'Blade Runner 2049' Isn't the Movie Denis Villeneuve Wanted to Make (vice.com) 264
Readers share a Motherboard article: There are seemingly two inescapable realities for big-budget filmmakers in 2017: you have to use existing intellectual property and you must provide spectacle that can lure massive domestic and foreign audiences to the the theater. It seemed that Denis Villeneuve chose wisely when he selected the IP that he would ride into the mainstream. [...] There is much to admire, but as a whole, Blade Runner 2049 works best as a case for why filmmakers like Villeneuve should be given big budgets to try out new concepts rather than retread what's come before them. Just like Arrival was at its best when we saw the elegance of how the space ship and the aliens within it actually functioned, this version of Blade Runner shines when we get to watch how Villeneuve's dystopia operates. Moments of technical brilliance small and large are at the soul of this film. Whether you're watching the creation of robot memories, the execution of an air strike from an effortless, detached distance, or even something as simple as a stroll through a hall of records, the mechanics of this world are jaw-dropping. Ryan Gosling (K) wisely opts for a muted, brooding performance, allowing the world to steal the show while still illustrating the burden of living in it. Even with all of this technical brilliance on display (the costumes, sound, and special effects are brilliant), the baggage of the original film's mythology weighs down Blade Runner 2049. The most burdensome baggage for Villeneuve to carry, sadly, is the Blade Runner story itself.
it attracted the wrong demographic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it attracted the wrong demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
wrong demographic
I think they just missed the necessary demographic. I didn't know it was opening this weekend. Who's fault is that?
I knew they were making this, but I didn't care enough to track it closely; there is a lot of stuff on a lot of media competing for attention. Apparently they took it for granted that everyone was breathlessly awaiting their big opening weekend and didn't bother to advertise where someone like myself would notice.
Whatever. The original was a cult thing. Seems like this one is true to form. Maybe that's for the best.
Re: (Score:2)
God forbid a movie should just try to tell a story well instead of going after specific market demographics.
I know what we need. Another comic book/super hero movie. We don't have enough of those, let's set the target demographic first and foremost, then try to figure out what kind of story will appeal to that demographic (I know, "story", haha). We should have a Strong Female Lead(tm) and the exact same percentage of minority characters as there are people in California. Then let's cover our shit wagon
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I expect from movie retreads, is they will look better but every other aspect of the movie will be worse and have stopped paying any attention to the release and consider them 'B' movies from the get go. You have nepotism, the all age casting couch, corruption, self serving ego, driving the creation of some real rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem BR-2049 ran into was the terrible tuning the Dolby Atmos audio system.
I really wanted to like that movie, but being male and over the age of 25 does NOT mean that I wanted to suffer low-level but constant pain during the first 20 minutes of the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but those kids will grow up, they'll eventually find Blade Runner and they'll want to see its sequel.
Blade Runner 2049 will continue to earn steadily for decades. It's a safe investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Redub the story? (Score:4, Funny)
Even with all of this technical brilliance on display (the costumes, sound, and special effects are brilliant), the baggage of the original film's mythology weighs down Blade Runner 2049. The most burdensome baggage for Villeneuve to carry, sadly, is the Blade Runner story itself.
If the story's the biggest issue, couldn't you take the movie, recut the visuals, and redub it? Getting some scenes to match the dialogue would be a problem, but between narration, voiceover, and dubbing, could you insinuate a wholly different story into the filmed material?
Everyone will downplay this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are we supposed to be unhappy about? That it wasn't another baygasm?
I've never been so spellbound by a 2+ hour movie ..
Re:The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never been so spellbound by a 2+ hour movie
I'll second that.
Just everything, from the gorgeous visuals and the awe-inspiring visual design of literally everything in the movie, to the bleak attitude of life in 2049 Los Angeles, the sheer noise (visual and auditory) of the city, and the overarching theme of Man playing God.
I loved it.
Re: (Score:2)
the sheer noise
*BWOOOOOOOOOW*
Re:The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:5, Insightful)
Greatly dislike how this article frames opinion as fact. It keeps saying "Villeneuve does this", or "Villeneuve wanted that", but gives no source for the claims. To me, it's clear this article is just a shitty, deceptive, self-righteous way of stating one's personal observations.
Observations I happen to generally disagree with. I loved the hell out of this flick; it touched me on an almost personal level, like no film as done in a long time.
I'm not going to suggesting this article is just the inevitable mainstream contrarianism when something is widely beloved, but I'm having a hard time not pulling the trigger on saying it...
Re: (Score:2)
It's okay to like a movie and criticize it at the same time. Even the best movies have their flaws; indeed, a flawless movie probably wouldn't be very interesting to watch or discuss.
Re:The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's okay to like a movie and criticize it at the same time. Even the best movies have their flaws; indeed, a flawless movie probably wouldn't be very interesting to watch or discuss.
Oh, absolutely. My problem is just how these criticisms are being framed -- it sounds like they have some behind-the-scenes insights into Villeneuve's feelings about the film gleaned from an interview, or something.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, it's clear this article is just a shitty, deceptive, self-righteous way of stating one's personal observations.
That's a fairly concise way of describing the job of a movie/book/TV critic. If you want to hear someone way too full of themselves, go find a review from NPR's "critic at large".
Re: (Score:3)
Fortyseven opined:
Greatly dislike how this article frames opinion as fact. It keeps saying "Villeneuve does this", or "Villeneuve wanted that", but gives no source for the claims. To me, it's clear this article is just a shitty, deceptive, self-righteous way of stating one's personal observations.
I'm not going to suggesting this article is just the inevitable mainstream contrarianism when something is widely beloved, but I'm having a hard time not pulling the trigger on saying it...
Disclaimer: I have not yet seen the movie.
However, taking TFS entirely in the context of itself, I could not more completely agree with your objection to TFS. What's even worse is that TFA is uncredited . It's clearly an editorial (i.e. - "opinion") piece, but there is no attribution to an individual writer to be found.
In journalistic terms - and I hesitate to use that appellation here - it's a staff piece. Which is to say it represents the organizational opinion of Motherboard a
Re: (Score:2)
What's even worse is that TFA is uncredited. It's clearly an editorial (i.e. - "opinion") piece, but there is no attribution to an individual writer to be found.
Really? The version I saw is attributed to Brenden Gallagher. Clicking on his name reveals he's written three movie/TV reviews [vice.com] for Motherboard.
Re:The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. I went into it not knowing much about it--I avoided press and reviews beforehand. I also didn't expect much. I was quite doubtful that they'd be able to do it right. But, having seen it, I liked everything about it. It was great. It makes some of the other sequels that have come out (Star Trek comes to mind) look like something that you might accidentally step in on the street.
Having read this review, I'm not even really sure what the guy is complaining about. It seems like he's been wanting to write an article about how bad franchises and sequels are, and Blade Runner represented an opportunity to do that. The problem is, Blade Runner is actually a good movie.
Re: The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:2)
Re: The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:2)
Re: The movie was superb; what's the beef? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree that I found the plot lackluster. But the visuals and atmosphere were amazing. Such a cool world.
Leto's performance as Wallace was awful. Not sure how that kind of nutjob could have ever run a company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same.
Literally the only thing that I can find to even remotely complain about was the lack of Vangelis_Blade_Runner_End_Titles.mp3 not being played during the credit roll.
Holy crap that would have put a tear or two in my eye, even if it were updated much like the end titles to the Bourne sequels.
Re: (Score:2)
So funny that you say that.
At the end of Ghost in the Shell, when they started playing "Making_of_the_cyborg.mp3" I literally did tear up. I sat there on the couch (yes, it was a Redbox rental..not in the theater) and cried the whole time the song was playing. When it finished I turned off the movie and the next time I watch Ghost in the Shell it'll be the one that starts with that song.
BTW, Ghost in the shell has the opposite problem of that mentioned in the OP. It has great visuals, but since it co
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't seen many films then.
Blade Runner 2049 is a good film but it's not even as good as the film to which it's a sequel. That was three minutes short of your arbitrary cut off, but there are plenty of other films longer and better.
Spellbound? Shit, I was bored at one point. I wouldn't chop this down to 90 minutes as the article suggests, but it would likely have been improved from losing 20 minutes or so.
Good explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
you must provide spectacle that can lure massive domestic and foreign audiences to the the theater
That explains why there are so many terrible movies these days.
No. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a good sequel. Better than anyone could have asked for.
Where's Filthy when you need him? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Why complain about a great "sequel" (Score:5, Interesting)
This sequel was a slow rolling dramatic tale and I will say.. IT WORKED.
SPOILERS ahead.
I mean it!! Spoilers ahead!!
Seriously.. SPOILERS.
I have to say.. Spoilers cause spaces are removed.
Yes.. SPOILERs..
1. I loved that every Replicant felt that they were the "One"
2. The death scene at the end was just.. perfect. The falling Snow.
3. Everyone wanted a piece of the Child.. and yet... that is the real human condition... everyone wants to use you.
4. In the end, this is a story about a Dad and a daughter. What they represent, does not matter.
I wanted to cheer the ending as it was.. just perfect.
Re:Why complain about a great "sequel" (Score:4, Interesting)
2. The death scene at the end was just.. perfect. The falling Snow.
It's good symmetry with (spoiler) Batty's death in the original film, but, you sure he's dead?
Re: (Score:2)
If he wasnt dead, that destroys the perfect ending now does it not?
The no breathing part kinda clued it in.
It was a story of a child and her father at the end... which is the core of all of the movies. Really cool.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"perfect ending"? What, are you some kind of replicant?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
2. The death scene at the end was just.. perfect. The falling Snow.
It's good symmetry with (spoiler) Batty's death in the original film, but, you sure he's dead?
There's a very strong suggestion that he's dead without it being explicitly stated. The biggest two indicators are all the talk in the film about dying for a cause and that the music parallels when Roy Batty died.
Re: (Score:3)
That music though.. kind of hammered home just how superior the music in the original film was, and reminded you it was missing from this one.
Yeah but .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Was there a voice over narration explaining things?
I gotta have the voice over!
And goddamn it! Why didn't you warn us that there were spoilers in your post!!!
Kidding! Spoilers don't bother me. When there is a good story, spoilers make no difference. The Sixth sense still holds up even knowing how it ends.
Re: (Score:3)
Narrator? Nope. Just a bunch of words explaining what a Replicant was and some words to the affect at beginning of the movie.
Watching the 3 mini movies beforehand didnt really help all that much with understanding. Takes a good part of the movie to start making sense.
Re: (Score:2)
In the deleted scenes from the Original Blade Runner discussion of MetaPhysics was a major focus. The original movie asked what is it to be alive, to be sentient, to be a slave, to meet your maker, to want more life, to kill your maker, to face death, to be nothing after you die.. etc. This movie dealt with this from the standpoint of the replicants being able to be "Fully Human".. ie: pure racism. However, no matter what the MetaPhysics and the "Isms" shown.. It is still about a man and his family.. p
Re: (Score:2)
5. That Jo girlfriend app.
Re: (Score:2)
When you make the Blade Runner a Replicant, you change the entire world around: why does he have an apartment? Money? Free time? Aren't these things slaves?
It seems like there are just as many Replicants living in poverty as regular people; or worse, we can't actually TELL which people were Skin Jobs. To me, this dilutes the dichotomy of the available moral choices in the story. If the point was that Replicants are people, that's
It's obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sharknado 8 - the director's cut.
There you have something!
Blade Runner vs Phillip K. Dick (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A Paul Sammon interview for Cinefantastique described it this way:
According to Dick, the main source of contention was a basic difference in what the book and film were all about. “To me, the replicants are deplorable,” Dick said. “They are cruel, cold, and heartless. They have no empathy—which is how the Voight-Kampff test catches them—and don’t care about what happens to other creatures.
“Scott, on the other hand, said he regarded them as supermen who couldn’
I plan on seeing it this weekend/ avoided spoilers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a tad disappointed that Sean Young wasn't used
She was. Also Edward James Olmos (Gaff).
All those Googles will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
Re: (Score:3)
A bit off topic but I was a tad disappointed that Sean Young wasn't used (I think I would have heard if she was) to play the head of Tyrell Corporation.
The Tyrell Corporation went bankrupt, after the global blackout caused by an EMP detonation (presumably done by replicants), and the remains of the company were bought by the Wallace Corporation.
Re: I plan on seeing it this weekend/ avoided spoi (Score:2, Informative)
There's an official short amine film on YouTube that explains the blackout.
Re: (Score:2)
Having not watched the anime I went into the film not knowing about the blackout. At the end of the film I had no queries regarding the blackout; it was relevant to aspects of the plot but its cause wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The film stated that Tyrell went bankrupt because the manufacture of replicants was outlawed.
Re: (Score:2)
The film stated that Tyrell went bankrupt because the manufacture of replicants was outlawed.
Yup, remember that, but wasn't that outlawed because of "the blackout"?
Maybe I'll have to see the film again...
Re: (Score:2)
Sean Young is a notorious _crazy_ coked up actor. The kind that will repeatedly no show and leave an entire production company sucking air.
It's amazing she can get any work. Must be able to suck a golfball through a garden hose. Also it's been a _hard_ few decades...not 'panty soup' gorgeous anymore.
Not buying it at all. ***SPOILERS*** (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a huge Blade Runner fan. One could say it's seminal to my movie-going experience: I'm 50, so from the audience that snuck into theaters to see it (I was 15-16 when it released).
I found BR2049 merely ok. I think there was in fact a good film somewhere in there, but it takes a lot of work to sift it from the dross.
I'm not buying the OP's point that the 'tired old story' was what dragged this down. All of the things that really hurt this film were ALL directorial choices.
- pacing: Villaneuve is suffering George Lucas disease. He needs more people to stop telling him how brilliant he is and give him solid criticism. At 2:40 this thing could have easily been an HOUR shorter. Long, drawn out, frankly dull establishing shots were self-indulgent and just felt like you're watching someone show you the 100th slide of their family vacation. It's interesting at first, but ultimately you just DON'T CARE ANYMORE. It's not THAT cool.
- focus: part of the above, partly its own thing. Don't get me wrong, I've long since gotten past my Ridley Scott fandom (Prometheus? Fuck you Ridley I want my $ back), but a terrific choice he made in the first film is to spend relatively little focus on the tech of the era. Sure it's there, and he can't help but notice, but he's not obsessing over the flying cars, etc like BR2049 did.
- product placement: I don't give a shit if Peugot dumped a pile of $ at you. Stop shoving brands in my face. Better that they'd stuck with the Pan Ams and ATARI of the first film.
- the deafening soundscape: Jesus Christ my ears were nearly bleeding after that. Fire your sound man, immediately.
- pointless plots and characters: Why was Leto even IN this film? As a foil, he did literally nothing except kick a dog (a dog we didn't care at all about, btw, so pointless).
- enormous plot holes - the murder in the police station went rather more smoothly than I'd imagine it would; if replicants reproducing is such a earth-shattering thing why build them with ovaries, or even functional uteruses? I have to imagine engineering OUT the 'rag once a month' would (have been) advantageous to the utility of replicants generally?
- the flying car dogfight? Jesus. I don't know where they were going with Deckard (or why?), but if you're fleeing pursuit, here's hint: turn off the 100k-watt cabin lights that make you a lighthouse? Guns on police flying cars?
The Economist nails it https://www.economist.com/blog... [economist.com] - I'd have used the word ponderous, but bombastic works just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Better that they'd stuck with the Pan Ams and ATARI of the first film.
I do not think you saw the film I saw.
Re: (Score:2)
pacing: Villaneuve is suffering George Lucas disease. He needs more people to stop telling him how brilliant he is and give him solid criticism. At 2:40 this thing could have easily been an HOUR shorter.
The pacing is okay, but the total was too much. Around the two hour mark I got into the "can we please wrap this up" mode. Some scenes that weren't so relevant to the plot could have been made much shorter, like the "only one place this radiated" scene, could have been cut 90% or even just a flashback while he's driving out there. Same with the archive, accessing an old file triggers an alert but 90% of the scene is redundant. When he passed the two hour mark he really should have started to look harder at
Re: (Score:2)
the deafening soundscape: Jesus Christ my ears were nearly bleeding after that. Fire your sound man, immediately.
Must've been your cinema screwing the volume up, I thought Hans Zimmer's soundtrack was the best bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should have listened to this review... saw it last night and I can't get that ~3 hours of my life back. I feel ripped off and deceived.
It felt like how a teenager would make a Bladerunner movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm with you. Gorgeous movie, brilliantly shot (tho as you say at times it feels indulgent), and a wonderful exercise in futurism, bursting with interesting ideas.
But ultimately, the story itself just felt... lifeless.
Oh and btw the Economist does use the word "ponderous", just not in the title:
Re: (Score:2)
I heard K was a bit of a Dick in this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Remembers this universe was created in the 60's after all. Back then there was no concept of perfect surveillance in western consumerism-driven societies.
Really? Remind me, when was 1984 written?
Re: (Score:2)
A few random thoughts:
The first time K walked slowly toward something, I felt tension.
The second time he did, slowly looking around like a stoned hippy, I felt a little less tension...
The third time, I started to question these directorial choices.
By the 10th time a character slowly walked (the part of K picking up his foot and putting it down in the hotel nearly had me laugh out loud) I'd written this movie off.
The script is hilarious at times. "We're all looking for meaning" was a complete blunder of scri
Misleading, opinion-based article (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually read something before where Villeneuve specifically said that there won't be a director's cut, final cut, or any other versions of this movie. We got the exact version he intended us to see, and at nearly 3 hours, that's not hard to believe. The author of this article thinks the movie should have been much shorter (which is obviously what the movie studios and theaters would prefer) while simultaneously suggesting that Villeneuve wasn't in complete creative control here. Again, am I going out of my mind here? What the hell? This should have been titled "'Blade Runner 2049' Isn't the Movie I Wanted Denis Villeneuve to Make".
I think the movie's great. For whatever reason, the author of this didn't agree. Fine. But they're taking what is clearly an opinion piece about them not liking the movie and disguising it as some kind of fact-based informative news article where they present some kind of insight into the director's thinking process. There are no hard facts in this story, just speculation. That is extremely misleading.
And yeah, I think the film is excellent and way better than we had any right to expect. To be brutally honest, given the complete dearth of creativity in Hollywood today, and given the kind of movies and properties that usually find success, and keeping in mind that just a few months ago the same studio released the fucking Emoji Movie... this is a much better film than we deserved. The only thing worth regretting here is that there won't be a third movie given how few tickets were sold (a combination of many factors including long runtime/fewer showings, vague advertising, R rating, older franchise, etc.). That's what we should be mourning here. This movie was great and deserves a followup as it's fairly open-ended and there are clearly more stories to be told about the emancipation movement or Niander Wallace, who didn't get nearly enough screentime. The clueless writer of this article doesn't even mention that in passing -- understandable if it was written last week before the box office returns came in, but it looks like it was published today. Talk about missing the point.
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I missing some subtle connection between the headline and the summary?
The original wasn't popular either (Score:4, Informative)
To be honest compared to the usual themes of modern "mass market" films, Blade Runner 1982 or 2017 is probably too deep for a mass audience. Seriously comic books are considered deep these days.
Most people is prime movie going age don't even know about the original movie, don't know who Harrison Ford is, or know about Philip K. Dick. The 50+ crowd for home the original was canon, probably aren't making a huge effort to see the move opening weekend, and are likely to wait for it to stream.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 42 and the original it was canon for me. Can't wait to stream this as theaters are to pricey IMHO and they don't pause the movie for me while I take my needed bio breaks.
bad review, great movie (Score:3, Interesting)
is reviewer is Millenial or something? It's like he watched a completely different movie. Even goes on to insult Harrison Ford's acting ability - "so committed to phoning it in that the Verizon "Can You Hear Me Now?" guy should fear for his job." :)
If you loved the first movie, you will like this one as well. This movie may not do well because of R rating. They could have easily made PG-13 version, like what we saw in 1990s on regular tv. Regardless, it was worth the 20+ year wait (for me) and hopefully, there will be a third film to wrap things up.
Only negative thing about the movie was how loud the "noise" was - not sure if it's my local theater or if it's designed to make your ears bleed
Good to know (Score:2)
Muted and Brooding (Score:2)
Opts? Isn't that the only thing he can do?
Re: (Score:2)
Arrival was indeed a big piece of shit. I posted about it in detail in the past.
Arrival was fucking stupid. We start with aliens and some interesting premise about communicating with them, but we end up with political bullshit that gets solved with time travel, telepathy, and essentially magic. The whole premise is shot when that shit happens because: Why couldn't the aliens use their time travel telepathy bullshit to help themselves? Why couldn't the aliens see / prevent the bomb? Or even more to the point, why couldn't the aliens see learning our language and then just communicate with us in out language? The whole fucking time they're sitting behind their glass barrier and watching Pam from The Office (I know it's not her) pantomime shit. The only thing missing was a Speak and Say toy. The aliens didn't do a damned thing to communicate with us, despite it being revealed that they'll need our help one day.
I also shat on Intershttps://slashdot.org/story/17/10/09/1836234/blade-runner-2049-isnt-the-movie-denis-villeneuve-wanted-to-make#tellar and Passengers in that post ( https://entertainment.slashdot... [slashdot.org] ).
I kind of want to see Blade Runner 2049, but I also don't trust any of the people involved. As far as I'm concerned, the movie doesn't need to exist and Ridley Scott needs to fucking stop. I fucking sat through both Prometheus
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen either Prometheus or Alien Covenant but I have seen Blade Runner 2049. It's absolutely superb. Do yourself a favour and watch it on a big screen with an awesome sound system.
Re: (Score:2)
Having sat through Prometheus, why the hell did you bother with Alien Covenant? Reviews were unanimously derisive from the very start.
Blade Runner 2049, however. Is superb. Don't sell yourself short by watching it on a 28" tube. It deserves IMAX. and immersive sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Having sat through Prometheus, why the hell did you bother with Alien Covenant? Reviews were unanimously derisive from the very start.
Blade Runner 2049, however. Is superb. Don't sell yourself short by watching it on a 28" tube. It deserves IMAX. and immersive sound.
I got it at RedBox for like 56 cents (free DVD rental, paid for the BluRay upcharge). Still not worth it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know the answer to that, but sometimes it's easier for the "lesser" creature to learn words than for the "superior" organism to learn. And the multi-time isn't a form of life-omniscience, but a form of moving a single consciousness through the life of that consciousness. The future may be unknowable until it's set, or something like that. It wasn't until after he told her what she said that she remembered saying it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's dumb. We as humans absolutely try to learn to communicate with other species at both ends.
We teach apes sign language and we study their own natural behaviors and sounds.
We teach parrots to converse with us and we watch how they interact with other parrots.
We teach dogs commands and we learn what their different barks, growls, etc. mean.
We learned the language of whales and dolphins and even the dancing language of bees in order to communicate with them.
We, as the "superior" species, go to great e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So kids like you actually existed? I read all kinds of shit but never got picked on for it probably because I wasn't stupid enough to interact with the "popular" kids and stoners don't give a shit what you are reading.
Re: (Score:2)
So kids like you actually existed? I read all kinds of shit but never got picked on for it probably because I wasn't stupid enough to interact with the "popular" kids and stoners don't give a shit what you are reading.
Good point. I guess my school was small enough at a couple of hundred kids, that everyone knew a bit about everyone without actively engaging with each other. Plus, I was in a tight group studying German language with a handful of popular girls -- who were probably there more to maintain some group identity rather than actually study.
I guess it was not SF books per se, but generally being geeky, with things like social awkwardness. It's hard to shun somebody simply for doing smart (and potentially "cool"
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what the enrollment was when I was there, it was 3,200 in 2008, so I'll guess 2,200 in 1989 when I graduated high school. My group of friends and I had thrown down against the blacks in jr high (middle school now), more for fun than some race war. It was latinos vs blacks. So we all knew each other... Nobody picked on anyone, it wasn't that it was a tinder-box or anything more that everyone had an alignment and there was cross-over people in the groups. Our dealers (small time kids) were part
Re: (Score:2)
That was the original move. Very little/nothing in common with 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?'
Re: (Score:2)
That's a shame, because while it is a damn good movie, it's also an audiovisual spectacle. You really should see it on a big screen (or at least a serious home cinema).
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, if that's their take-away they're pretty fucking dumb. Nobody wants to go to theaters, they are filled with loud obnoxious jackasses and plague-ridden children, sometimes also loud obnoxious plague-ridden children.
If ever you had a chance to see a brilliant film in a theater all to yourself, this is it (since you clearly hate the common man).
Re: (Score:2)
Three words: Weekend morning matinees.
Best movie experience, and usually less expensive. Bring candy, buy a soda and popcorn (I know, the raping). Theaters are clean as well given the show time.
Re: (Score:2)
Ryan Gosling isn't going to fuck you, APK.
Re: (Score:2)
APK, it's pathetic that you link to that thread in an attempt to show anything positive about yourself. After I exposed your "achievements" as the bullshit they are I didn't hear another word out of you for nearly a year. [slashdot.org] Yeah, bring that shit up again man, let's show everyone how you got paid $100 for a forum post that one time in 2008, that was a major achievement. Or, hey, how about you bring up the time where you suggested some Win32 API calls to another project, and they thanked you for your suggest
Re: (Score:2)
thinking I wouldn't see it?
Um. I was hoping you would, actually. Glad you did. Turns out that when people write messages online, they actually intend for other people to see it. I know, it's weird, but it's true. If you don't want someone to see something, best thing to do is not post it online. Take my name, for example.
you were BOILING over it
Yep, this is me, super pissed. Just sitting here totally steaming. Just angry as hell. Yep, that's me. You can tell by all of the exclamation points and use of ALL CAPS just how much you got to me. Oh wait
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, the classics. Well, since we've already had these arguments, if you're going to pull out the same bullshit list of achievements, then I'll just post my same response to it. I'll just change the quote from you, and it also looks like I need to change some year references because, and this is a little embarrassing, but it's been a year since I last posted this and you still don't have any noteworthy achievements. Anyway, here you go:
You're illustrating what I find so funny about you, APK. Look at that
Re: (Score:2)
But wait, there's more! Since you also want to rehash the old "prove it" discussion, well, again, let me just paste the exact same response the last time you tried to make literally the exact same argument. Here you go buddy:
I've never avoided the question, you just ignore my answer. You're avoiding me, though:
So, to test my theory: do you know what my answer is and always has been? You're either ignorant or stupid
The answer is apparently both. I wasn't expecting that, I thought you were just ignorant.
I am, and will remain, anonymous because I have always meant this account to be anonymous. I have said things
Re: (Score:2)
It's good to see that you haven't changed at all, APK. You're still a sad old man. I guess you want to suck off Ryan Gosling now, so maybe that's a change for you. Good job over the last year, buddy. In my case, I got married, in a few weeks my wife will have her green card and it's back to traveling, my investment account is making a few thousand per month now, things are going well. Sorry you're still the sad old man you've always been. You should really find yourself a friend to go see the movie wi
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, really? IF I am such a 'joke' then WHY can I show I've done FAR MORE than you ever have or will here
Well, first, that list is far less than I've done. And, second, the reason why you're a joke is because that is your list of "accomplishments". Rejected changes, out-of-print magazines, $100 forum posts. That's your life's work, APK, and it's a joke. Just like you.
3 posts of MORE BULLSHIT from you too & STILL NOTHING TO SHOW FOR YOURSELF
It's good to see that your reading comprehension has also not improved at all.
You brought it on yourself starting up with me
Oooh, and look at me, shaking in my little space boots. You're so scary, APK.
keep projecting you're nothing more than a LYING grimy little PIMP
I love your unintentionally funny "insults". I literally laughed at loud at that one.
IF they want to compete w/ the bigboys, they'll need it for background operations
W
Re: (Score:2)
Did you really just copy and paste the post you made 7 minutes earlier, just to add a few more insult lines? And you're accusing me of a foaming-at-the-mouth reacion? You're a funny guy, APK.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, now you're pasting the same thing three times because you've thought of one more amazing thing to say. And now you're going to insult my wife? Like you know anything about her? You're a classless piece of shit, APK, you know that? You know nothing about me or my wife, and you're going to try to trash her? You think that makes you look good? She's in the country on an H-1B visa while she's working on her masters in molecular biology, she's working translating medical documents to and from her nativ
Re: (Score:2)
That cunt's USING YOU STUPID to stay in the US
If it wasn't for me, she would have already left. She doesn't like it here. Everyone is a dick (much like yourself), the government is fucked up, and corruption isn't very obvious but where it is, it's huge and it's systemic. She doesn't like the industry that's her passion, not like it exists here. I'm the only reason she's here, and once we can travel again we will. She's lived in several other countries, she wants to go see her friends in Finland after she goes home first. But, no, keep talking lik
Re: (Score:2)
her limited stay visa would have expired you STUPID CHUMP
It did expire, in September, and her work renewed it.
yes, I am being nice telling you how bitches work
That must be why you're single, because you know so much. As for me, you don't need to worry about me, I'm protected. We have a pre-nup, because it made sense to get married sooner rather than later because of the immigration issues. Myself and my assets are protected, you don't have to worry about me. It turns out that doesn't matter though, because we're going to move to a place where both of us feel welcome.
You will be thinking of ME who tried to WARN YOUR CHUMP STUPID ASS of what you've walked into dumb fuck
When am I going to be thinking about you,
Re: (Score:2)
as he would have been a N7 model
What, like Rachael? She had a special mod, maybe he did too. She didn't know she was a replicant until he told her. There was that scene where Leto made the obvious suggestion that Deckard was called to Tyrell specifically to meet Rachael. He also obviously wouldn't be the only replicant blade runner. Then there's the question of whether a human/machine hybrid would even be viable (seriously, how would that even work - would the machine just supply the missing chromosomes and let humanity do the rest?