As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The [Movies] Thread: Pre-Summer Blockbuster Blockbuster Season

1707173757698

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    I'm not sure what a B&W version of Fury Road would bring to the table. The deep saturations of that film were gorgeous

    It's not just Black and White, they still play with saturations.

  • DeadfallDeadfall I don't think you realize just how rich he is. In fact, I should put on a monocle.Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    I still like the colored version better but Black and Chrome is gorgeous. The saturation and brightness are just cranked to the nines.

    Every shot of Furiosa in her head paint is gorgeous, explosions are beautiful and shots of characters with a stark horizon behind them are awesome.

    Like two scenes that come to mind are the opening shot with Max on the ledge and Furiosa walking through the desert. Just glaringly silver.

    Deadfall on
    7ivi73p71dgy.png
    xbl - HowYouGetAnts
    steam - WeAreAllGeth
  • TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    Maybe I'm not seeing it in my daily stuff but it seems like the Power Rangers, which comes out next week, is being quietly pushed out there compared to the braggadocio Lionsgate was doing a year ago, talking about a 7 part film franchise. Which makes me wonder if it's DOA, since the trailer didn't really look good.

    I've seen more ads and trailers for that Life movie instead.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I have seen a shit ton of ads for it.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • TenzytileTenzytile Registered User regular
    I'm still pissed about Power Rangers. Large portions of that movie were shot in my neighborhood. The lights at night were one thing. Erecting an impressive Krispy Kreme sign and giving us such false hope was unforgivable.

  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    The philosophical aspects of GITS aren't particularly complex, but it was refreshing to see characters take a look around at the setting of their story and try to make sense of it, like "Hey, we all live in a world where our minds can be moved from one cyborg body to another, what does that mean in terms of identity and consciousness?" The implications of the Major's decision at the end of the film were also pretty radical in 1995. I would imagine that the original film had a significant influence on transhumanist thought and interest in transhumanism.

    It's still pretty rare in western film or games to have that kind of transhumanism

    where someone's entire identity can be hacked, where they might not have ever been a real person, and even worse they'd never know for sure

    you see it in books all the time, the most recent culture book I read was all about a universe where the self is an infinitely reproducible and altogether not that special thing

    People who read a lot of books will always look at any movie attempting philosophy and go "oh how simplistic", but for most people they probably haven't thought about it

    GitS approaches sci-fi transhumanism from a perspective of eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism. While Christian philosophy argued for the existence of a (at least mostly) unchanging soul, Buddhist philosophers argued that there is no permanence of identity at all. The new live-action GitS's trailers keep talking about the Major discovering "who she really is", which is entirely in opposition to the entire argument of the original GitS and the philosophy upon which it is based.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    Kana wrote: »
    The philosophical aspects of GITS aren't particularly complex, but it was refreshing to see characters take a look around at the setting of their story and try to make sense of it, like "Hey, we all live in a world where our minds can be moved from one cyborg body to another, what does that mean in terms of identity and consciousness?" The implications of the Major's decision at the end of the film were also pretty radical in 1995. I would imagine that the original film had a significant influence on transhumanist thought and interest in transhumanism.

    It's still pretty rare in western film or games to have that kind of transhumanism

    where someone's entire identity can be hacked, where they might not have ever been a real person, and even worse they'd never know for sure

    you see it in books all the time, the most recent culture book I read was all about a universe where the self is an infinitely reproducible and altogether not that special thing

    People who read a lot of books will always look at any movie attempting philosophy and go "oh how simplistic", but for most people they probably haven't thought about it

    GitS approaches sci-fi transhumanism from a perspective of eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism. While Christian philosophy argued for the existence of a (at least mostly) unchanging soul, Buddhist philosophers argued that there is no permanence of identity at all. The new live-action GitS's trailers keep talking about the Major discovering "who she really is", which is entirely in opposition to the entire argument of the original GitS and the philosophy upon which it is based.
    So that means the Ghost in the Shell franchise itself doesn't have permanence of identity or an unchanging soul...

  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    cursedking wrote: »
    The problem with any soft reboot of The Matrix is that the ending of the third movie reveals, intentionally or not, that none of them ever left the Matrix at all. Unless they address that massive plot hole, I can't take anything short of a full reboot seriously... and a full reboot that tries to replicate the first movie and actors/characters will almost certainly fail.

    that's not what it revealed. It revealed that humans escaping the matrix was part of their plan and had happened in cycles. Neo breaks that cycle and people are allowed to leave if they want and there is a tenuous peace between the machines and humanity.

    No, it doesn't, not at all.
    In the "real" world, Neo is blinded and his jack is fried. Then, to save the day, he starts magically seeing Matrix code. There are only two explanations for this: 1. He is still in the Matrix and the "real" world is just another layer, designed to satisfy people who feel like they need to follow the white rabbit, or 2. It is actual magic and nothing they spent three movies building up to means anything.

    1. is an interesting idea, but a soft reboot would need to sell that shit hard not to lose people. 2. is just bullshit.
    I'm much more likely to take a Doylist approach and say "no, it's not another layer, it's just a mistake and/or the story they wanted to tell, whether or not it makes sense by the cold light of day."
    If you want to call that "bullshit", fine. I just shrug and note that no one - not you, not me, and not the Wachowskis - is perfect. If perfection is what you seek, if that's your standard, then you're going to be as disappointed as Smith... or Clu.

    I don't demand perfection, but I do reserve the right to point out things that don't make sense, and to come up with a fanwank that is better than what was actually presented. The Matrix sequels weren't very good; I'm a little baffled that anyone feels the need to go to bat for their silly-ass plot.

    It's not that we are "defending" the plot. It's that your argument that your interpretation is infailably correct to the point of obstinacy is a little silly. I enjoyed your theory, and I do believe that reader interpretation is one of the most valid forms of literary criticism, but that's just ,like, your opinion, man.

    The authors aren't dead. They put out hours of commentary about their intention. They made an mmo about what happens after! Clearly the intention is that neos real world abilities stem from his disruption of the path of the one. I also don't see his head jack getting disabled in the movie but it's been a while since I've seen it.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    The philosophical aspects of GITS aren't particularly complex, but it was refreshing to see characters take a look around at the setting of their story and try to make sense of it, like "Hey, we all live in a world where our minds can be moved from one cyborg body to another, what does that mean in terms of identity and consciousness?" The implications of the Major's decision at the end of the film were also pretty radical in 1995. I would imagine that the original film had a significant influence on transhumanist thought and interest in transhumanism.

    It's still pretty rare in western film or games to have that kind of transhumanism

    where someone's entire identity can be hacked, where they might not have ever been a real person, and even worse they'd never know for sure

    you see it in books all the time, the most recent culture book I read was all about a universe where the self is an infinitely reproducible and altogether not that special thing

    People who read a lot of books will always look at any movie attempting philosophy and go "oh how simplistic", but for most people they probably haven't thought about it

    I'm already certain the GiTS movie won't be doing things like the anime. It's going to be westernized.

    But I just can't see the whole story being laid out in the trailers. I feel like there's probably something more stuffed in there.

    Like with anything else, it's all in the execution.

    True and the more I learn about the movie it reads like a predictable, less intelligent Americanised sterile beautiful looking train wreck.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    The philosophical aspects of GITS aren't particularly complex, but it was refreshing to see characters take a look around at the setting of their story and try to make sense of it, like "Hey, we all live in a world where our minds can be moved from one cyborg body to another, what does that mean in terms of identity and consciousness?" The implications of the Major's decision at the end of the film were also pretty radical in 1995. I would imagine that the original film had a significant influence on transhumanist thought and interest in transhumanism.

    It's still pretty rare in western film or games to have that kind of transhumanism

    where someone's entire identity can be hacked, where they might not have ever been a real person, and even worse they'd never know for sure

    you see it in books all the time, the most recent culture book I read was all about a universe where the self is an infinitely reproducible and altogether not that special thing

    People who read a lot of books will always look at any movie attempting philosophy and go "oh how simplistic", but for most people they probably haven't thought about it

    GitS approaches sci-fi transhumanism from a perspective of eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism. While Christian philosophy argued for the existence of a (at least mostly) unchanging soul, Buddhist philosophers argued that there is no permanence of identity at all. The new live-action GitS's trailers keep talking about the Major discovering "who she really is", which is entirely in opposition to the entire argument of the original GitS and the philosophy upon which it is based.
    So that means the Ghost in the Shell franchise itself doesn't have permanence of identity or an unchanging soul...

    not really, you got to understand the Buddhist/Shinto duality to japan. Ghost in the Shell is sort of more an animustic god that enhabits physical/technogical/mental spaces with a high level of anime fandom.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    The philosophical aspects of GITS aren't particularly complex, but it was refreshing to see characters take a look around at the setting of their story and try to make sense of it, like "Hey, we all live in a world where our minds can be moved from one cyborg body to another, what does that mean in terms of identity and consciousness?" The implications of the Major's decision at the end of the film were also pretty radical in 1995. I would imagine that the original film had a significant influence on transhumanist thought and interest in transhumanism.

    It's still pretty rare in western film or games to have that kind of transhumanism

    where someone's entire identity can be hacked, where they might not have ever been a real person, and even worse they'd never know for sure

    you see it in books all the time, the most recent culture book I read was all about a universe where the self is an infinitely reproducible and altogether not that special thing

    People who read a lot of books will always look at any movie attempting philosophy and go "oh how simplistic", but for most people they probably haven't thought about it

    GitS approaches sci-fi transhumanism from a perspective of eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism. While Christian philosophy argued for the existence of a (at least mostly) unchanging soul, Buddhist philosophers argued that there is no permanence of identity at all. The new live-action GitS's trailers keep talking about the Major discovering "who she really is", which is entirely in opposition to the entire argument of the original GitS and the philosophy upon which it is based.
    So that means the Ghost in the Shell franchise itself doesn't have permanence of identity or an unchanging soul...

    Very funny, wandering. Lol

  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Again, I already pointed out where the movie states he has the ability to enter the Matrix without a hardline. It's a thing that literally happens in the movie.
    You asked where it's stated he can do this. I gave you where it's shown.

    The how is not relevant to that and is not answered within the movie anyway. I can't tell you how. But he does it. It is a thing that happens in the movie.
    Right. If you ignore the context of what I was asking, you are correct.

    The "how" is, in fact, relevant if you're me, or any number of other people who want movies to have internal consistency. First movie: Only hard port connections. Third movie: Magic wi-fi! Since the first movie is the only one that is hailed as an all-time hall of fame flick, I'm inclined to lean towards that one for telling me how the world works, especially because it does such a great job of it.

    Remember that neo does have a special set of code within him. The architect tells him so at the source. The matrix isn't hard sci-fi as it's never interested in explaining how things work. How can they take things from the construct to the matrix? They never show the full cycle of jacking in either. They just appear in the new world but where and why?

    So maybe all humans do have the ability to wirelessly jack. Maybe the code of the one just turns the setting to on.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Again, I already pointed out where the movie states he has the ability to enter the Matrix without a hardline. It's a thing that literally happens in the movie.
    You asked where it's stated he can do this. I gave you where it's shown.

    The how is not relevant to that and is not answered within the movie anyway. I can't tell you how. But he does it. It is a thing that happens in the movie.
    Right. If you ignore the context of what I was asking, you are correct.

    The "how" is, in fact, relevant if you're me, or any number of other people who want movies to have internal consistency. First movie: Only hard port connections. Third movie: Magic wi-fi! Since the first movie is the only one that is hailed as an all-time hall of fame flick, I'm inclined to lean towards that one for telling me how the world works, especially because it does such a great job of it.

    Remember that neo does have a special set of code within him. The architect tells him so at the source. The matrix isn't hard sci-fi as it's never interested in explaining how things work. How can they take things from the construct to the matrix? They never show the full cycle of jacking in either. They just appear in the new world but where and why?

    So maybe all humans do have the ability to wirelessly jack. Maybe the code of the one just turns the setting to on.

    so... you know that thing where all the Neos look the same? throughout countless reboots?

    is there any particular reason to believe Neo was a normal human, and not something pretty much built from the ground up.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • cj iwakuracj iwakura The Rhythm Regent Bears The Name FreedomRegistered User regular
    1. The Nice Guys was amazing, especially the sheer levels of casual background chaos. (That fall from the window during the elevator scene was a thing of beauty.)
    2. I would watch the hell out of a sequel staring the Ryan Gosling character's daughter; tentatively titled The Nice Girls. They go around cleaning up all the mess that Gosling and Crowe create.

    wVEsyIc.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2017
    The metaphor in the Matrix is that Neo is Jesus, so complaining that he's not like the other humans is sort of missing the point. He's part of a design by a higher power, the divine in human form sent to save the other humans through his divinity and stuff. Of course he has weird unexplained miraculous powers that the others don't share, it's all part of being The One (true lord and savior).

    Astaereth on
    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Again, I already pointed out where the movie states he has the ability to enter the Matrix without a hardline. It's a thing that literally happens in the movie.
    You asked where it's stated he can do this. I gave you where it's shown.

    The how is not relevant to that and is not answered within the movie anyway. I can't tell you how. But he does it. It is a thing that happens in the movie.
    Right. If you ignore the context of what I was asking, you are correct.

    The "how" is, in fact, relevant if you're me, or any number of other people who want movies to have internal consistency. First movie: Only hard port connections. Third movie: Magic wi-fi! Since the first movie is the only one that is hailed as an all-time hall of fame flick, I'm inclined to lean towards that one for telling me how the world works, especially because it does such a great job of it.

    Remember that neo does have a special set of code within him. The architect tells him so at the source. The matrix isn't hard sci-fi as it's never interested in explaining how things work. How can they take things from the construct to the matrix? They never show the full cycle of jacking in either. They just appear in the new world but where and why?

    So maybe all humans do have the ability to wirelessly jack. Maybe the code of the one just turns the setting to on.

    so... you know that thing where all the Neos look the same? throughout countless reboots?

    is there any particular reason to believe Neo was a normal human, and not something pretty much built from the ground up.

    Huh? Are you talking about the screens when he's talking to the Architect? Those aren't previous Ones. There's too many for one thing.

    I think they simply represent possible reactions to what he's being told and also various possible reactions and emotions going on inside Neo's head.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    The metaphor in the Matrix is that Neo is Jesus, so complaining that he's not like the other humans is sort of missing the point. He's part of a design by a higher power, the divine in human form sent to save the other humans through his divinity and stuff. Of course he has weird unexplained miraculous powers that the others don't share, it's all part of being The One (true lord and savior).

    Which is fine; my point is that The Matrix is blatantly magic. I personally prefer hard sci-fi to fantasy.

    They want to have an extended Wuxia Jesus parable, that's great, but if you dress it up in transhumanist cyberpunk trappings, you'll have to allow me a moment to gripe when they switch over from Altered Carbon to Shadowrun at the 66% point of the trilogy.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Fair enough, just so long as you recognize that's an issue of personal taste and not a flaw in the movie.

    I do think though that aside from the look of it The Matrix doesn't feel very cyberpunk to me. I always associate that genre with corporate or government dystopia, not robots.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • knitdanknitdan In ur base Killin ur guysRegistered User regular
    The only part of The Matrix I'd consider remotely cyberpunk is the early going when Mr. Anderson is still in the Matrix.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • AistanAistan Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    I just want them to name the matrix reboot literally The Matrix Rebooted.

  • cj iwakuracj iwakura The Rhythm Regent Bears The Name FreedomRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    The metaphor in the Matrix is that Neo is Jesus, so complaining that he's not like the other humans is sort of missing the point. He's part of a design by a higher power, the divine in human form sent to save the other humans through his divinity and stuff. Of course he has weird unexplained miraculous powers that the others don't share, it's all part of being The One (true lord and savior).

    Which is fine; my point is that The Matrix is blatantly magic.

    This is what happens when the Technocracy rule.

    wVEsyIc.png
  • PriestPriest Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    Edit: Just got back from the movies with some friends.

    Someone is going to have to explain all the hype about Logan to me.

    I haven't so thoroughly unenjoyed a movie in ten years.

    Priest on
  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Fair enough, just so long as you recognize that's an issue of personal taste and not a flaw in the movie.
    I think it's personal taste, and also a flaw in the sequels. Aside from the ridiculous bit about humans serving as batteries, there's nothing blatantly fantasy about the original. The fact that the sequels steer directly at the spiritual I find to be an annoying bait-and-switch.
    I do think though that aside from the look of it The Matrix doesn't feel very cyberpunk to me. I always associate that genre with corporate or government dystopia, not robots.

    Okay, this confuses me.
    Classic cyberpunk characters were marginalized, alienated loners who lived on the edge of society in generally dystopic futures where daily life was impacted by rapid technological change, an ubiquitous datasphere of computerized information, and invasive modification of the human body.

    That's... pretty much what The Matrix is. I don't know what other genre I'd classify the first movie (the sequels are just religious tracts like The Passion of the Christ... okay, now I'm kidding).

    The machines might as well be an all-powerful megacorp, anyway. Morpheus's crew in the first movie could have called themselves shadowrunners and they'd be right at home. The one fun twist is that the "real world" takes the place of the computer world in the narrative. They jack OUT to gain freedom, knowledge, and power, while the tentacle bots serve the function of ICE countermeasures.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Isn't there magic in Shadowrun?

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    The Matrix is a program running over your brain. Information that your brain is being forced to process. Pulling out someone's hardline jack from an unprepared state kills them because the shock of the total sensory information being removed is too much for a brain to handle. The One's super power is that his brain can detect that he's in a simulation. Like, the others in the Resistance can be rationally AWARE they're in a simulation and thus bend the rules, but at some level their subconscious continues to believe the Matrix is reality, so removing their hardline kills them the same as anyone else. Neo's brain does not have this limitation, at the end of the first Matrix, Neo is unceremoniously YANKED from the Matrix without properly being unjacked because they fire an EMP and kill the program, but he's fine.

    So how does that effect 2 and 3? The already presented wi-fi response, that The One's equipment has the capability to interact with machine life forms, does make sense as the ending of 2 makes it clear that the role of The One was completely designed and prepared for BY the Machines. So perhaps when they unjack the One from the Matrix, they subtly update or unlock his biomod equipment to be able to do this. The only other explanation would be the magical idea that The One can split his consciousness and leave a version of himself active in the Matrix even when he's not connected, a version that can hack robots attacking him and send data about the Machine code underlying various real world mechanisms. Considering all the Zen themes, this is also not that out there, it just moves out of the realm of strictly hard sci-fi.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    The philosophical aspects of GITS aren't particularly complex, but it was refreshing to see characters take a look around at the setting of their story and try to make sense of it, like "Hey, we all live in a world where our minds can be moved from one cyborg body to another, what does that mean in terms of identity and consciousness?" The implications of the Major's decision at the end of the film were also pretty radical in 1995. I would imagine that the original film had a significant influence on transhumanist thought and interest in transhumanism.

    It's still pretty rare in western film or games to have that kind of transhumanism

    where someone's entire identity can be hacked, where they might not have ever been a real person, and even worse they'd never know for sure

    you see it in books all the time, the most recent culture book I read was all about a universe where the self is an infinitely reproducible and altogether not that special thing

    People who read a lot of books will always look at any movie attempting philosophy and go "oh how simplistic", but for most people they probably haven't thought about it

    I'm already certain the GiTS movie won't be doing things like the anime. It's going to be westernized.

    But I just can't see the whole story being laid out in the trailers. I feel like there's probably something more stuffed in there.

    Like with anything else, it's all in the execution.

    True and the more I learn about the movie it reads like a predictable, less intelligent Americanised sterile beautiful looking train wreck.

    I don't know anything about the movie so I'll reserve judgment. All I know is it looks cool and interesting.

    I know it's difficult for many to do so, especially with this particular IP; emotional attachment and what not. I have no emotional attachment to this IP and I've only seen snippets here and there (Maybe an episode of SAC back in the day).

    I am also a lot more forgiving of sci-fi with great atmosphere than most, I concede this.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Priest wrote: »
    Edit: Just got back from the movies with some friends.

    Someone is going to have to explain all the hype about Logan to me.

    I haven't so thoroughly unenjoyed a movie in ten years.

    It was very good. Not sure it's supposed to be "enjoyable"

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    The metaphor in the Matrix is that Neo is Jesus, so complaining that he's not like the other humans is sort of missing the point. He's part of a design by a higher power, the divine in human form sent to save the other humans through his divinity and stuff. Of course he has weird unexplained miraculous powers that the others don't share, it's all part of being The One (true lord and savior).

    Which is fine; my point is that The Matrix is blatantly magic. I personally prefer hard sci-fi to fantasy.

    They want to have an extended Wuxia Jesus parable, that's great, but if you dress it up in transhumanist cyberpunk trappings, you'll have to allow me a moment to gripe when they switch over from Altered Carbon to Shadowrun at the 66% point of the trilogy.

    He's resurrected by a kiss..

  • cj iwakuracj iwakura The Rhythm Regent Bears The Name FreedomRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Isn't there magic in Shadowrun?

    Yep. And elves, orcs, trolls, etc. It's meant to be a blend of high fantasy and cyberpunk.

    wVEsyIc.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Priest wrote: »
    Edit: Just got back from the movies with some friends.

    Someone is going to have to explain all the hype about Logan to me.

    I haven't so thoroughly unenjoyed a movie in ten years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey3PbD75cjc

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Isn't there magic in Shadowrun?

    Yeah, I was using "shadowrunners" insofar as they are a team of cyberpunks who do heists, like in Shadowrun. Sorry, I played Shadowrun: Hong Kong a few months ago and it was what came into my head, even though I'm talking about non-magic cyberpunk.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    The metaphor in the Matrix is that Neo is Jesus, so complaining that he's not like the other humans is sort of missing the point. He's part of a design by a higher power, the divine in human form sent to save the other humans through his divinity and stuff. Of course he has weird unexplained miraculous powers that the others don't share, it's all part of being The One (true lord and savior).

    Which is fine; my point is that The Matrix is blatantly magic. I personally prefer hard sci-fi to fantasy.

    They want to have an extended Wuxia Jesus parable, that's great, but if you dress it up in transhumanist cyberpunk trappings, you'll have to allow me a moment to gripe when they switch over from Altered Carbon to Shadowrun at the 66% point of the trilogy.

    He's resurrected by a kiss..

    So it's a Wuxia Snow White metaphor instead of a Wuxia Jesus metaphor? Huh.

  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Priest wrote: »
    Edit: Just got back from the movies with some friends.

    Someone is going to have to explain all the hype about Logan to me.

    I haven't so thoroughly unenjoyed a movie in ten years.

    Really? Huh.
    I thought it was absolutely amazing. What didnt you like?

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Aistan wrote: »
    I just want them to name the matrix reboot literally The Matrix Rebooted.

    Neo: My format, guardian. To mend and defend.

  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    I enjoyed Logan because wolverine had always been my favorite comic character. I think Hackman did a great job, given that material, and was a good version of the character.

    Someone on this board might have said it but since it'll spoil the movie I'll put it behind the spoiler for what specifically I liked:
    Logan isn't necessarily thr end to the xmen trilogy universe. Since we never meet any of the other xmen, this serves for me as a kind of what if comic. How does Logan's story end? And for that catharsis, I loved it. That Logan could live forever, but was poisoned by his one time strength. That even the most powerful of us are undone by time was very moving to me. I'm also 36 now and have been with these characters for 30 years.

    I could understand if the emotional beats didn't hit you but they clobbered me: x-24 is what wolverine would have been without Charles and Jean. That logans humanity is what keeps him at the professors side. One of my favorite books has a great line that might not be true:

    The seeds of the past bear fruit in the present. This movie was showing what the fallout of that life was.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    cj iwakura wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    The metaphor in the Matrix is that Neo is Jesus, so complaining that he's not like the other humans is sort of missing the point. He's part of a design by a higher power, the divine in human form sent to save the other humans through his divinity and stuff. Of course he has weird unexplained miraculous powers that the others don't share, it's all part of being The One (true lord and savior).

    Which is fine; my point is that The Matrix is blatantly magic.

    This is what happens when the Technocracy rule.

    (saying it again)
    I walked out at the end, back in '99, thinking "Huh. So, that was Mage: the Movie. Nice."

    Commander Zoom on
  • PriestPriest Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Priest wrote: »
    Edit: Just got back from the movies with some friends.

    Someone is going to have to explain all the hype about Logan to me.

    I haven't so thoroughly unenjoyed a movie in ten years.

    Really? Huh.
    I thought it was absolutely amazing. What didnt you like?

    Preface: I have not seen The Wolverine or X-Men: Apocalypse

    The good:
    Laura: The Mexican touch was brilliant, having her start mute was very effective.
    X-23 Program
    Cinematography

    The mediocre:
    Caliban: I feel Stephen Merchant's talents were wasted. Bad guy turns good, disguises exposition as an argument with the protagonist, gets tortured, commits suicide to take out some guys with him (who he doesn't actually end up taking out, adding to the despair)

    Xavier's attitude:
    This is a knock against the writing, not Stewart. Xavier has always been a collected, logical, and articulate man. Even with his deterioration, Xavier was deliberately verbally abusive to Logan, which falls way outside his normal character. Moreover, Xavier was one of the few mutants who expressly valued human life, even if it risked a mutant's life. A man like that would never whinge about "chemical castration" given the knowledge of his effect on others during a telekinetic episode.

    2029: I was not impressed with 2029's showcasing of all the buzzword technology of 2016.

    Adamantium Bones: I know this is Science Fiction, but Science Fiction works best when it is based loosely on Science Fact, and Laura's adamantium implants grossly gloss over the issue that children grow, and metal does not. Those blades are going to be quite small for a full-grown woman, unless they keep doing surgeries every two years.

    The bad:
    - Not that I expect an ultra-happy jaunt from my superhero movies, but considering how most other X-Men movies have been framed, it was incredibly jarring to go full grimdark. It came out of left field.

    Logan's Aging: I get that he ages. That's a pretty new concept however for most viewers. For the past 15 years, Wolverine has pretty deliberately been fucking shit up in theatrical fashion. It is unreasonable to think that Logan, who is 200-odd years old, has gone from "prime of his life" wrecking-ball in 2010 to "elderly" in 2029.

    Elton John's Adopted Grandson, AKA: The Antagonist: He was so unmemorable I can't even recall his name beyond the goofy red glasses. This guy was flatter than an Earth conspiracy theory, and failed to engender any enmity in me. The plot armor that he wore was particularly annoying.

    The ugly:
    Cell phone video with voice-over provides 95% of this movie's exposition in 5 minutes.

    Children of (X-)Men: This movie was a battery of "fuck yous" with one shining light at the end. I don't know if they were trying to capture some Last of Us or what, but it did not work. I literally looked at my cell phone 1:15 into the movie wondering when Logan was going to stop being a brooding asshole with temper issues. I get that that's his "schtick," but watching 75 minutes of it was simply annoying and exhausting, especially when the voices of reason (Xavier et. al) were either A: absent, or B: too busy being jack-asses themselves.

    Logan learned nothing: All this movie showed was that at the end of the day, Xavier was right. For all of Logan's misplaced guilt and devotion to Charles, he sure as shit didn't seem to embrace any of the lessons Xavier previously successfully imparted on him over the years. And whatever enlightenment he might have learned at the end of the movie is overshadowed by the fact that his death and Laura's predicament are the result of his own brooding inaction.

    Ultimately, this was movie (an action movie at that) where three times I looked at the clock, because I was tired of the repetitive boredom.

    Priest on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Priest wrote: »
    The ugly:

    Logan learned nothing: All this movie showed was that at the end of the day, Xavier was right. For all of Logan's misplaced guilt and devotion to Charles, he sure as shit didn't seem to embrace any of the lesson's Xavier successfully imparted on him over the years. And whatever enlightenment he might have learned at the end of the movie is overshadowed by the fact that his death and Laura's predicament are the result of his own brooding inaction.

    Boredom I can't speak to, but on this point:

    I very much got the feeling that Logan had changed as a person, that he had grown as a person. Then the man he respects more then anyone else in the world accidentally kills everyone left in the world that he ever loved and he's now left alone at the end of his life taking care of the only person he has left and that person is broken.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    On the age thing
    it's pretty reasonable sci fi logic that his healing factor failing would lead to some extreme aging. If it stopped altogether, he would presumably turn into a withered husk in seconds.

    Oh brilliant
  • PriestPriest Registered User regular
    On the age thing
    it's pretty reasonable sci fi logic that his healing factor failing would lead to some extreme aging. If it stopped altogether, he would presumably turn into a withered husk in seconds.
    Why would slow aging suddenly become fast aging?

This discussion has been closed.