:50 (eight years ago)
the Blade Runner making of documentary >>> Blade Runner
― Number None, Wednesday, 4 October 2017 21:11 (eight years ago)
this sucked
― Well bissogled trotters (Michael B), Friday, 6 October 2017 05:31 (eight years ago)
it's pretty, soundtrack is surprisingly great, but wow the plot's a mess and damn, the writer seriously hates women.
― erry red flag (f. hazel), Friday, 6 October 2017 08:00 (eight years ago)
This got another Bradshaw 5 star review. How the fuck does he keep his job?
― calzino, Friday, 6 October 2017 08:06 (eight years ago)
Silly question really. But he is such a predictable easy-shill, that I hate myself for ever taking his opinions seriously back in the day.
― calzino, Friday, 6 October 2017 08:14 (eight years ago)
the movie seriously rips off Cherry 2000 and tries to sell it as pathos equal to the original
― erry red flag (f. hazel), Friday, 6 October 2017 08:15 (eight years ago)