?>
I want to do something for this site's 10th birthday in a month and ten days
GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Entertainment & Media



We're gonna need a bigger boat.
@mariomguy: Blade Runner: Final Cut / Blade Runner 2049
Posted: Posted June 15th
Edited June 15th by Cruinn-Annuin
Edit Report Thread Views



I recently watched both Blade Runner films (re-watch for the original, which I watched last year some time; two recent watches for 2049). I really like both of them and I'd like to revisit an old conversation that we had about them that didn't really go anywhere at the time.

Here's the original thread: http://gtx0.com/read/blade-runner-question

Don't watch Blade Runner. Just watch the Youtube clip of the tears in rain speech and listen to Vangelis' love theme: the two greatest things from that movie are all there. You'll bore yourself to death watching the whole thing.


Saying "do not watch" something is essentially saying that it is objectively bad. Blade Runner isn't. It's well-written, well-acted and well-shot. There's a decent amount of intense character moments. The movie is not overly long (less than two hours) and the main reason that the Vangelis love theme and the "tears in rain" speech have so much impact is because of the context built up over the entire film. It is not an objectively boring film, especially for someone that has a pre-existing interest in sci-fi or tech noir. There are details, striking visuals and tense moments throughout.

The story could've been told in an hour and still feel long. Instead, it's a 2.5-hour bore fest with occasionally interesting visuals and quidbits (the Tyrell building, the fluorescent umbrellas, the unicorn/dream/android concept). But ultimately, it felt like a good premise and atmosphere stretched too thin.


Did you find some hidden 16th version of the film? Because not even the Final Cut is even two hours long. The Final Cut (the definitive, complete version) is 117 minutes.

It seems like all you find interesting from the film is stuff that you looked at a said "that looks cool", plus the foregone conclusion that the "tears in rain" speech was good. If you blatantly don't care about the character building, the plot building, the atmosphere building, etc., then you are more suited to watching the latest 80-minute animated crapola and not a serious film.

The idea that the movie is "too thin" is, if anything, the opposite. There is a absolutely huge amounts of implied worldbuilding - stuff that goes far beyond "oh, that building looks cool". You saying this does make sense in the sense that you have missed a lot of content because you do no look at things even remotely close to how people like I look at things.



Upon finishing Blade Runner 2049 for the second time, I love it. It's a great movie with very solid end-to-end structure. I like how they let scenes marinate in their atmosphere, build tension and resolve naturally. I would not prefer to have the 163 minutes cut in any way.

I also love how dark, violent and gritty the film is. It's tragic and deadly. K's suffering, especially with regard to the racial undertones and the Joi problem, is powerful. I went into this fully prepared to not be as effected by it as I was by Drive and to have my experience shadowed by it, but it absolutely was not.

I also appreciate that Harrison Ford had a role in which he was allowed to act and was not simply showing up on set, arranging the crags of his face into a stern expression and reciting lines.

I love it, my friends love it. The only people I've seen say that it sucks are dumb casuals and trolls on the internet.

Fatherland, Work, Justice
There are 29 Replies
Page:
1 2 3 Load all posts
settingsSettings

I really appreciate that they did not approach the Wallace Corporation with the stereotypical "evil corporation run by evil guy that we eventually kill" story. Niander Wallace is weird and I don't like him, but he's not a dumb, mustache-twirling villain. The replicant rebels aren't plucky young clean-faced heroes, either. They represent two sides of the same coin, and this becomes clear in how they treat Deckard as a microcosm. The Wallace Corporation wants to exploit millions of replicants in the course of pushing mankind into a new era; the rebels want freedom at the cost of bloody rebellion and the sacrifice of each other. Both sides treat Deckard's life as not his own and this is why Joe doesn't kill him. I love it.

Posted June 15th by Cruinn-Annuin
Edit Filter Quote Report

I actually think I might like 2049 a little bit better (no rape-y scenes kinda helps). The movie is definitely long, but I found it so captivating. The idea that something needs to be short or that visual media needs to be "efficient" in its storytelling just seems so fundamentally anti-art that it kinda hurts my soul a little bit. It gives no room for artistic expression, or for differing styles of storytelling, or really anything that makes art so complex and great. It reduces it to machine-work. Obviously, length can be a problem, but it has to do with execution. And I find both Blade Runners truly do execute very well.

I've also never really understood the idea that if something moves more slowly, it is "boring." For me, Blade Runner 2049 was sort of like There Will Be Blood in that its "slowness" is a big part of why I found it so captivating. It might not have had a lot of action, but it gave a lot to watch and take in.

Posted June 16th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

I didn't find the original interesting. It wasn't for me iirc I opted to watch Silence instead and loved that movie.

Posted June 16th by S.o.h.
Edit Filter Quote Report
S.o.h.
 

For sure, neither Blade Runner film is going to be everyone's cup of tea. But there are many reasons why the original is generally regarded as a classic piece of sci-fi film and the sequel was generally very well received among sci-fi fans, too.

Posted June 16th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

@mariomguy:

Posted June 25th by Cruinn-Annuin
Edit Filter Quote Report

@mariomguy:

Posted July 9th by Cruinn-Annuin
Edit Filter Quote Report

Yeah, so, Blade Runner has a great atmosphere, but it's boring as hell. The same story could be told in one hour without losing the atmosphere, but instead they drag out everything longer than it needs to be, and it's not fascinating. The same movie, just a little bit faster and a little more emphasis on the high notes would shine brightly through the atmosphere and stand out. Instead, very little truly stands out in that movie.

Compare that to something like Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke or Nausicaa. They're both longer than Blade Runner, the atmosphere is also thick, and there are plenty of quiet moments, too, but they're both more engaging.

I can probably appreciate Blade Runner for what it's TRYING to do and what it actually accomplishes, but it's far and away from being the shining star everyone proclaims. I think people remember their favorite parts of the movie and what it makes them feel rather than the moment-to-moment boredom that you get actually watching it.

Posted July 10th by mariomguy
Edit Filter Quote Report

Boring as hell... to you.

Mind if I ask what you thought of There Will Be Blood?

Posted July 10th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

Nice response, bro.

There Will Be Blood? Did not see it.

Posted July 10th by mariomguy
Edit Filter Quote Report

Right, but you are speaking pretty definitively and even arguing that the filmmakers could have made it "better" by making it something different. (I'm also not entirely sure you really understand what exactly they were going for when you talk about it being "boring" and "could have been told in less time and with faster pace.")

I mention There Will Be Blood because that was another movie that I suspect that you would find boring and would argue could have been told in less time (I mean, especially given that it's a 3 hour movie), but is the kind of movie in which the supposed slow-pacing is what makes it so captivating.

Personally, I think if Blade Runner had gone the way that you suggest, I'm not sure it would be much more than a generic sci-fi flick that doesn't really do anything all that differently.

Posted July 10th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

The same story could be told in one hour without losing the atmosphere, but instead they drag out everything longer than it needs to be, and it's not fascinating.


It's not a PowerPoint presentation. Sure, it could be shorter. The stuff that you like "could be shorter and less boring" as well. This is really ignorant of what the movie is actually doing (entertaining the people that care, not every mouth-breather with a five-minute attention span) and you don't really have anything concrete to say about this. "Make it more entertaining" isn't criticism.

Instead, very little truly stands out in that movie.


For you, because you don't care. A LOT stands out in that movie; a lot of stuff that I couldn't wait to see again and a lot of new stuff that I noticed on the second watch.

Compare that to something like Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke


Another movie that I like, though I haven't rewatched it recently. I prefer Blade Runner. The questions, atmosphere and characters resonate a lot more with me than ching chong forest symbolism.

but they're both more engaging.


Don't know about Nausicaa, but I could just as easily see someone being bored shitless by Mononoke as Blade Runner. Personally, I found Blade Runner to be more engaging because the setting, characters and ethics resonate with me a lot more.

but it's far and away from being the shining star everyone proclaims


What is this even supposed to mean? You do this a lot, too. This is a completely undefined strawman that you set up to make yourself look more reasonable by the most narrow margin possible. This wasn't a conversation about how FordFan69 posted a YouTube comment about how Blade Runner is the best film that could ever be made. You invented this point to make yourself look better.

I think people remember their favorite parts of the movie and what it makes them feel rather than the moment-to-moment boredom that you get actually watching it.


No-one remembers every moment in a feature-length film equally, my guy. No-one. People have favorite scenes and elements - it's called preference. Films aren't uniform, generic content.

I watched it twice, with the events being a significant amount of time apart, so that my favorite things were pretty set. Watching the film for a second time made me appreciate those things more and see how the things that weren't my favorite supported them and gave them context.

Nice response, bro.


Jet Presto's response gave you every bit of the consideration that your post deserved. Seeing as how your argument about how the film is flawed is based entirely on your personal preference and how you provide absolutely zero concrete examples, his relatively inoffensive acceptance of your biases should be cherished.

Edited July 10th by Cruinn-Annuin
Edit Filter Quote Report

We also shouldn't be comparing Blade Runner to anything Miyazki has done. I probably would say that I like Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind better than Blade Runner, but this is literally comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same thing. They are not trying to do the same thing. Their influences are completely different. Their tones are completely different. Their subjects are completely different. Their styles are completely different. Yeah, sure, both tend to utilize generally slower pacing structures, but even then, for different reasons and for different effects.

I get that Miyazaki is an all-time great filmmaker. And absolutely I would take his whole body of work over the whole body of work for Ridley Scott. But you can't just compare *every* film to a Miyazaki film, or *every* director to Miyazaki.

Posted July 10th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

They may be contrasted, but the only comparison that is direct is in the most general field of opinion.

In other words, I agree.

Posted July 10th by Cruinn-Annuin
Edit Filter Quote Report

Personally, I think if Blade Runner had gone the way that you suggest, I'm not sure it would be much more than a generic sci-fi flick that doesn't really do anything all that differently.

It's not a PowerPoint presentation. Sure, it could be shorter. The stuff that you like "could be shorter and less boring" as well. This is really ignorant of what the movie is actually doing (entertaining the people that care, not every mouth-breather with a five-minute attention span) and you don't really have anything concrete to say about this. "Make it more entertaining" isn't criticism.

Uh, you can totally have that atmosphere in shorter time:

Spirited Away train scene (sorry, can't find good quality English version): https://vimeo.com/84628820

The Godfather hospital scene: https://vimeo.com/103604320

Wall-e Beginning/2815 AD:



Blade Runner might not actually be long, but it FEELS long. Spirited Away and The Godfather are actually longer but end up feeling like much more fulfilling and satisfying movies overall. Atmosphere in Blade Runner is great, but even noir-esque movies can still do more than just a boring, gloomy, long-drawn-out atmosphere all the time. If you can maintain that atmosphere throughout a story, with even bright and colorful scenes like Casino Royale, that speaks more to mastery than Blade Runner. And I'm not knocking Kubrick, Blade Runner is the epitome of atmosphere. But that alone cannot carry a movie.

Don't know about Nausicaa, but I could just as easily see someone being bored shitless by Mononoke as Blade Runner. Personally, I found Blade Runner to be more engaging because the setting, characters and ethics resonate with me a lot more.

I think of Mononoke as Nausicaa 2.0, so Nausicaa is definitely a bit more wearisome, but that only makes it FEEL more epic. You are living in this astonishingly beautiful apocalyptic world, watching the last spot of hope vanish from the Earth. But it's a real story with twists and turns and loads of atmosphere. Give Nausicaa another watch and compare it to Blade Runner. Both do atmosphere great justice, but I feel Nausicaa has a more engaging story.

Mononoke is a bit more mature and harder-hitting with the themes, bigger and more epic with the battles, but also less other-worldly. Your first watch may not be great and I will say it is a very tough first watch, but unlike other movies it grows on you over time.

We also shouldn't be comparing Blade Runner to anything Miyazki has done. I probably would say that I like Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind better than Blade Runner, but this is literally comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same thing.

Well, I think Blade Runner's best quality is it's beautiful atmosphere. I'm only using Nausicaa as an example of another movie with an atmosphere just as beautiful that also offers a stronger, more engaging story. In my eyes, Nausicaa and Mononoke actually accomplished what Blade Runner aspired to. Moment-to-moment they feel better, and the great concepts are not few and far between, but more persistent throughout.

Edited July 11th by mariomguy
Edit Filter Quote Report

Blade Runner might not actually be long, but it FEELS long.

I'm not a movie aficionado nor do I have an elegant way with words like null or jet. But I agree with this statement. I'm your average movie goer I tend to like popular, generic, and action packed films (the type of movie goer I'm sure null hates) but every once in a while I fall in love with an artsy and or slow burn film (Silence for example)

I was looking forward to blade runner but I found it to be such a drag. I made it halfway through (or maybe 3/4ths of the way through) and kept checking the run time. It feels really long. And it is 50 minutes shorter than silence.

A movie that is almost 3 hours long which I thought went by fast.

That is the only thing I agree with keeping regarding the film I look forward to the long wall posts that will be ignored.

Posted July 11th by S.o.h.
Edit Filter Quote Report
S.o.h.
 

Uh, you can totally have that atmosphere in shorter time:


Right. Absolutely. And no one is saying anything about duration being a requirement of atmosphere. But I also think you are off-target by suggesting that the only thing going for Blade Runner (or the only thing they're trying to establish) is atmosphere.

But the point, I think, is that a movie is and should be allowed to have some "fat" on the bones. Not every scene in a movie has to serve the plot every second it's on screen. Sometimes, scenes that appear irrelevant or slow are ones that establish character, or the world and environment, or the atmosphere, or the themes, or - being a visual medium - just the imagery. Sometimes changing up pacing can affect the feeling, or create a scene of tension, or impart an uneasy sense onto the audience. Obviously can't speak for nul, but I think the comment about this not being a PowerPoint presentation is about this fact. Filmmakers don't, nor should they be expected to, have to adhere to an incredibly strict structure for their movies in which everything has to feel absolutely necessary to the plot.

Generally, you don't want your movie to drag unnecessarily, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be in service to the central plot, nor does it mean a film has to be built as if it were following strict LEGO instructions.


And I'm not knocking Kubrick, Blade Runner is the epitome of atmosphere. But that alone cannot carry a movie.


Ridley Scott. And you're right. Atmosphere alone can't carry a film on its own, just as it doesn't carry a Miyazaki film. There's more to Blade Runner than atmosphere, though.


Both do atmosphere great justice, but I feel Nausicaa has a more engaging story.


I mean, I kind of hate that in what should be a post about Blade Runner, we're instead talking about Miyazaki, because you can't NOT bring a thread about a specific film back to Miyazaki for some reason. But I'll say that for me, what I appreciated about Nausicaa is that it simultaneously felt big and small. Mononoke is great, but it's also expansive. You're introduced to many more places and characters, with a deeper political world that can be a little hard to follow. Nausicaa feels a bit better done in terms of bringing audiences in, kinda like Star Wars in the way that audiences are sort of just dropped immediately into this world with minimal explanation. Both try to do that, and I think both are ultimately successful in that, but I found that Nausicaa's more focused perspective on Nausicaa makes it a bit easier to follow. So while the events of the story have wide ranging implications globally, the story really does feel predominantly focused on the single protagonist. In Mononoke, our main protagonist is kinda the least interesting part of the film and is more just the vehicle for audiences to get into the world.

But if you want a great example of how not a lot needs to happen for a film to be great, look no further than Hayao Miyazaki!

Almost nothing happens from a plot perspective in My Neighbor Totoro. And that, for my money, is one of the greatest all-ages films of all-time. It's *about* something, but not in any sort of substantial plot way. A lot happens in the service of that something (since it is, boiled down to its most basic, sisters and their relationship in a new location as they process something potentially traumatic), and yet from the overall plot, really nothing happens at all. Like, the whole movie. Mei runs away and is lost, but that's not the plot. Everything with Totoro gives it a sense of adventure, but ultimately they just plant a garden. Their mother is sick, but that's literally going on in the background and we don't even find out about until, like, the second act.

Quite literally, nothing happens in My Neighbor Totoro. And yet the movie is so great for so many reasons. (And, I might argue, in part *because* it takes on a more non-traditional approach to cinematic storytelling with its structure.)

Same thing happens with Ponyo. There's a bit more of a central plot that kinda matters, but actually that stuff *interrupts* the film, really (and, while I love Ponyo, is a big part of why it's one of the weaker Miyazaki films). This is also true of The Wind Rises. Pacing on all of these films are really slow, to the point where plot isn't really even a thing, really. And they're all genuinely good films.

If Miyazaki tried to make his films in a more direct way, as you appear to suggest Scott do with Blade Runner, My Neighbor Totoro would be, like, 10 minutes long. Ponyo maybe 20. The Wind Rises probably would have five scenes total.


In my eyes, Nausicaa and Mononoke actually accomplished what Blade Runner aspired to


But this is *literally* the apples and oranges I just said you're comparing. Nausicaa and Mononoke *can't* accomplish what Blade Runner aspired to because they are fundamentally different movies, attempting fundamentally different things, based off fundamentally differing inspirations, influences, and sources. You're taking one general *part* of a film and saying these films did that one *part* better. But if you think - as overall films - Nausicaa and Mononoke accomplished better what Blade Runner was attempting to, then perhaps you should consider taking a film class.

This would be like saying that Jaws better accomplished what Moby Dick tried to do. They're very different books with very different focuses and goals. They both have some sense of adventure, but that's one *part* of both. (Actually, Jaws to Moby Dick is closer a comparison than Miyazaki to Blade Runner, as Jaws actually was influenced in some part by Moby Dick, now that I think about it.)


I was looking forward to blade runner but I found it to be such a drag.


That's fair! Pacing is really outside the norm of what we've come to expect from Hollywood blockbuster films. As I said, it's not going to be for everyone. I really do understand people being bored by the film. (That was my initial experience when I watched it as a teenager, to be honest.) As a fan of Blade Runner, and an even bigger fan of Blade Runner 2049, I really do see why people would find it boring or slow.

But I think it's one thing to say, "I found the movie kinda boring" and saying, "It's a bad movie that only does one thing well, but also these totally different films that are completely unrelated do vaguely similar things way better."

Posted July 11th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

The more I think about it, the more silly it seems to even bring Miyazaki up in this conversation, particularly as a creator to juxtapose Blade Runner against. Half of Miyazaki films are just Miyazaki literally making up stuff that he things are kinda neat or visually engaging. Spirited Away, the film that got the Best Animated Feature nod at the Academy Awards, literally has an entire plot thread in the middle of the movie in which No-Face goes on a rampage for kind of an unnecessarily long period of time. And all that does is *reinforce* the central point that we already had relayed to us with what happens to her parents in the first ten minutes of the film! But Miyazaki threw it in there in large part because it's visually engaging. A big reason why Miyazaki's films are sooooo genuinely great (in my opinion) is that he understands that cinema is a visual medium. So much of his work is filled with things that don't really matter and make the film ultimately drag from a plot or pacing perspective, but is so visually captivating that it actually adds to the film.

Which is kinda, in a general sense, a bit part of what I like about Blade Runner, personally.

Posted July 11th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

But the point, I think, is that a movie is and should be allowed to have some "fat" on the bones. Not every scene in a movie has to serve the plot every second it's on screen. Sometimes, scenes that appear irrelevant or slow are ones that establish character, or the world and environment, or the atmosphere, or the themes, or - being a visual medium - just the imagery.

I disagree. Even if the purpose is to let the film breathe, you can't have a movie that's "fat." When it's not relevant or helpful in any way it's not called fat, it's fluff.

I linked the train scene from Spirited Away as a shining example of this breather moment working well in a movie. But Blade Runner is mostly this.

If Miyazaki tried to make his films in a more direct way, as you appear to suggest Scott do with Blade Runner, My Neighbor Totoro would be, like, 10 minutes long. Ponyo maybe 20. The Wind Rises probably would have five scenes total.

Not what I was getting to at all. I actually disliked My Neighbor Totoro and Ponyo for the reasons you're describing. It's not just plot, the characters themselves don't have a very strong journey. More or less they're the same starting and ending all the way throughout. Miyazaki's movies where stuff is actually happening, like Castle in The Sky, Kiki's Delivery Service, and Spirited Away are my favorites. There's more teeth to the story, the characters do learn and change from their adventures.

That's fair! Pacing is really outside the norm of what we've come to expect from Hollywood blockbuster films. As I said, it's not going to be for everyone.

You admitted that to S.O.H, not me :3

But I think it's one thing to say, "I found the movie kinda boring" and saying, "It's a bad movie that only does one thing well, but also these totally different films that are completely unrelated do vaguely similar things way better."

Other movies have great atmosphere without sacrificing the story or pacing, yes.

Spirited Away, the film that got the Best Animated Feature nod at the Academy Awards, literally has an entire plot thread in the middle of the movie in which No-Face goes on a rampage for kind of an unnecessarily long period of time. And all that does is *reinforce* the central point that we already had relayed to us with what happens to her parents in the first ten minutes of the film!

Um, No-Face is a manifestation of what greed does to people, and how it spreads and corrupts. Not only does No-Face actually provide a stronger reinforcement of this idea, it also juxtaposes with Chihiro's own selfishness. At the beginning of the movie she was only trying to save her parents for selfish reasons. But throughout the film she ends up deciding to do things to help other people, too, including No Face, and grow out of the selfish phase.

He doesn't just do things because "lol it looks cool," a lot of it has meaning and purpose. The food in the bathhouse is lavish and extraordinary, filled with meat piled on. There's WAY too much food. It represents greed and gluttony, how the great life of some piggyback off of the sacrifice of others. No Face is the embodiment of this. The movie without No-Face would not have the symbolism, conflict, or resolution that it does. It's strange to think if him in this way, but he's really Chihiro's foil.

So much of his work is filled with things that don't really matter and make the film ultimately drag from a plot or pacing perspective, but is so visually captivating that it actually adds to the film.

Ha! That's so not what Miyazaki does. The films don't drag, they live. It's the same stuff Spielberg used to do: he'd spend 15 minutes on one setpiece and make us experience all the different intricacies of that setpiece: the different characters, where they are, what they're thinking, how they're all responding, etc.

Posted July 12th by mariomguy
Edit Filter Quote Report

This is The Wind Rises. Notice how, despite taking longer to go from one thing to the next, it's not boring:







Posted July 12th by mariomguy
Edit Filter Quote Report

I disagree. Even if the purpose is to let the film breathe, you can't have a movie that's "fat." When it's not relevant or helpful in any way it's not called fat, it's fluff.

Could you offer scenes from Blade Runner and explain why they're not relevant or helpful?

Posted July 12th by The Bandit
Edit Filter Quote Report

I can't just point to one scene and be like "yeah, take it out," and suddenly it's a masterpiece. There are some very good scenes, but so much of the movie is just TOO slow you lose your audience before you get to the good parts. That's why you maintain good details and continue making things happen unexpectedly. Great filmmakers like Miyazaki have made a killing doing this properly, and letting scenes live and breathe. Blade Runner, for most of the movie, doesn't really achieve that.

The only movie that was worse was The American with George Clooney. Nothing happens for the first half hour. Ugh.

Posted July 12th by mariomguy
Edit Filter Quote Report

I can't just point to one scene and be like "yeah, take it out," and suddenly it's a masterpiece.

That's not what I asked. I asked for specific examples of scenes that aren't relevant or helpful, and why you think they're not relevant or helpful.

Posted July 12th by The Bandit
Edit Filter Quote Report

You admitted that to S.O.H, not me :3


Right. See: next thing I wrote. I've always said that I can't blame anyone for finding Blade Runner to be boring. It's got a very atypical pacing structure. I acknowledged that you think it's boring. (And again, I'm "admitting" that I can understand why people find it boring. Just as *you* find it boring, *I* don't think it's boring at all.) But SOH is just saying that he felt it was slow, and noted what his personal tastes are as a reason for him feeling that way. That's a bit of a different approach to yours, which is to shit on the entire movie and willfully ignore what the people who like it are saying about it.


I linked the train scene from Spirited Away as a shining example of this breather moment working well in a movie.


A breather from an action beat that doesn't really add anything to the plot or character that we hadn't already seen by that point in the film. It's an unnecessary moment stemming off of an unnecessary moment, that neither makes the film "bad" or "worse" because Miyazaki understands that movies are experiences and visual media and can actually just have stuff that looks cool for the sake of looking cool (see: Howl's Moving Castle, which almost only exists as stuff looking cool because it's a movie and is visual media.)

Even if the purpose is to let the film breathe, you can't have a movie that's "fat."


You absolutely can. There are entire genres of films that exist just to put you in the day of someone else. Why do feel the need to constantly put limits to art, and what a movie or show or game can be?

Other movies have great atmosphere without sacrificing the story or pacing, yes.


Blade Runner doesn't "sacrifice story or pacing" either. But again, not everything has to be in the service of PLOT. This is an extremely limiting view of what cinema is or can be. Just because Blade Runner moves slower than you'd like doesn't mean it's sacrificing story or pacing.


He doesn't just do things because "lol it looks cool,"


He literally does. Like, by his own admission, he often just makes shit up as he goes. I agree that he does things with a lot of purpose, but it's not always necessary to his films. Howl's Moving Castle is almost nothing but shit because it looks cool. Yeah, he weaves it into his stories super well, but that doesn't mean everything is super well planned or considered when he's doing it. Miyazaki is a master, but he's not Kubrick or Hitchcock in that way that everything is meticulously planned and everything has a very intentional purpose from the beginning.

No-Face reinforces ideas that we'd already seen established in the film at this point. No-Face is effective, but that entire scene, particularly turning it into an action sequence, isn't necessary. It's also a really strange way to transition to the final act of the film, given No-Face literally has nothing to do with anything in the plot, but serves as the transition from the second to third act and then kinda just hovers there, present the rest of the film. I'm not saying it's a bad scene. It works, and is effective. But then with the theming, you can get into the thing that kinda always happens in Miyazaki films (as a result of his more off-the-cuff development process): is Spirited Away about greed and how it spreads? You say she wanted to help her parents "for selfish reasons," but the film isn't really about *her* greed. It's about her fear and overcoming it. It's her parents that are shown to be greedy; not her. That all ties into the beginning, where she is clearly have a lot of feelings about moving to a new location. If her arch is the central premise of the film, and it is, then the addition of criticisms of greed are sort of just a side-dish. (Or, "fat," if you will.)

Miyazaki movies centered on children are almost always ultimately *about* the experience of being a child and going through something. Spirited Away is not that different from My Neighbor Totoro in that way. All the additional themes are *extra.* But they are not *necessary* to the central plot and the central character arch.


Ha! That's so not what Miyazaki does.


It's literally half of his body of work. He often interrupts his own plot or pacing just to add an additional theme. He doesn't *always* do it that way, but it's certainly not rare that he does this. For my money, the final twenty minutes of Mononoke is some of the most boring stuff Miyazaki has ever put to screen from a writing perspective. (He makes up for it by, surprise surprise, making really engaging visual imagery because he understands it's a visual medium and that can be enough.)


It's the same stuff Spielberg used to do


Spielberg, the guy who gave us Close Encounters of the Third Kind? Spielberg, who gave us Jaws, a movie in which people really do only remember like, 15 minutes of the movie because the rest is pretty slow and "boring"? A lot of the stuff Spielberg "used to do" is more akin to Ridley Scott than Hayao Miyazaki, to be honest.


I actually disliked My Neighbor Totoro


Jeez. How do you dislike My Neighbor Totoro, but like Kiki's Delivery Service? They're nearly identical in terms of scale, stakes, action, and pacing.

But also, I think this is pretty telling, and one of the saddest things I think I've ever seen you post.

Posted July 12th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

I just got my internet hooked up in my new place, so I will finally be able to address this thread, possibly after work tonight. This is going to take a while.

Posted July 12th by Cruinn-Annuin
Edit Filter Quote Report

That's not what I asked. I asked for specific examples of scenes that aren't relevant or helpful, and why you think they're not relevant or helpful.

The "relevance" and "helpfulness" is not just meant to be applied to an entire scene, but moment to moment. Like I said, the pacing is just too slow. The entire scene is relevant, it just doesn't hold enough interest to justify its length. So after a while, it stops being relevant and helpful and just starts getting annoying.

But SOH is just saying that he felt it was slow, and noted what his personal tastes are as a reason for him feeling that way. That's a bit of a different approach to yours, which is to shit on the entire movie and willfully ignore what the people who like it are saying about it.

Perhaps there's a reason I, S.O.H, and millions of other people find it boring. I like diving into those reasons, and figuring out a way we can all win.

A breather from an action beat that doesn't really add anything to the plot or character that we hadn't already seen by that point in the film. It's an unnecessary moment stemming off of an unnecessary moment, that neither makes the film "bad" or "worse" because Miyazaki understands that movies are experiences and visual media and can actually just have stuff that looks cool for the sake of looking cool (see: Howl's Moving Castle, which almost only exists as stuff looking cool because it's a movie and is visual media.)

Miyazaki himself explained it in an interview:

"We have a word for that in Japanese," he said. "It's called ma. Emptiness. It's there intentionally."

Is that like the "pillow words" that separate phrases in Japanese poetry?

"I don't think it's like the pillow word." He clapped his hands three or four times. "The time in between my clapping is ma. If you just have non-stop action with no breathing space at all, it's just busyness, But if you take a moment, then the tension building in the film can grow into a wider dimension. If you just have constant tension at 80 degrees all the time you just get numb."


And just as you can't have busyness all the time, you can't have emptiness all the time, either.

No-Face reinforces ideas that we'd already seen established in the film at this point. No-Face is effective, but that entire scene, particularly turning it into an action sequence, isn't necessary. It's also a really strange way to transition to the final act of the film, given No-Face literally has nothing to do with anything in the plot, but serves as the transition from the second to third act and then kinda just hovers there, present the rest of the film.

If her arch is the central premise of the film, and it is, then the addition of criticisms of greed are sort of just a side-dish. (Or, "fat," if you will.)

Um, No Face is a pretty big part of Spirited Away. He's a major character. His actions and Chihiro's are deeply entwined, despite not having much dialog between them. In general Spirited Away is about growing up, but when you look at greed and selfishness, you start to uncover greater developments. Part of growing up means caring less about yourself and caring more about others. Chihiro and No Face have the same journey, but this greed and selfishness manifests in different ways: Chihiro gets pouty and whiny while No-Face gets gluttonous and morbid.

Miyazaki movies centered on children are almost always ultimately *about* the experience of being a child and going through something. Spirited Away is not that different from My Neighbor Totoro in that way. All the additional themes are *extra.* But they are not *necessary* to the central plot and the central character arch.

LOL, only his movies about children have the main characters going through something? Porco Rosso goes through something.

Spielberg, the guy who gave us Close Encounters of the Third Kind? Spielberg, who gave us Jaws, a movie in which people really do only remember like, 15 minutes of the movie because the rest is pretty slow and "boring"? A lot of the stuff Spielberg "used to do" is more akin to Ridley Scott than Hayao Miyazaki, to be honest.

In E.T there's a scene where E.T. was being quarantined in the boy's house and suffered some kind of medical/detachment trauma, and we get 15 minutes to let the scene unfold, looking at the perspectives of all the different characters, major and minor. Miyazaki does similar things.

Jeez. How do you dislike My Neighbor Totoro, but like Kiki's Delivery Service? They're nearly identical in terms of scale, stakes, action, and pacing.

You're obviously trolling right now.

Posted July 12th by mariomguy
Edit Filter Quote Report

Uh, you can totally have that atmosphere in shorter time


In the very quote that you respond to, I said:

Sure, it could be shorter


I never argued that you can't have that atmosphere with different pacing. Please do not misconstrue what I clearly say in order to set up the appearance of your argument being reasonable.

Blade Runner might not actually be long, but it FEELS long


...and I like that. It feels substantial to me. It feels veritable to me.

Spirited Away and The Godfather are actually longer but end up feeling like much more fulfilling and satisfying movies overall.


I disagree.

Atmosphere in Blade Runner is great, but even noir-esque movies can still do more than just a boring, gloomy, long-drawn-out atmosphere all the time.


Blade Runner does more than atmosphere. Your complete (and possibly willful) ignorance regarding any of the higher themes in Blade Runner does not qualify you to state that it's a boring movie.

If you can maintain that atmosphere throughout a story, with even bright and colorful scenes like Casino Royale, that speaks more to mastery than Blade Runner.


So, Casino Royale has bright and colorful scenes, so it's better than Blade Runner?

And I'm not knocking Kubrick, Blade Runner is the epitome of atmosphere. But that alone cannot carry a movie.


Nor does it attempt to in Blade Runner. You having no idea about or care for the substance of the movie doesn't mean it's just atmosphere.

I think of Mononoke as Nausicaa 2.0, so Nausicaa is definitely a bit more wearisome, but that only makes it FEEL more epic. You are living in this astonishingly beautiful apocalyptic world, watching the last spot of hope vanish from the Earth. But it's a real story with twists and turns and loads of atmosphere. Give Nausicaa another watch and compare it to Blade Runner. Both do atmosphere great justice, but I feel Nausicaa has a more engaging story.


I will check out Nausicaa (for the first time, not "another watch" - are you even reading what I'm saying?), but I severely doubt that I will like it more than Blade Runner.

Mononoke is a bit more mature and harder-hitting with the themes, bigger and more epic with the battles, but also less other-worldly. Your first watch may not be great and I will say it is a very tough first watch, but unlike other movies it grows on you over time.


Unlike other movies? What are you talking about?

I'm only using Nausicaa as an example of another movie with an atmosphere just as beautiful that also offers a stronger, more engaging story. In my eyes, Nausicaa and Mononoke actually accomplished what Blade Runner aspired to.


A post-apoc anime and a historical fantasy anime accomplished what a sci-fi-noir Western live-action film aspired to do?

You admitted that to S.O.H, not me :3


You gleefully abandon any sense of argumentative virtue or discernment in favor of grabbing any little concession from the people you're arguing against, so much so that you take a quote from someone responding to someone else's actually reasonably-phrased personal distaste with the movie and use it as an admission in favor of your own completely out of line attempts at objective criticism. However, when people make perfectly-reasoned arguments or even directly disprove things you say, you take every chance to ignore, circumvent or even double down.

You argue like a child with a good grasp of grammar and rhetoric, but also retaining all of the egotistical ruthlessness and stubbornness that is usually grown out of by the point that you command those skills.

I can't just point to one scene and be like "yeah, take it out," and suddenly it's a masterpiece. There are some very good scenes, but so much of the movie is just TOO slow you lose your audience before you get to the good parts.


Not everything is made for the average moviegoer with a three-minute attention span. I don't think that it's wrong to have those films also be made for those people. However, that being an applicable audience (or even the largest audience for films) does not mean that what Blade Runner does is "wrong".

It's the same thing with progressive music. I listen to bands that write tracks that are ten minutes, twenty minutes, sometimes even an hour long. Are they "wrong" because a lot of people aren't going to spend the time to listen to all of that? No. If you just want to be entertained, that's fine. Listen to three-minute radio tracks. But why should I not be able to make or listen to epic tracks that reward a greater ability to pay attention because someone else doesn't like it?

Not everything is Generic Consumer Product™.

Perhaps there's a reason I, S.O.H, and millions of other people find it boring. I like diving into those reasons, and figuring out a way we can all win.


There are definitely reasons that you all find it personally distasteful. Once again, you completely fail to understand that a large part of the problem that we are having here is coming from you.

I'm not arguing with S.O.H. Can you figure out why that is? Here, I'll clearly say it: S.O.H. didn't say that the movie was wrong. He said that he didn't like it.

LOL, only his movies about children have the main characters going through something?


How do you live with yourself? How do you carry out a normal conversation with anyone? The amount of blatant misconstruing that you employ as if it were second nature is disturbing. And yet...

You're obviously trolling right now.


...you accuse other people of trolling when they merely say something that you don't agree with.



So, you:

  • ignore and misconstrue statements
  • state your opinion like it's natural law
  • make ridiculous statements about what objectively makes something better
  • hype up your favorite things for pointless and flawed comparisons to what other people like
  • snatch every little score that you can, even if it's not relevant or even directed at you
  • can't make specific concrete criticisms, instead choosing to make broad, sweeping cuts
  • accuse other people of trolling when they disagree with you

    I don't think you're a troll (the idea has been floated a couple of times before, but you're too real and consistent for that to make sense), but you are still an incredibly irrational and ignorant poster.

  • Edited July 13th by Cruinn-Annuin
    Edit Filter Quote Report

    ...and I like that. It feels substantial to me. It feels veritable to me.

    Mmm... I can do it for a while, but not the entire length of the movie.

    I disagree.

    Hm. You don't think Spirited Away or The Godfather was more satisfying? These are, like, pillars.

    Blade Runner does more than atmosphere. Your complete (and possibly willful) ignorance regarding any of the higher themes in Blade Runner does not qualify you to state that it's a boring movie.

    I understand the themes, but themes don't make a movie, execution does. A great concept done poorly doesn't matter: all of our breath will be spent on the execution. I already agree the themes are beautiful.

    So, Casino Royale has bright and colorful scenes, so it's better than Blade Runner?

    I'm saying Blade Runner is dreary and does not command the screen the same way other movies do. There are some excellent scenes, but they're spaced very far apart.

    I will check out Nausicaa (for the first time, not "another watch" - are you even reading what I'm saying?), but I severely doubt that I will like it more than Blade Runner.

    Mmm... Even though Nausicaa is a great first watch, you should know it's NOT another Disney cartoon. Even in the realm of anime it's kind of special. Don't go into it with preconceived expectations on what it should be, you'll enjoy it a lot more. No matter what kind of movie you think it is going in, you're going to find out that it's not. But the atmosphere is incredible.

    A post-apoc anime and a historical fantasy anime accomplished what a sci-fi-noir Western live-action film aspired to do?

    Just focusing on execution of atmosphere, here. Yes, Miyazaki is a master.

    You gleefully abandon any sense of argumentative virtue or discernment in favor of grabbing any little concession from the people you're arguing against, so much so that you take a quote from someone responding to someone else's actually reasonably-phrased personal distaste with the movie and use it as an admission in favor of your own completely out of line attempts at objective criticism.

    OK... if I said the atmosphere was great and it's a great movie and nothing can be done to improve it, I'd be lying. There's something that can be done to improve, and I'm trying to make the case that this is it. Making the film less even keeled and monochromatic and more dynamic in its approach to atmosphere and emotions, it wouldn't feel so long and boring. One problem is the scenes that steal the show won't shine as brightly, but that's because the rest of the movie as a whole will feel more watchable.

    The fact that S.O.H. had a personal opinion of the movie in line with my own is only proof that there are flaws, many people think it's long and boring. An ideal movie should be long and boring. I'm trying to figure out what would result in the best of both worlds, and I think films like Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke achieved that.

    Not everything is Generic Consumer Product™.

    Yeah, I agree, some movies cater specifically to audiences that appreciate that kind of thing, like thrillers and horror movies. But if there's a way to keep the best of what a movie like Blade Runner does right and change some of the critical aspects so more people will be able to appreciate the work as a whole, that's a plus in my book. That's how I critique movies: what did you focus on, what did you do well, what did you lose in the process? Then I try to figure out what can be done to keep the good, find the lost, and get rid of the bad.

    How do you live with yourself?

    First off, I don't think of Miyazaki's movies as "children go through something, all the themes are extra." You basically said that. The themes do develop and become involved with the story, they are not "extra." Miyazaki's movies are NOT an episode of Sesame Street "The lesson I learned today is..." It's just life, and there are many lessons that can be learned from it. Rather than dictate themes, he chooses to portray life, and let people figure out the rest. But some things like greed and selfishness in Spirited Away cannot be ignored: those are things that permeate EVERY major character.

    ignore and misconstrue statements

    No I don't.

    state your opinion like it's natural law
    make ridiculous statements about what objectively makes something better

    I'm trying to find objective truth with things people usually associate with "opinion." Whether or not I like a movie is an opinion. But the things that can be reworked into something else and have a different result are fact. If Blade Runner did not spend so much time stretching out scenes, more story could be told in less time. Being more careful with pacing would shorten the time for unnecessary parts and hopefully not lose the atmosphere where it counts. Usually I don't just "like/dislike" a movie: there are pieces and aspects I like in every movie. But by virtue of doing one thing, you are choosing to ignore the other. That's why perfection is not possible or absolute. But I think my reworking of Blade Runner could be better appreciated by more people and make the film stronger overall.

    hype up your favorite things for pointless and flawed comparisons to what other people like

    Mmm... I don't really like Princess Mononoke. I just used it as an example of a movie that has great atmosphere and feels more involved than Blade Runner. Nausicaa is great, but not in the sense that I can just pop it in and watch it anytime. It's not pointless if there's a point.

    can't make specific concrete criticisms, instead choosing to make broad, sweeping cuts

    All my criticism are concrete, but they are about design and intention. Same reason I can't just "fix" Blade Runner by removing one scene, some movies are made with a certain ideology that chooses to focus on certain things and ignore others. By shifting that balance, you're able to fix a lot more problems than just focusing on specific scenes. My Little Pony's first few episodes didn't have a natural flow. Problems felt artificially created for the sake of the story, rather than the story feeling born from the characters. Later episodes fixed this rather quickly and it became a colossal hit. And when you get the most natural born episodes with a mature story, it's just magic.

    accuse other people of trolling when they disagree with you

    Perhaps because you don't know why my criticism is the way it is. I am not a horror aficionado, I REALLY dislike thrillers, and Prog Rock is kind of tough to listen to. But I feel I do know the reasons why some people might not like certain movies, and I try to offer solutions that would make them more acceptable. I personally loved The Godfather, but a lot of people hate its length. I personally wouldn't want to make the movie shorter, but it can be done.

    I don't think you're a troll (the idea has been floated a couple of times before, but you're too real and consistent for that to make sense), but you are still an incredibly irrational and ignorant poster.

    Jesus, what a compliment.

    Posted July 14th by mariomguy
    Edit Filter Quote Report

    Hm. You don't think Spirited Away or The Godfather was more satisfying? These are, like, pillars.


    They can be pillars and still be not as satisfying to me.

    I understand the themes, but themes don't make a movie, execution does. A great concept done poorly doesn't matter


    If it was done poorly, sure. Blade Runner isn't.

    I already agree the themes are beautiful.


    You have not already agreed that. The only theme you've hinted at is the theme of memory/identity represented concretely by the unicorn symbology. You then went on to talk at great length about other films and repeatedly say that Blade Runner's strength is in its atmosphere, saying nothing about the themes.

    I'm saying Blade Runner is dreary


    Being dark doesn't make it wrong.

    and does not command the screen the same way other movies do.


    By your own admission, there are interesting visuals "occasionally". Perhaps if you were more able to understand characters, you would also pick up on literally any of the character drama represented in the many powerful character shots. Perhaps if you cared about sci-fi at all, you would also pick up on the massive amount of setting information (and questions) that the film gives you in every scene.

    If I felt like your position were more substantial and warranting of a detailed response, I would literally watch the movie again and compile an album of all of the print-worthy shots from the film. Here is one of the places where I would post them, much in the spirit in which we used to post the TLoU ten out of ten infographic.

    Just focusing on execution of atmosphere, here. Yes, Miyazaki is a master.


    Miyazaki can be a master. This doesn't mean anything in the context of your argument.

    OK... if I said the atmosphere was great and it's a great movie and nothing can be done to improve it, I'd be lying.


    No-one is saying that or asking you to say that. You're setting up another false argument to have with no-one.

    Making the film less even keeled and monochromatic and more dynamic in its approach to atmosphere and emotions, it wouldn't feel so long and boring.


    Some people feel that it is long and boring. Those people don't have to watch the movie.

    The fact that S.O.H. had a personal opinion of the movie in line with my own is only proof that there are flaws


    No, it isn't. Something doesn't have to be flawed just because you don't like it.

    But if there's a way to keep the best of what a movie like Blade Runner does right and change some of the critical aspects so more people will be able to appreciate the work as a whole, that's a plus in my book. That's how I critique movies: what did you focus on, what did you do well, what did you lose in the process? Then I try to figure out what can be done to keep the good, find the lost, and get rid of the bad.


    You attempts to sound reasonable run headfirst into a brick wall because you still do not admit the slightest bit with your actual argumentation that it's OK for other people to have a different opinion than yours. You say on the surface that it's OK, then you attempt to construct an argument with the conclusion that it's not a matter of opinion and that the subject is flawed on an objective level. This rhetoric ("I just want to make things better") is not criticism; it's cleverly hidden (or narcissistically ignored) condescension and debasement.

    First off, I don't think of Miyazaki's movies as "children go through something, all the themes are extra." You basically said that


    I literally did not. Pay attention and actually read people's responses.

    No I don't.


    You do so with such gleeful abandon that it's one of the major themes of the number of threads featuring you that I have archived for later perusal. Did you forget that I have been analyzing every major argument you've been in for years? You've put your foot in so many other people's mouths that I think I couldn't swing a dead cat in GameTalk without hitting someone that would testify that you have twisted their words somehow.

    In addition, this response of yours immediately follows up the response where you said that I said something that not only I didn't say, but the actual person you should have responded to also didn't say.

    I'm trying to find objective truth with things people usually associate with "opinion."


    One of the most honest things you've ever said.

    But I think my reworking of Blade Runner could be better appreciated by more people and make the film stronger overall.


    Some people would like it and some people would dislike it. Your "stronger overall" comment means nothing and is just a phrase you slipped in there to make yourself sound good. The scenes actually having time to breathe and the shots actually having time to build tension doesn't make the film weaker.

    Mmm... I don't really like Princess Mononoke. I just used it as an example of a movie that has great atmosphere and feels more involved than Blade Runner


    You don't "like" Princess Mononoke, you just think it's objectively superior and that this film that you dislike (which you do, you really do, regardless of your rhetorical quibbling) would be better if it were more like Princess Mononoke. This is another example of you throwing a disingenuous moderate statement on top of a positively rabid argument in order to make yourself sound more reasonable than you actual argue.

    "There's not a pit in the floor. See, I put a rug over it. Feel free to walk across."

    Same reason I can't just "fix" Blade Runner by removing one scene, some movies are made with a certain ideology that chooses to focus on certain things and ignore others


    Something having an identity isn't a problem, even if that means that 99% of the world doesn't like it. The products that aren't made with an actual idea of what they definitively are are mass media garbage. Mass media garbage can be written, acted, shot and edited immaculately (and have rave reviews) and still be garbage.

    "It's not our responsibility to judge an enemy."
    - Big Boss

    My Little Pony


    May Crom have mercy on your soul for bringing that subject into this thread.

    But I feel I do know the reasons why some people might not like certain movies, and I try to offer solutions that would make them more acceptable.


    If you actually framed it as you offering ideas to make things more accessible (not "acceptable", mind you, because you're still doing your best to ignore the fact that there are a lot of people that have very well-formulated positive opinions about Blade Runner), that would be cool.

    Posted July 18th by Cruinn-Annuin
    Edit Filter Quote Report

    You have not already agreed that. The only theme you've hinted at is the theme of memory/identity represented concretely by the unicorn symbology. You then went on to talk at great length about other films and repeatedly say that Blade Runner's strength is in its atmosphere, saying nothing about the themes.

    I care more about execution than concept. And Blade Runner's execution leaves it with very long bouts of not much going on.

    By your own admission, there are interesting visuals "occasionally". Perhaps if you were more able to understand characters, you would also pick up on literally any of the character drama represented in the many powerful character shots.

    Just because I and many, many others don't like the execution doesn't mean I lack an understanding of the characters. The replicant/android concept was handled well, and so was the tears in rain speech bringing it all together. There were some interesting moments, but the movie as a whole did not beckon me. I always take something a film does well with me when I stop watching it, and from this movie I took the atmosphere.

    No-one is saying that or asking you to say that. You're setting up another false argument to have with no-one.

    Well, what are you doing right now? You're basically telling me to shut up, I should love the movie for being long, and if I cared more the length wouldn't matter, but that's the movie's job to make me care. My job is to enjoy it. And for what it's worth, Blade Runner wasn't that enjoyable. And neither is this thread.

    Face it: there are things that can be done to improve Blade Runner, and I'm telling you what they are. If you don't want to take it, fine. But that means there will be fewer people who can truly enjoy it.

    Some people would like it and some people would dislike it. Your "stronger overall" comment means nothing and is just a phrase you slipped in there to make yourself sound good. The scenes actually having time to breathe and the shots actually having time to build tension doesn't make the film weaker.

    I wasn't the only one who called the movie boring. Stop making it sound like Blade Runner is perfect. We've been over this.

    You don't "like" Princess Mononoke, you just think it's objectively superior and that this film that you dislike (which you do, you really do, regardless of your rhetorical quibbling) would be better if it were more like Princess Mononoke. This is another example of you throwing a disingenuous moderate statement on top of a positively rabid argument in order to make yourself sound more reasonable than you actual argue.

    "There's not a pit in the floor. See, I put a rug over it. Feel free to walk across."

    It's not that I "dislike" Princess Mononoke, it's just a tough film to get into. The score is very subversive, it's very long (actually long), and it frequently eschews excitement, fun, and easygoing ANYTHING for drama and symbolism throughout. Princess Mononoke is not a perfect movie, but it offers something Blade Runner can learn from, and that's a way to have a beautiful atmosphere with sharp teeth in the plot. I'd argue Nausicaa does an even better job.

    Maybe I actually am more reasonable than you? After all, it's perfectly OK for S.O.H. to say he personally doesn't like the boring movie, but because I'm actually trying to suggest improvements to the movie and you like it just the way it is you have a problem with me.

    Something having an identity isn't a problem, even if that means that 99% of the world doesn't like it.

    Oh boy.

    The products that aren't made with an actual idea of what they definitively are are mass media garbage. Mass media garbage can be written, acted, shot and edited immaculately (and have rave reviews) and still be garbage.

    If you think Miyazaki is mass media garbage, I'm done forever. You CAN make great movies and stories and execute them well AND people can love them. You CAN have it all. You just have to do it well. I want to focus on that: what makes people love the things they love in movies? What do you have to do to make that happen? I don't give myself limits, either: if a particular concept or aspect of one film handled it better, I'll mention it. Doesn't matter if it came from My Little Pony, Miyazaki, classic cinema, Disney, or some weird French film, if it's a worthy example I'm using it.

    May Crom have mercy on your soul for bringing that subject into this thread.

    So, you hate it when I criticize something everyone says about Blade Runner, and I've seen that movie, but you're perfectly OK criticizing the stuff I like when I have a good reason for bringing it up?

    If you actually framed it as you offering ideas to make things more accessible (not "acceptable", mind you, because you're still doing your best to ignore the fact that there are a lot of people that have very well-formulated positive opinions about Blade Runner), that would be cool.

    So far, even the people who like it think it's long. Everyone does. You're the only one standing in the way of making this movie more enjoyable for everyone.

    Posted July 19th by mariomguy
    Edit Filter Quote Report
    Load next page Load rest of pages
    Reply to: @mariomguy: Blade Runner: Final Cut / Blade Runner 2049
    Enter your message here

    Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
    GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
    You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett