Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

SandRider wrote:} Freak

save the trouble; take out the voice-over, which causes about 3/4 of the story to make no sense
to the first-time viewer, and Deckard is a replicant ...

I must have seen it 100 times and that just don't make no sense at all.

Get on the bandwagon with Rutger Hauer and his forthcoming epic.

http://www.hobowithashotgun.com/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhA1VRXn ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Speaking of Rutger Hauer... anybody else seen...

Freakzilla wrote:

SandRider wrote:} Freak

save the trouble; take out the voice-over, which causes about 3/4 of the story to make no sense
to the first-time viewer, and Deckard is a replicant ...

I must have seen it 100 times and that just don't make no sense at all.

what, that Deckard is a replicant ?

I got 10 desert pine trees coming off a truck right now, and two mexicans that can't
hang a straight string line to save their lives, so I'll pass on the explanation until later,
and/or assume someone else will stroll by and start in ....

clue: Edward Olmos' last line (cut from original)
"You did a man's job, sir."

also, photographs ...


seems like this has been discussed here before,
but that may just be my implanted memories ...

SandRider wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

SandRider wrote:} Freak

save the trouble; take out the voice-over, which causes about 3/4 of the story to make no sense
to the first-time viewer, and Deckard is a replicant ...

I must have seen it 100 times and that just don't make no sense at all.

what, that Deckard is a replicant ?

I got 10 desert pine trees coming off a truck right now, and two mexicans that can't
hang a straight string line to save their lives, so I'll pass on the explanation until later,
and/or assume someone else will stroll by and start in ....

clue: Edward Olmos' last line (cut from original)
"You did a man's job, sir."

also, photographs ...


seems like this has been discussed here before,
but that may just be my implanted memories ...

Yeah, that. Maybe it has been discussed here, sometimes I don't pay close attention to non-Dune stuff.

I just watched The Time Traveler's Daughter and thought it was really good, I hope the author writes a sequel.

Blade Runner: You either love it or you hate it, there is no middle ground.

or you can decide that the book was way deeper and that Ridley Scott even though he did an eye fest left out a lot of things unexplained

Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?

I think they do...

HarryCanyon wrote:Blade Runner: You either love it or you hate it, there is no middle ground.

Disagree.

I like it just fine (my preferred version, for those who care, is the U.S. theatrical ... probably because it's the first version I saw). Despite my criticisms, I don't "hate" it at all. Nor would I ever put it at the top of any list of great films.

There's lots of middle ground.

TheDukester wrote:

HarryCanyon wrote:Blade Runner: You either love it or you hate it, there is no middle ground.

Disagree.

I like it just fine (my preferred version, for those who care, is the U.S. theatrical ... probably because it's the first version I saw). Despite my criticisms, I don't "hate" it at all. Nor would I ever put it at the top of any list of great films.

There's lots of middle ground.

Yup - there is a middle ground: I'm in it too

DuneFishUK wrote:

TheDukester wrote:

HarryCanyon wrote:Blade Runner: You either love it or you hate it, there is no middle ground.

Disagree.

I like it just fine (my preferred version, for those who care, is the U.S. theatrical ... probably because it's the first version I saw). Despite my criticisms, I don't "hate" it at all. Nor would I ever put it at the top of any list of great films.

There's lots of middle ground.

Yup - there is a middle ground: I'm in it too

I agree that there's a middle ground, I like it okay. I love the visuals and it has a lot of great ideas, but it's so serious, at all times. It's not a film I can watch over and over again.

Mongolian Death Worms are comin'...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504443/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/sean-patrick-f ... orms--1216" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blade Runner Is your #1.......it was pretty enjoyable, I liked it. But I think it's because I am really into charismatic and depraved villains, and Rutgar Hauer was freakishly good in that film. He portrays a villain in the totally crappola film Night Hawks with Sly Stallone....and again, he proves more compelling and sexy than the male lead.

I'm too tired at this moment to come up with a long list of my personal favs, but here is a synoptic one (in no particular order):
Star Wars - I don't want to hear the argument that it's fantasy, not Sci Fi........get over it
Pitch Black - again....sexy villains
Solaris - the English version
Aliens - Yes, I typed "s" on the end of "Alien"....the sequel exceeds the original
Men In Black - sometimes we hanker for funny aliens

artistagent116 wrote: Aliens - Yes, I typed "s" on the end of "Alien"....the sequel exceeds the original

I definitely enjoyed Aliens, but personally I thought it was more effective and intense to have one Alien.

1- Silent Running
2- Solaris (1972)
3- 2001: a Space Odyssey

that's about it ...

merkin muffley wrote:

artistagent116 wrote: Aliens - Yes, I typed "s" on the end of "Alien"....the sequel exceeds the original

I definitely enjoyed Aliens, but personally I thought it was more effective and intense to have one Alien.

Your viewpoint is well taken and I certainly respect it. There was such a frightening mystery about it, at first........"What does it look like?" "Where the hell is it now?" "Who is it going to kill next?" "When am I going to get a good, long look at this thing?" Those questions were palpable and HUGE reasons for its success as a story. Our psyches were unaccustomed to seeing such a creature on film; we'd rarely beheld any screen monster so well created, and whose special effects were so highly accomplished. This was, what......1978??? 79??? Most ETs up to that point were hokey-looking and flim-flam. I don't think the producers intended a sequel at the time, so yes...definitely one alien creature was most "effective and intense" as this film stood alone. But more money was waiting to be made, so a sequel we did see. By the second film....we had become accustomed to more elaborate and sophisticated special effects, more desensitized to freaky-killer aliens, and I think we needed more than one, since we already "knew" this one. He alone probably wouldn't have scared the bejesus out of us again. That is one of the hurdles a sequel must conquer.


I think the reason I put the sequel above the original has to do with the "familiarization inside alien scenario" concept - which almost always works for me. And by "alien" - I don't mean extra-terrestrial, I mean "foreign". The purpose is to place the reader (or viewer) into a situation or lifestyle which is familiar and with which he/she easily identifies, then introduce the alien (foreign) essence. I come from a Military background - Army brat - so the Soldiers and their unit structure clicked with me immediately. Their banter, their inter-personal relationships, the 1st Sergeant, all were well formulated and affected.

And, of course, I am a woman and a mother so...........I can't forget.............."Get away from her you BITCH!"

You can't compare the first and second Alien films - they're completely different beasts. Which is what makes them both brilliant.

(I like Aliens though - but mostly because it has awesome(er) model effects )

artistagent116 wrote:Solaris - the English version

Really? On it's own I thought it could be ok, but in comparison the book and the Tarkovsky film - it's a turd.

DuneFishUK wrote:You can't compare the first and second Alien films - they're completely different beasts. Which is what makes them both brilliant.

(I like Aliens though - but mostly because it has awesome(er) model effects )

artistagent116 wrote:Solaris - the English version

Really? On it's own I thought it could be ok, but in comparison the book and the Tarkovsky film - it's a turd.

OH CRAP, did I type "English version"? I guess I did. I meant the non-English version. I guess I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack.

...yes, the one with George Clooney was a royal turd.

artistagent116 wrote:

DuneFishUK wrote:You can't compare the first and second Alien films - they're completely different beasts. Which is what makes them both brilliant.

(I like Aliens though - but mostly because it has awesome(er) model effects )

artistagent116 wrote:Solaris - the English version

Really? On it's own I thought it could be ok, but in comparison the book and the Tarkovsky film - it's a turd.

OH CRAP, did I type "English version"? I guess I did. I meant the non-English version. I guess I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack.

...yes, the one with George Clooney was a royal turd.

Lol, will let you off then.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v46plhmx ... re=related[/youtube]

Your list places two Dune movies above Empire Strikes Back. Not only is the list invalid, but you are also dead to me.

merkin muffley wrote:

HBJ

Hunchback Jack wrote:

nice!

SandRider wrote:1- Silent Running
2- Solaris (1972)
3- 2001: a Space Odyssey

that's about it ...

I'm with you on Silent Running and 2001, not seen original Solaris yet though.
I think when I first seen Silent Running I cried when Huey got whacked and 2001 was perhaps the first
SF film I can remember which actually paid attention to the laws of physics (had to read the book to
get the ending though). Another old favourite of mine was Dark Star, not in the same league as the others
but it was movies like these which instilled in me a love of SF, prompting me to start reading SF books.
It seems to me that films like Star Wars, much as I loved it (I was about 10 then, my big sis took me to see it, wow!)
are more Science Fantasy than anything else.
Whatever happened to thought provoking SF? It seems now that if there's no multi-million dollar
explosions and some major kicking of ass it won't get made.