User Profile

Forum Activity by Robin McDonald

I have been playing Easy Street in my car in honor of the start of the new season.
Oct 20, 2017 4:51 PM
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
My criteria for overly reductive is that you ignore the context of said ride that K gives to Deckard. To ignore the emotional state of K, why that ride is significant and that it is the end of a rescue mission that was intended to be an assassination is overly reductive. As I used an analogy to demonstrate early, you could phrase Batty's actions as "all he did was pick Deckard up." It would ignore similarly important context of Batty's emotional state, why lifting Deckard up and that it is the end of a chase that was intended to be a murder.
I hope it works on a subsequent viewing for you, assuming you will watch it.
Luv smashing Joi was the obvious conclusion and it doesn't work perfectly in regards to K, but I think it works exceptionally well for Luv, whom was perhaps the character I'm most fascinated by. The implication that she is humanity dominated by programming is wonderfully hinted at and her performances, with the rage tears, sells it without having to say a thing explicitly. I think her frustration and resentment with K operates as projection towards her own feelings of inadequacy at being a Replicant. It's an utterly pretty moment and I'm glad it was her and not another EMP or some other means of plot fulfillment.
There wasn't really anything that didn't work for me in the film. Some things work a lot better than others but I struggle to think of anything that yanked me out of the movie. It was as close to exactly what I was wanting as I could have predicted.

Part of what made things difficult for me is that I have pretty much memorized the first film (films, really, seeing as how there are endless cuts). Not just watching it, but editing it, reworking it, thinking about, reading about it, etc. When they pipe in the sound of Deckard's apartment in the background, that stands out like a Wilhelm Scream for me. If you're even going to approach Batty's moment, you had better deliver the goods because that was the moment that made the first film.

Two characters that could stand to be reeled in a bit are Luv (guess I was spelling it wrong) and Wallace. I think that they put too much stank on them to emphasize their bad guy credentials. There are moments where I dig both characters, but then we get mustache twirling moments "I hope you enjoyed our product!" SMASH is on the level on what a jock would do/say in Revenge of the Nerds. I don't need to see Wallace shooting and cutting to get that he is not the nicest guy in the world.

Also, there is real-world part of my brain that never really turns off, so I am perplexed at the notion of mere sexual reproduction being an enigma after you have successfully engineered the most complex of organisms from the ground up (from the cell level to the completed organism) being some trick that is too tough to master. I don't buy it. Nor do I buy the notion of biological self-replication being a plateau that makes Replicants super extra special. The whole point of the first film was establishing that it was the inner emotional life, empathy, etc., that mattered. Reproduction is just biology. As Tyrell said, "The facts of life... ...all of this is academic."

A point that I did take from this film which does ring true with my "real-world" sensibility, however, is that the future is going to be terribly confusing for us. Joi is really the interesting character here. Not pushing things so far towards the human that they just have kids and get cancer like the rest of us, but rather in the opposite direction where the line between product and person is not as clear and the emotions that we will doubtless have for machines which are Turing capable without necessarily having an inner life. Right now it's Siri and Alexa, but in time these simulacra will only become more convincing and inch their way into our emotional lives.?

For the minority and the weak replication is the is the key to the door of power.? 2049 asks "Are you a replican... or a replicant?"?
Oct 20, 2017 4:48 PM
greenman
Puffin NubbinsPart of what made things difficult for me is that I have pretty much memorized the first film (films, really, seeing as how there are endless cuts). Not just watching it, but editing it, reworking it, thinking about, reading about it, etc. When they pipe in the sound of Deckard's apartment in the background, that stands out like a Wilhelm Scream for me. If you're even going to approach Batty's moment, you had better deliver the goods because that was the moment that made the first film.

Two characters that could stand to be reeled in a bit are Luv (guess I was spelling it wrong) and Wallace. I think that they put too much stank on them to emphasize their bad guy credentials. There are moments where I dig both characters, but then we get mustache twirling moments "I hope you enjoyed our product!" SMASH is on the level on what a jock would do/say in Revenge of the Nerds. I don't need to see Wallace shooting and cutting to get that he is not the nicest guy in the world.

Also, there is real-world part of my brain that never really turns off, so I am perplexed at the notion of mere sexual reproduction being an enigma after you have successfully engineered the most complex of organisms from the ground up (from the cell level to the completed organism) being some trick that is too tough to master. I don't buy it. Nor do I buy the notion of biological self-replication being a plateau that makes Replicants super extra special. The whole point of the first film was establishing that it was the inner emotional life, empathy, etc., that mattered. Reproduction is just biology. As Tyrell said, "The facts of life... ...all of this is academic."

A point that I did take from this film which does ring true with my "real-world" sensibility, however, is that the future is going to be terribly confusing for us. Joi is really the interesting character here. Not pushing things so far towards the human that they just have kids and get cancer like the rest of us, but rather in the opposite direction where the line between product and person is not as clear and the emotions that we will doubtless have for machines which are Turing capable without necessarily having an inner life. Right now it's Siri and Alexa, but in time these simulacra will only become more convincing and inch their way into our emotional lives.?


Wallace and Luv generally to me came off far too much as generic "baddies", I mean I wouldn't say they were poorly done for what they were but under the Blade Runner name especially this does feel like a simplification to me, a move more into generic sci fi action thriller territory.

That felt disappointing as well because I'd say that the earlier stages of the film had hinted at a potential climax with a good deal more depth to it. K's own situation in the LAPD as a hated semi slave and his relationship with Joshi got a good deal of focus but was then largely ignored with Luv killing her and no reaction from him nore dealings with the police culture at all. It seems like it would have made much more sense to have Joshi and the LAPD as the main antagonists, they already had a stated motivation for killing the child that was rather more nuanced that Wallace's megalomania and K's rebellion would have carried rather more weight that as you say going against people he'd only just met in the rebel replicants.

The Joi character as well ended up being dumped in a pretty similar fashion yet I think she was actually one of the most interesting aspects of the film. There was a good deal of ambiguity to there relationship that could I think have merited a lot more exploration rather than a cheap cut to a billboard claiming "no she was just an empty fantasy" in blunt terms. Honestly in that respect I did find myself agreeing with some of the sexist criticism, not due to the nature of the character but the way in which its capped off totally from the male characters perspective. Your also dealing with arguably the most morally questionable element of the K character there, killing replicants is something that's forced on him under threat of death but a slave owning his own slave iis obviously on dodgy ground and I think he gets off easily there with Luv killing her off.

The whole plot as well with K discovering he wasn't "special" to me seemed to suffer from her not being present. Previously to me it seemed bound up with her character as she was ultimately the one claiming "specialness" for him so I think a scene between them would have been a lot more effective than what we got, maybe with K himself erasing her if they kept with the idea of her being essentially limited.

You are already more evolved than me with Joi. I never thought of her as a slave. Although I guess she is often referred to as product like he is. It never crossed my mind though. Maybe because she isn't tasked to do anything unsavory. Her owner is after all Ryan Gosling and she likes her job.
Oct 19, 2017 6:37 PM
Donner"Choose Your Pain"
Star Trek: Discovery

Captain Lorca is kidnapped by the Klingons because Starfleet sends high-ranking officers in a goddamn shuttle across space during wartime like big stupid idiots which necessitates Discovery to use her fidget spinner spore drive to jump into Klingon Space to save him. ? However, Burnham?s pet tardigrade and spore drive navigator isn?t taking to its nipple clamps very well leading Burnham on a collision course with Saru, Discovery?s new acting captain. ? Meanwhile, Lorca makes the acquaintance of a fellow prisoner of the Klingons, Harcourt Fenton Mudd (Harry for short).

I know I get a little pissy when it comes to Star Trek?s toxic fan base and I?ve been trying not to let my anger show toward them, but seriously? with this episode, you can kindly shut the fuck up about the show not being optimistic or celebrating the human condition. ? You can shut the fuck up about characterization, you can shut the fuck up about the writing, you can shut the fuck up about canon. ? You can roll up all of your little opinions about The Orville being better into a little ball and cram it right up your stupid bitter ass.

Star Trek: Discovery has earned its place in the Star Trek universe and, whether this is Prime Timeline, Kelvin Timeline, or some third timeline is as irrelevant as fighting the Borg. ?This is a quality product, it is a damn fine show, and if you are so obsessed with minutiae that you can?t enjoy this series because they?re not using cardboard sets or 3.5 inch floppies, then you need serious help or you just need to fuck off right out of the fanbase. ? I?m sick of you.

So, yes? this episode was goddamn spectacular. ?Certainly the best episode of Discovery so far and probably a contender for one of the best episodes of Star Trek as a whole.

(Oh, I can hear the toxic fan base crying out in agony and it?s like music to me).

So, what was great about it?

Harry Mudd for starters. ?Rather than feeling like a nostalgic bone thrown to the fans, I was rather taken in to how effortlessly Mudd fit into the story and how close he was, character-wise, to his 1966 counterpart. ?Rainn Wilson was great as the old con-man, building on what Roger C. Carmel did in the old series, he?s crafted a new Mudd both faithful to the classic and bubbling with new possibilities.

On Discovery, the crew is faced with an ethical quandry to which there is no right answer. ?Continue to use the possibly-sentient tardigrade as an unwilling navigator, thus harming or killing it, or risk the captain to come up with an alternative that might not work? ? There were amazing character moments from Burnham, Saru, Stamets, and Tilly (who, after reservations, I am becoming more fond of), there were harsh words, dilemmas, and the first ?fucks? ever uttered in Star Trek history which were both unexpected and hilarious. ? Everyone got at least one great scene, there were countless character payoffs, countless character moments, and everything in this episode just worked. ? I have no other way of putting it, other than it just worked.

One thing I haven?t seem mentioned anywhere else ? though, it?s only been a couple of hours and maybe I just haven?t noticed it yet ? is the fact that this also appears to be the first time that Star Trek has ever directly dealt with the topic of rape and, not only that, but the sexual assault of a man by a woman and it appears that this sexual assault has left some pretty deep scars in Tyler?s psyche. ? I really hope that this isn?t just dropped in later episodes.

So, yes, the action at the end was great but the subsequent decision of what to do with the Tardigrade is really what propelled this episode into classic territory. ? It?s that wonderful optimism and exploration of the human spirit that I like? the ability to look at a bad situation and think, how can we fix this? ? Not being content with letting the characters get lost in gray ambiguity, but having them take a stand and do what?s right. ? This may be ?grittier? and more ?realistic? Star Trek, but it is still Star Trek? it feels like Star Trek. ? Don?t let anyone tell you otherwise.

?Choose Your Pain? is a masterwork. ? The best episode of Discovery and one of the best episodes of Star Trek ever.

Can't believe I haven't seen the new episode yet but I am excited. This is the man who has seen and reviewed every Star Trek episode and film so that is high praise.
Oct 18, 2017 10:44 PM
Clarence BoddickerTop 10 for this year, so far:

Get Out
The Big Sick
I Am Not Your Negro
Blade Runner 2049
Detroit
Wind River
Lost City of Z
IT
Logan
Baby Driver



This list I have seen half to most of them.
Oct 18, 2017 10:43 PM
Puffin Nubbins
Robin McDonaldI don't think we have any disagreement. That is a hoot and all. Its just mumbo jumbo. The only difference is I totally give this a pass just as I would various types of time travel and warp drive and other technology.

But I would still suggest humans on the Matrix provides engaging stimulus, problem solving, and interesting and involving challenges for our evil computer overlords. Which to me is why we are like no other form of energy. They communicate inform and interact with our brains. So we are the coolest form of energy they generate. To me there is a beef equivalency. They enjoy our energy more. You don't get to have much satisfaction out of dominating a vegetable. The opponent is like us. They are ruthless and sadistic. Agent Smith seems to get satisfaction about being superior and dominating Neo. He doesn't like it when he loses.

I don't think you are acknowledging my notion that humans can generate a lot of work energy from a minimal expenditure of food. But its not that important to me that you do.

If the story argued that the robots didn't need us but kept us around to study us (e.g., Dark City) or to punish us in some way (a digital hell for us), I would buy the "enjoyment" argument.

I don't really know what you mean about humans being able to generate a lot of work energy from a minimal expenditure of food. In terms of muscle energy (our ability to move things around) this certainly is NOT true, especially not when you have to turn that energy back into electricity. Humans in this world are in pods, so they're not after muscle energy. Instead, it's that mumbo-jumbo about BTUs of heat and the electrical charge for the human body, which is also palty.

The movie is a lot of fun, but unfortunately the premise only works if you don't think about it.

I go to the gym and somehow using what you call the paltry electrical energy generated by my own body I can life 800 pounds with my legs, Ride a bicycle for 10 hours. I did a cross country bicycle trip and my goal was to spend only two dollars per day on food. I didn't succeed on the two dollar part but using your logic muscles are just meat and can't generate electricity. There is no muscle energy. But my nervous system sends stimulus to the muscles. Why couldn't that energy be tapped into??
Oct 18, 2017 10:41 PM
I don't think we have any disagreement. That is a hoot and all. Its just mumbo jumbo. The only difference is I totally give this a pass just as I would various types of time travel and warp drive and other technology.

But I would still suggest humans on the Matrix provides engaging stimulus, problem solving, and interesting and involving challenges for our evil computer overlords. Which to me is why we are like no other form of energy. They communicate inform and interact with our brains. So we are the coolest form of energy they generate. To me there is a beef equivalency. They enjoy our energy more. You don't get to have much satisfaction out of dominating a vegetable. The opponent is like us. They are ruthless and sadistic. Agent Smith seems to get satisfaction about being superior and dominating Neo. He doesn't like it when he loses.

I don't think you are acknowledging my notion that humans can generate a lot of work energy from a minimal expenditure of food. But its not that important to me that you do.
Oct 18, 2017 12:04 AM
Puffin Nubbins
Robin McDonald
It didn't really have to make sense. When I think of how much we can do in a day living on a paste, in a weird way it makes sense unexpended energy could be utilized.? If you had a dozen carrots and water what could you generate with that energy wise.? Maybe a human or animal is an amazing evolvement of efficient energy processing. But the important thing in any movie is to create a visceral emotional experience for the audience. They imagine the claustrophobic buried alive horror and alien probing violating all the sanctity of your body. The whole visual was very Geigeresque and effective. Its mostly a visual whose technology isn't deeply probed. The idea also is that humanity is imprisoned believing itself to be alive and real but is being placated in the Matrix.

That it didn't have to makes sense is proved in the film's returns.
If you had a dozen carrots and water what could you generate with that energy wise.? Maybe a human or animal is an amazing evolvement of efficient energy processing.


But humans are not a marvel of energy processing. Humans are NOT a source of energy, first of all. You have to expend a lot of energy to even make a human and once you've made a human, you have to keep sinking energy into that system to keep it going. The reason why animals, and especially predators are on the narrow end of the pyramid is because you lose energy going up the pyramid. There is not enough energy in the system to sustain as many tigers as there are plants.

[img]https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.brainpop.com%2Ftopics%2Fenergypyramid%2Fscreenshot2.png&f=1[/img]
We're going through an extinction level event right now, precisely because there are too many humans on the planet. 50% of animal and plant life has disappeared in the last 40 years. They're calling it the "anthropocene" - this time we're the meteor that is going to destroy life on Earth.

At any rate, a human is not a source of energy, but rather an energy sink. That is, if you put in more energy that you will ever pull back out, you can temporarily store energy in a human body.



This means that humans cannot be the solution to robots energy problem (i.e., the sun blocked out by clouds). Geothermal energy would work fine. Nuclear energy would work fine. Wind energy would work fine. But you can't explain why robots still need humans if they have these sources. The bro-science just doesn't work out on this one. You just have to squint and move.

Ditto for sexual reproduction and Blade Runner 2049. If you can build cells from the ground up, and they can, then there is no deep mystery. A normal human engages in cell replication all the time to stay alive and that old Replicants age indicates that they have telomeres and go through the aging process of cell replication within the body like the rest of us. There is no great added mystery to cell replication via the sexual route. Nature has been doing it for quite a long time without any consciousness to guide her. And the cellular structures she's given us, the one's Wallace can build from the ground up, already contain this simple trick in their genetic code. You just have to squint and move on.


As for it being effective emotionally/psychologically in The Matrix, you bet I agree with you entirely here. Indeed, the emotional fit in that film made it easier to squint at this film's conceit. With 2049, I have to squint a little harder.




?

My observation is that humans in exchange for a small amount of vegetable matter can generate a great deal of 'WORK" in the scientific sense. Harnessing heat and electricity from our central nervous system combined "with a form of fusion". This is the bare bones explanation to introduce Neo to what is going on.? Clearly the process of what they are doing is far more sophisticated as they create a reality for the humans. We farm cows though its not the most efficient way to generate energy. But it gives us more pleasure and satisfaction than other forms of energy.? This form of energy has greater value.??
The most important thing in a film is if a concept its emotionally effective. Especially true in a sci fi film.? The idea is you are a slave. You are living a lie serving a powerful hidden enemy. It plays into a common notion that something is wrong with the world and unknown forces are at play controlling your life.? Not only are you not aware of them but the reality is so inconceivable you don't even want to know the truth. They are raping your consciousness.? The film then turns on a concept that the link that is raping you can be turned on them to rape them back.
So yes you correctly say we squint rather than scrutinize it in detail
Oct 17, 2017 6:15 PM
On this list I haven't seen a single film in the Best Picture or Director Categories.
Only two or three in the actor actress. One supporting role none of the docs or foreign.
Oct 16, 2017 9:49 PM
I was chatting with someone about FTWD and she said there is a character who comes in the second season who is better than anyone in The Walking Dead. Hes described as a bit of a tweaker and I would know him when I saw him.? I don't think I'll ever like another character as much as Hershell.
Oct 16, 2017 8:23 PM
Janson Jinnistan
Robin McDonaldYou asked why I thought it was silly.

And you didn't answer that question. ?Instead you repeated calling it silly a few more times.


Robin McDonaldExcept in this film there is no joke punctuating the insanity with a winking acknowlegement.

The joke is that Javier is arrogant enough to try it all over again.


Robin McDonaldThe message content was trite shit unworthy of all that explosion of insane chaos.

I've already given my opinion on this. ?Again, you repeat "shit" as if it addresses what I've said.


Robin McDonaldSecond you keep griping its our fault for criticizing the ham handed? biblical allegory.

What I'm griping about are those critics who stop at "biblical allegory" and groan and defensively write the film off from that moment on.


Robin McDonaldI fault him for juvenile adoption of bits of scripture and fusion with an earth mother concept which really is an emulsification of two things that don't naturally go together.

Again, I've given my opinion on exactly how these naturally go together. ?You say "nuh'uh", and here we are.


Robin McDonaldI posted a photo of Chief Dan George's legendary tear as he looks at trash on a hill overlooking a freeway.

Yes, that was quite pithy.


Robin McDonaldIf you think that was some great shit I don't have anymore to say than I would to someone who thinks Trump is the best president ever.
The bad is obvious. ?But you connect with it and defend it.

Like I said, this is a bad faith effort on your part, as you don't seem inclined to consider an alternative point of view. ?Yes, I like and defend this film. ?You're unwilling to defend your criticism outside of calling it silly and shit. ?You can't say why, only that it is, that it's so obvious you don't need to articulate a reason. ?Taking the example above, if someone were to ask me why Trump is a bad president, I would have little trouble laying out multiple bullet points in order to address all of the financial, environmental, authoritarian and treasonous arguments. ?I wouldn't just call him silly and shitty, and tell people that it's so obvious that I can't evenI


I can agree its a bad faith effort in this sense. There was a really brilliant and talented visiting artist working at an FX shop with me who was really into UFOs. My mind was closed on that topic. In sixth grade I perpetrated a UFO hoax that made it to the third page of the San Francisco Chronicle. But if good evidence existed sure I would like to see convincing evidence from someone I respected. I asked him to show me his best evidence. He gave me "Dark Side of the Moon" a documentary featuring Kubrick's wife about how Stanley Kubrick helped fake the moon landing. What he didn't know is the film is a French Mockumentary making fun of the theory. His second and third videos featured a well known fraud who photographed wedding cake molds thrown in the air and passed them off as space visitors.
So his first best case video was epic failure and his follow ups were obvious frauds he should have seen through. But I genuinely re opened the door to consider his evidence. Believing him to be as good an expert as I was going to get and he had such conviction. My mind was closed but I opened it enough to be truly persuaded.

I am a convince-able person. Just as strongly as I didn't believe in extraterrestrials I just as strongly believed Stamps.com was a total ripoff. But a Stamps.com representative completely turned me around. She showed me exactly why it wasn't a ripoff and why spending fifteen dollars a month to print your own stamps was a great value for a business.

Another poster here made a worthy case for Tarkovsky when I was notorious for disliking Tarkovsky, Particularly Solaris and The Sacrifice.
I think you made a fine case for how you approached the film successfully so you enjoyed it by not engaging with the religious allegory, art/god/ego, bizarre infant vivisection/cannibalism. But these elements are there and you are entitled to minimize or ignore. Like my UFO friend I don't think you made a convincing case for the film.Like someone who wasn't struck by a bullet at Mandalay Bay you had a different experience than someone who was. The allegory didn't hit you

To give you a full answer I'd have do three paragraphs on why I believe all ideas, art and opinions don't have equal dignity. Some art,ideas and opinions fall into a junk category. I wrote those paragraphs but for your sake deleted them. Mother! is a film made sadly by a former favorite director of mine. I could keep writing. I risk being accused that I am copping out for quitting but if I write I only see you accusing me of copping out anyway. I've exceeded my time limit writing on a film that isn't worthy of this much time.
Oct 16, 2017 8:10 PM
Janson Jinnistan
Robin McDonaldFeel free to plug archetype anywhere metaphor is used in previous posts. They share a nearly identical definition the way its being used.

Not really, but that's the answer I was fishing for.


Robin McDonaldI give you the garden of Eden and you come into my office and break my glass heart bobble.
I give you the baby Jesus and you all immediately cut him up and eat him. This sucks guys New Testament was my best reviewed book ever.

As I said, I think that a strict reading along the biblical lines has given many people license to not only show off their lack of knowledge of the scripture but to force these overly stultified interpretations on the film.


Robin McDonaldPortraying yourself as an archetype of god is pretty silly especially since Bardiem is so pathetic and clueless.

Perhaps you have a higher opinion of this ego-demiurge than others.


Robin McDonald
More accurately the film is silly because its over wrought like "Leave Brittany Spears alone, leave her alone."

That did not occur to me, dude.


Robin McDonaldSomeone could find these not silly but I don't why. I list them because I was asked.

OK. ?So I guess this means that we're not going to have a good faith discussion on the matter, as you have such an ingrained presumption of its silliness that you seem almost offended that I should ask you to explain it. ?None of the reasons above address any of the points that I've mentioned in my defense. ?Rather than engage in my points, you seem satisfied to stick to these presumptions, and faulting me for not automatically understanding them rather than expounding on them in any kind of personal way.

I am glad that this film pissed a lot of people off though.

You asked why I thought it was silly. I thought I was addressing your question. I'm only responding to that last post of yours not the previous one which I did comment on. And gave props to your initial post.
I found the movie offensive. Not you. I found it offensive in the sense of that scene in the movie The Thing. The doctor steps to patient to defibrilate him. Chest opens up with teeth bites his arm off. Screaming ensues, viscera shoots to the ceiling, room explodes in flame from flame thrower. Head melts to the floor pulls itself to a chair with a frog tongue, then sprouts spider legs and crawls off down the hall. To which one of the scientists says to the last bit "You have got to be fucking kidding me".
That is funny because by definition what we saw was just fucking insane. Except in this film there is no joke punctuating the insanity with a winking acknowlegement.
Its so over the top. The message content was trite shit unworthy of all that explosion of insane chaos. Its not new.just projectile vomiting of an environmental message that doesn't deepen the conversation.
Second you keep griping its our fault for criticizing the ham handed? biblical allegory. Aranofsky? acknowleges its a big part of the movie.
And I don't get this line you have about lack of knowlege of scripture. I've been through the old and new testament three times and have three marked up bibles to prove it and could provide screen shots. I don't fault Aranofsky for bad scripture. My comments are about ham fisted film making not bad bible study. The Red Letter Media boys aren't passing themselves off as religious experts but they easily identifly all the biblical "archetypes" Aranofsky not to subtley inserted. I fault him for juvenile adoption of bits of scripture and fusion with an earth mother concept which really is an emulsification of two things that don't naturally go together. So you have to force them together. Which is part of why the film sucks. If it was good and pithy and meaningful I would like it. But ultimately its a tired sorry finger wagging at humanity's wanton lack of stewardship and destruction of nature's beauty and gods ego. I posted a photo of Chief Dan George's legendary tear as he looks at trash on a hill overlooking a freeway. This is totally the stuff of "brave student films".
If you think that was some great shit I don't have anymore to say than I would to someone who thinks Trump is the best president ever.
The bad is obvious. But you connect with it and defend it.

For some reason I like Eraserhead and Devil's Rejects. I don't really try to defend them or criticize people who hate them. The reasons people don't like them seem obvious to me. The are just what they are.
Oct 15, 2017 9:50 PM
I'm pretty excited.
Oct 15, 2017 9:19 PM
Puffin Nubbins
Robin McDonald
Puffin Nubbins
The McGuffin of this film is very weak, as weak as the notion that AI would want to keep humans around as batteries in The Matrix. It's just dumb, and you have to squint at it for the film to work.


Come on dude. Using humans as batteries was an awesome idea as well as the visual that went along with it.
And a lesser point is I don't think either is a MacGuffin.


In The Matrix they have no reason to keep humans around after winning the war. The very premise paints the film into a corner.
The way out is to make humans necessary in some way.

But why would machines or aliens need people?

This is a tough one. Where Dark City offers up romantic speculation about unique properties of the human soul or some bullshit, The Matrix takes the "bro-science" route by asserting that robots need humans as batteries, which is a quite preposterous idea. It takes a lot of energy and maintenance to grow and sustain a human. It's just about the most inefficient power scheme imaginable. But if you don't think about this too much, the rest of the film is great fun.

Perhaps not a MacGuffin, but arguably something deeper, the very premise.

It didn't really have to make sense. When I think of how much we can do in a day living on a paste, in a weird way it makes sense unexpended energy could be utilized.? If you had a dozen carrots and water what could you generate with that energy wise.? Maybe a human or animal is an amazing evolvement of efficient energy processing. But the important thing in any movie is to create a visceral emotional experience for the audience. They imagine the claustrophobic buried alive horror and alien probing violating all the sanctity of your body. The whole visual was very Geigeresque and effective. Its mostly a visual whose technology isn't deeply probed. The idea also is that humanity is imprisoned believing itself to be alive and real but is being placated in the Matrix.
Oct 15, 2017 9:16 PM
Puffin Nubbins
The McGuffin of this film is very weak, as weak as the notion that AI would want to keep humans around as batteries in The Matrix. It's just dumb, and you have to squint at it for the film to work.


Come on dude. Using humans as batteries was an awesome idea as well as the visual that went along with it.
And a lesser point is I don't think either is a MacGuffin.
Oct 14, 2017 11:12 PM
12 Sycamores
Izzy Black
?12 SycamoresMaybe it was permitted when she made them for K, but now it's not. Though that brings up the question of why the film would make such a point of it. My guess is we're supposed to ponder this, just as you suggest.


Well, at a superficial level, it's just a plot device (it leads K to believe he's the chosen one). But the screenwriters might have also wanted it to be a deeper thematic device for Ana's character. Maybe she broke the law because she had a motive and the stakes were high. Maybe she wanted to give replicants humanity, or hide her whereabouts, etc. But maybe not and the law didn't bear on why she did it, or it was her personal therapy, if she even made his dreams at all. I just don't think we have enough information to settle the question, but yes, I think pondering it has interesting implications for how we think about the characters.


Indeed.

Blade Runner 2049 just kicks the can down the road on the Deckard Replicant mystery -- the smart move on its part. So what is this film's new lingering question? It has to have one. You wouldn't make another Blade Runner unless you had an unanswered mystery to add. Is it perhaps Ana and her motivations?

Everyone says that the whole point of Blade Runner (The Final Cut at least) is that you should question whether Deckard is a replicant but not know for sure. As far as I can tell, the only way he's NOT a replicant is if Gaff placed the unicorn there because of its symbolic significance for Deckard's situation re: Rachel, and it's merely a coincidence that Deckard also dreams of a unicorn.

Fast forward to the sequel:

I think either Ana had a motive on behalf of the replicant revolution or herself OR she put the memory in K for no real reason (maybe it wasn't illegal back then and she needed something real to work with; maybe she just wanted symbolic help carrying this trauma) and thus the memory coincidentally ended up in a replicant uniquely positioned to eventually reunite her with her father.

Some may consider the open question bad screenwriting, but: 1) This movie doesn't seem to take a lot of shortcuts elsewhere; even unpacking all the Pale Fire parallels will take the internet months, and 2) this is already a franchise whose biggest mystery involves the question of coincidence vs. design. Chance vs. build.

The more I think about it, the more I don't really consider this Ana business a plot hole and am liking it more and more.

I'd flip that. I agree the point should be to question the possibility. But the conclusion that most people had drawn at the point prior to 2049 is all the evidence points to Deckard is just a human. Nothing about what we know of him or the replicants makes any sense. Ridley Scott was forcing a personal theory which didn't fit with the story. This is backed up by the writers, the book actors and lighting crew And so I have never placed a lot of cred in anything but the unicorn being symbolic of say Rachel's uniqueness or specialness. To me that's more the reaction Ford has on his face when he picks up the origami. An understanding between two cops. That's not the face of someone realizing he is a replicant. But I am flexible enough to think its fine to make a viewer consider his humanity. In short the bulk film on the scales outweighs by far the power of the origami dream.
Oct 14, 2017 11:01 PM
I said something like this about being boring particularly about the first film's theatrical cut. It never failed to put me to sleep.
I found this film much more engaging story and character wise. But I think boring is still a fair critique to be leveled at it particularly
if you never saw the first film. This film will provide the time for someone to walk all the way across a very large room. I was amused
that I was getting impatient in the photo search segment of this film same as the twenty plus minute segment in the original.
Oct 13, 2017 8:10 PM
Janson Jinnistan
Robin McDonaldRed Letter Media guys both hit on all the story points where we were supposed to get something.

I haven't watched it, but my question was what were your thoughts on what you were supposed to get?

[quote]And why was it silly. I went to film school, and although I haven't seen student films in a few years, I can say that I've never seen a student film like this.


Robin McDonaldI keep thinking about how people don't hear the same thing when Trump is talking. It shouldn't require an explanation of what's wrong with it.


Feel free to plug archetype anywhere metaphor is used in previous posts. They share a nearly identical definition the way its being used.
If it means something I also went to film school. A short one sentence summary of Mother! is "This is why we can't have nice things".
God gives you nice things and people just mess them up. I give you the garden of Eden and you come into my office and break my glass heart bobble.
I give you the baby Jesus and you all immediately cut him up and eat him. This sucks guys New Testament was my best reviewed book ever. That's silly.
Portraying yourself as an archetype of god is pretty silly especially since Bardiem is so pathetic and clueless. More accurately the film is silly because its over wrought like "Leave Brittany Spears alone, leave her alone." Someone could find these not silly but I don't why. I list them because I was asked.
Oct 13, 2017 7:24 PM
Janson Jinnistan






So to get back to the question of "idiotic" and "silly", what is it about the thematic purpose that makes it these things, other than the fact that it is allegorical with several biblical allusions? ?Is it the bible which is the problem, or what Aronofsky is using it to say?



We first need to ascertain which sport we're watching.

I don't think there is too little to grasp. Its not the old joke the food here is terrible...and such small portions.Its more like someone serving a meal by shoving a firehose down your throat and turning it on full.? Food is flying everywhere. Red Letter Media guys both hit on all the story points where we were supposed to get something." They even hit on something you like that the film would have been fine if it were about a woman who keeps having people come in and wreck her house. Their criticism is the metaphor is the stuff of typical student films which like me they found pretty silly. Also by making everyone a metaphor they argue there are no real people in this film.
I keep thinking about how people don't hear the same thing when Trump is talking. It shouldn't require an explanation of what's wrong with it.
Oct 13, 2017 5:02 PM
Half in the Bag reviewed Mother!? They made some good points.
Oct 13, 2017 4:06 PM