Blade Runner 2 on the way care of Ridley Scott 2 2

[reddwarf666222]

2 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

The Academy almost never nominates science fiction.  The only award it has any outside shot of being nominated for is Best Picture, and that's only because they now nominate 10 instead of 5.  It has zero chance of winning that award.

I would never have even guessed a best picture nomination if they hadn't done it with "Mad Max: Fury Road," still one of the more baffling nominations in Oscar history.

Hmmmm not quite how the Academy Awards work the studios heavily push for actors, actresses, and films they think can win in certain categories. It’s why Mary Badham and Haliee Steinfeld were nominated for best supporting actress despite they were the main actors in the film with the most screen time. So if the studio thinks this is one of their films with a high chance of winning it will get that nod. It’s clear to me this is one the film that could secure the most nominations for them, followed by Dunkirk. It’s really does Warner want to try and hope for a second life for this film or not.

 

 The Academy Awards is very studio driven.

[Martin Sinescu]

4 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

I still do not know what people see in that film. I thought it was terrible with way too many over the top things.

+1. I found it to be almost totally useless.

[revat]

1 hour ago, Martin Sinescu said:

6 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

I still do not know what people see in that film. I thought it was terrible with way too many over the top things.

+1. I found it to be almost totally useless.

I LOVED IT.  loved the over-the-top-ness.  I'm pretty sure they accomplished what they were going for.  BUT I get that its not for everyone.  I think its one of the movies I enjoyed most in the theater in the past 5 years.  I enjoyed the way the music manipulated the tensions, I thought the stunts were well thought out, I enjoyed the acting (thought the pregnant ladies did a surprisingly good job).  Everything. GREAT.  I was rooting for it for best picture, though did not expect it to win.

As for Blade Runner, I think Logan has a better chance at a Best Picture nod this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if Blade Runner got a nom for directing.  And I don't think both would get nods for best picture, even though it seems like a weak year so far other than Dunkirk.  I personally thought Get Out was better than Dunkirk, but I think Dunkirk is for sure the leader in the clubhouse at this point, just too impressive.  I haven't seen any of the critically acclaimed indy movies yet, though I think the best ones usually come out later in the year or January anyways so they're fresher in academy brains.

[Doohickamabob]

On 11/1/2017 at 5:37 AM, fantastic_four said:

I liked it but didn't find it exceptional.  I can't even begin to imagine why among the sea of quality sci-fi films THAT'S the one that gets a Best Picture nod.  

I don't consider "Mad Max: Fury Road" to be a science-fiction film. More of an apocalyptic western. What is this "sea of quality sci-fi films"? There's maybe a handful of sci-fi films that are in the Best Picture realm, story-wise, with most of them usually more on the side of formulaic genre movies. ("Interstellar" and a few others are exceptions.)

It's easy to see why the "Fury Road" movie was nominated for Best Picture. It is remarkably inventive and well-made. Though it clearly wouldn't have been nominated if it were only 5 films. If somebody were to point out that there's not a lot of story to the story, that's a fair observation, but doesn't mean it isn't a great film.

For the Oscars race, it seems "Dunkirk" is a shoo-in, unless there are some amazing movies released during the holiday season. Somebody mentioned "Get Out," but given that it's sort of a suspense-thriller type of movie (albeit one with an undercurrent of sharp racial commentary), that puts it at a severe disadvantage.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Doohickamabob

[fantastic_four]

3 hours ago, Doohickamabob said:

What is this "sea of quality sci-fi films"? There's maybe a handful of sci-fi films that are in the Best Picture realm, story-wise, with most of them usually more on the side of formulaic genre movies.

A "sea" is definitely an exaggeration, but it's not a short list.  The complete list that didn't get a nod but were better than Fury Road includes Alien, Blade Runner, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version), Forbidden Planet, Gattaca, The Thing (1982 Carpenter version), Children of Men, 2001, Clockwork Orange, and The Matrix.  I would've included the 1927 Metropolis on that list, but the Oscars didn't start until two years after that so I'll give 'em a break on that one.  

There are definite arguments to be made for the crop of films being too strong in the year those were released, but it's far more than that--there's a clear bias against science-fiction, one that was universal throughout the first half-century of the Oscars that has thankfully decreased slowly every decade.  The real breaking point for science fiction and the Oscars was Star Wars getting the first best picture nod for a sci-fi film in 1977, and since then the others that also got the nod prior to the 10-film expansion were Raiders of the Lost Ark and ET.  Following the expansion in 2010 we've gotten LOTS of nods including District 9, Avatar, Inception, Her, Gravity, The Martian, and Arrival.

But still no wins.  I suppose if you expand it to fantasy we've gotten two wins--Lord of the Rings and Birdman.

Edited November 3, 2017 by fantastic_four

[Doohickamabob]

8 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

A "sea" is definitely an exaggeration, but it's not a short list.  The complete list that didn't get a nod but were better than Fury Road includes Alien, Blade Runner, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version), Forbidden Planet, Gattaca, The Thing (1982 Carpenter version), Children of Men, 2001, Clockwork Orange, and The Matrix.  I would've included the 1927 Metropolis on that list, but the Oscars didn't start until two years after that so I'll give 'em a break on that one.  

There are definite arguments to be made for the crop of films being too strong in the year those were released, but it's far more than that--there's a clear bias against science-fiction, one that was universal throughout the first half-century of the Oscars that has thankfully decreased slowly every decade.  The real breaking point for science fiction and the Oscars was Star Wars getting the first best picture nod for a sci-fi film in 1977, and since then the others that also got the nod prior to the 10-film expansion were Raiders of the Lost Ark and ET.  Following the expansion in 2010 we've gotten LOTS of nods including District 9, Avatar, Inception, Her, Gravity, The Martian, and Arrival.

But still no wins.  I suppose if you expand it to fantasy we've gotten two wins--Lord of the Rings and Birdman.

Man, you had a lot of good examples there!

I can look at most of those movies and think of reasons they wouldn't have made the cut for "Best Picture." It isn't that I don't personally think they're terrific films; it's just that I can see where they would be considered as either too formulaic, or too niche-like, compared to movies that are about social issues or real-life dramatic scenarios, which seems to be what the Oscars voters prefer -- since it makes them feel good about their industry being an important and influential part of society, or whatever.

I would point out that "2001: A Space Odyssey" did get several Oscar nominations, including Director and Screenplay. It won for Visual Effects -- a win that I don't think anybody, anywhere, for any reason, could dispute...

I definitely agree that science-fiction has always been somewhat of a not-taken-seriously-enough genre, both in the writing world and in the movie world (and in the theater world, ha ha, because there are so many plays about artificial intelligence and interstellar travel). Part of that is no doubt connected to its roots in pulp fiction. There aren't a lot of Oscar movies in the true-crime and other pulp-fiction categories either.

To me there are two areas of science fiction: (1) Sci-fi used as a metaphorical basis to address serious social issues or explore ideas that can't be explored in other ways; (2) sci-fi used as pure escapist fantasy/adventure, or to dress up another genre formula and give it a new spin. Perhaps there are some works that are a hybrid of each. There is also one very serious disadvantage that science-fiction movies have in terms of being turned into effective movies: To be done well, they require much higher budgets than a movie set in the existing world, so there's likely to be less of them produced in general, and even then, the people making them expect to make some money so they default toward formula types of stories much of the time.

Down your list for movies that could have been Best Picture contenders:

-- "Alien." Of course it's great, but the plot is essentially a horror-movie plot. So Oscar voters might not think of it as a Best Picture. "Alien" DID win for Best Visual Effects -- very deservedly, thank you Mr. Giger... It was nominated for Best Production Design. The movies that were contenders that year included stuff like Kramer vs. Kramer, Norma Rae, The China Syndrome, All That Jazz, Being There, Apocalypse Now... I can see how "Alien" wouldn't seem socially important against movies about divorce, nuclear power, the Vietnam war, etc.

-- "Blade Runner"... It was up against Gandhi, Tootsie, E.T., The Verdict, Sophie's Choice, many others. It was nominated for Art Direction, which at least is something (it should have won). I would think that the nomination and almost-win of "E.T." suggests some willingness to take science fiction seriously. A lot of people thought "E.T." was robbed of what should have been a clear win, and looking back it seems even moreso that it was robbed. It's fairly obvious why, though, since Gandhi is such a big historical and cultural figure. Steven Spielberg apparently took the loss in stride, hiring Gandhi's director, Richard Attenborough, to play the creator of Jurassic Park. Anyway, regarding Blade Runner, it is fairly clear that the story of Blade Runner is part genre formula, and the sci-fi spin of the movie -- the question of what makes people human, the question of why artificial emotions or memories would be any less meaningful or valued than genuine ones, and the sympathy toward escaped slaves by somebody who himself is a form of slave -- all of these elements are handled very tersely by the movie, as opposed to them being robustly dramatized or something. I happen to like the way the movie handled its themes/ideas, but I can see how a 1983 Oscars voter would not think of the movie seriously in the same way as Gandhi or something.

-- "Forbidden Planet" -- That movie probably went WAY over the heads of Oscar voters (or under their heads, if they didn't see it to begin with). Though maybe if somebody told them it was parallel to Shakespeare's "The Tempest" they would give it more consideration.

-- "Invasion of the Body Snatchers": Great movie. Probably went over Oscar voters' heads that the plot tied in with the psychology of the Red scare and such.

-- "Gattaca." I didn't like this movie as much as many did. Just seemed like an other take on Orwell, with a DNA element regarding personal privacy and social stratification based in genetics and such. Good ideas, but as a movie I didn't think it worked that well. Also, didn't think the cast was fully as effective as should have been. Everybody's mileage varies...

-- "The Thing." I'm tired of looking stuff up, but did it at least get nominated for visual effects or special effects? Its oozing, gory effects are still some of the best of all time. Being a remake probably put it at a disadvantage, awards-wise. Also it is more of a horror nightmare than something that could be seen as metaphorically thematic, though psychologically it sure does nail feelings of suspicion and paranoia. I kinda hate the ending, because it denies you so much information about what happens in the final scenes, leaving you with two giant question marks about the last survivors. Of course that is also one of the reasons the ending is great...

-- "Children of Men" and "Gravity." The former should have (and maybe it did) get a Best Director nomination. The same director (Alfonso Cuaron) did "Gravity" and did win as Best Director. "Gravity" almost won Best Picture, but lost out to 12 Years a Slave, because come on, a slavery movie versus a lost-in-orbit movie, in a year when the Oscars had been getting slammed for being too white? One movie is about an extreme historical social injustice, and the other is about loss and existential meaning and orbital inertia and such, so.....you know which one the Oscars voters are going to go for. Though I thought 12 Years a Slave was freaking boring and made me feel practically nothing other than, "Yep, it really did suck to be a slave, just as I already knew it did."

As for "Children of Men," the problem with that movie is that its main science-fiction "ideas" (such as they are) boil down to two main things: A dystopian, socially restricted future world; and a world where women can't make babies, for reasons nobody really understands. If there's one thing that is NOT a problem in our actual world, it is women's ability to make babies! We as a species are QUITE GOOD at making babies, with 7 billion and counting, thank you very much. (Great movie, though. P.S. Pull my finger.)

-- "Clockwork Orange." Obviously a great movie, but also probably way too out-there for Oscars voters, in terms of its protagonist having no redeeming virtues at all (besides excellent taste in music). Take another movie from the time period, which also goes into raunchy territory, "Midnight Cowboy," and you have a protagonist who is very sympathetic, and he has a friend who dies, as well, so boom, that's an Oscar. Not going to give an Oscar to a movie about a guy who kills a woman with a weenie sculpture! Give the Oscar to the movie about the stud in boots who gets blown in a movie theater!

-- "The Matrix." Not an Oscar movie, because humans-as-batteries isn't perhaps the best science-fiction idea. Though the world as a matrix is a wonderful idea. I watched "The Matrix" recently and its premise is so great, and it has such great style setting up the premise. But when you finally get to the payoff for the premise, you have to admit that some aspects of the movie are stupid. For example: Neo figures out that he has great power to warp the fabric of reality, and he can learn just about any skill, so he capitalizes on this situation by....drum roll...storming a lobby with a bunch of guns. Wow, how imaginative! Slow-motion, some jumping around to dodge bullets, a little ballet-style mid-air twisting, and bullet casings flying everywhere, with chunks of concrete exploding in slo-mo. That's not science fiction, that's a Sam Peckinpah shoot-out scene with black leather trenchcoats and sunglasses. "The Matrix" has cool ideas about questioning reality and taking the Red Pill to see beyond the premises that people take for granted. But when you look deeper it turns into a melange of "There is no spoon" and "Is he The One?" and "Love and Faith conquer all," which are fairly standard Power of Myth and Messiah-prophecy and pseudo-mystical approaches to storytelling. Still it's a fun movie and if it's on I have to watch it.

-- "Metropolis." I agree, if they has Oscars then, that movie should have won, hands down.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Doohickamabob

[VintageComics]

On 10/28/2017 at 8:36 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Just saw this last night.

_Amazing_ film.

And it did the impossible -- was a more than worthy sequel to the original.

If you had asked me even two years ago I would have said even trying to do a sequel to the original was a stupid idea, and yet somehow Villeneuve and company pulled it off. It helped that the orginal screenwriter was involved as well.

Stunning, if slow moving. But I think the pacing (and...to an extent) acting problems were equally present flaws in the original, so they're forgivable.

Loved the ending too. Don't want to see a sequel.

I agree. It was amazing.

I took my 16 year old daughter and after laying a solid foundation by explaining the original, she actually really enjoyed this film.

Sure, the film was slowly paced. That's part of what makes it even better. The slow, drawn out, brooding and thick-as- butter atmospheres were phenomenally crafted. I loved every second of it.

What I appreciate most is how hard Scott worked to keep this film looking like it was filmed circa 1980 even though it was filmed almost 40 years later with special effects that could eclipse anything done in the original (which is timeless, by the way and one of my favorite films of all time).

A terrific sequel that faithfully follows the original well.

Edited November 18, 2017 by VintageComics

[Martin Sinescu]

I ordered the limited edition soundtrack CD as soon as I saw the movie. It JUST shipped. Sigh.

At least I managed to snag one. First pressing was already sold out, I got the second pressing.

[bane]

The film didn't feel like a movie that was 2hr 45min long so that's a good thing even though some of what was on screen could have been cut, mostly Gosling's scenes of reflection and what should be character exploration was just overly long IMO.

It lacks the pace of the original, I do like how it expands the world the original sat in as Blade Runner was very confined to the city. Zimmer does a nice homage to Vangelis on the soundtrack but it's a much poorer cousin to what Vangelis produced.

Ryan Gosling is no Harrison Ford though with regards to the lead and the film also lacks a strong antagonist, no Rutger Hauer crazy in this one unfortunately, other than that its a movie that can happily sit in the same universe as the original. I would happily watch it again.

I'd give it 8/10.

[Bosco685]

 

[bane]

I’m looking forward to the 4K release in Feb. 

[Aweandlorder]

Saw this last night. Wow. Definitely delivered as a Sci-Fi movie. 

"Love? Or Mathematical precision?" That line carries a lot of weight. 

It needed more of that in order to achieve what the original did... but since I guess that wasn't what the director went for I just took it as a great production and audio+visual masterpiece. Hans zimmer could have done better with the soundtrack but he did (as expected) incredibly well with textures and sound effects. Maybe he didn't wanna compete with Vangelis so he went that route. Smart choice

the original to me is not a science fiction movie. It's more of a modern bible. Truly the book of cyber life. The story plays a secondary role, but the meaning behind it all plays well into the emotion of the viewer. 

Also, the replicants in the first were much much more emotionally superior to the (assuming we're not all replicants, right deckard?) humans. Rachel taught Deckard about love, Batty showed him humility.

in this movie we had a great flick with evil replicants battling the good guys (seems like us humans are becoming less and less common in 2049). 

I wish that the story had a deeper more emotional level than simply trying to figure out if Deckard is human or not and if it's possible for replicants to breed.

what did you guys take from it other than the cool story?

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 29/12/2017 at 5:49 PM, Aweandlorder said:

what did you guys take from it other than the cool story?

Dying sucks.

[Aweandlorder]

3 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

Dying sucks.

Getting old sucks more 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 31/12/2017 at 3:37 PM, Aweandlorder said:

Getting old sucks more 

Well, I've heard that the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. So old age it is, alas 

[Aweandlorder]

3 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

Well, I've heard that the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. So old age it is, alas 

And you have burned so very very brightly Marwood! ?

[Get Marwood & I]

16 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

And you have burned so very very brightly Marwood! ?

Marwood has, yes, and he will surely die young (and stay pretty) as he should. I on the other hand..... 

[WolverineX]

On 12/29/2017 at 12:49 PM, Aweandlorder said:

Saw this last night. Wow. Definitely delivered as a Sci-Fi movie. 

"Love? Or Mathematical precision?" That line carries a lot of weight. 

It needed more of that in order to achieve what the original did... but since I guess that wasn't what the director went for I just took it as a great production and audio+visual masterpiece. Hans zimmer could have done better with the soundtrack but he did (as expected) incredibly well with textures and sound effects. Maybe he didn't wanna compete with Vangelis so he went that route. Smart choice

the original to me is not a science fiction movie. It's more of a modern bible. Truly the book of cyber life. The story plays a secondary role, but the meaning behind it all plays well into the emotion of the viewer. 

Also, the replicants in the first were much much more emotionally superior to the (assuming we're not all replicants, right deckard?) humans. Rachel taught Deckard about love, Batty showed him humility.

in this movie we had a great flick with evil replicants battling the good guys (seems like us humans are becoming less and less common in 2049). 

I wish that the story had a deeper more emotional level than simply trying to figure out if Deckard is human or not and if it's possible for replicants to breed.

what did you guys take from it other than the cool story?

 

Glad they didn't kill Deckard off like Disney kill off all the people we loved in Starwars

[Get Marwood & I]

On 29/12/2017 at 5:49 PM, Aweandlorder said:

I wish that the story had a deeper more emotional level than simply trying to figure out if Deckard is human or not and if it's possible for replicants to breed.

I thought there was so much more than that going on Aweandlorder. Not exactly signposted, but going on all the same in the mood and the settings and the horrific isolation of each hum drum existence presented. I touched on it fleetingly in my posts last year, about 98 pages back.

But it's 2018 now, and all those posts will be lost, like  pictures on photobucket  tears in rain....

                                

[Bosco685]

44 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Marwood has, yes, and he will surely die young (and stay pretty) as he should. I on the other hand..... 

Going into 2018, bring the joy of the new year.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Bosco685