A thread for updates on the various ways the internet is destroying everything and the undying hellsites of social media. Let's all laugh at the abyss.
For some reason, I’ve hated every nickname for Elon Musk. None of them felt right to me. Except today.
I just saw a news clip where Trump called him “Leon.” I shall forever call him that. 
And he shall be Levon
And he shall be a bad man
And he shall be Le
vonAnd he shall be a bad man
Excuse you? Leon was a Professional.
Surely you are referring to Sergio Leon?
Y'know, I like to consider myself a pretty decent cyberpunk fan and I still haven't seen that or 2049?
Get on it!
Controversial opinion - Blade Runner is much overrated, to watch it through today's eyes. Problem is that it inspired so much of what followed that it seems trite and tropey today. Fascinating as a historical artifact of cinema, middling as a story to sit down and watch in 2024.
In terms of the setting and the story, yeah, I guess. I think it still holds up pretty well as an alt-futurist movie, considering that the movie is set in the far off future of 2019. 
That said, Blade Runner is still an amazing movie to study. Ridley Scott is extremely technically competent, and in the early 80s he had already hit his stride as early as his third feature film. The varied pacing, the unusual visual composition, blocking and camera moves, even the ability to bring in a movie like Blade Runner for under $30M were all remarkable for the time. It's a shame the best version of the movie wasn't the one audiences saw in 1982. Thank the swinging dicks who ran Warner at the time for that.
The "best" version would be the Final Cut, released on Blu-ray in 2007 for the movie's 25th anniversary, and remastered in 4K HDR in 2017.
Controversial opinion - Blade Runner is much overrated, to watch it through today's eyes. Problem is that it inspired so much of what followed that it seems trite and tropey today. Fascinating as a historical artifact of cinema, middling as a story to sit down and watch in 2024.
I was surprised to see Ebert gave it 2 stars when it came out, but I've also heard the theatrical version was a fair bit weaker than the director's cuts.
Controversial opinion - Blade Runner is much overrated, to watch it through today's eyes. Problem is that it inspired so much of what followed that it seems trite and tropey today. Fascinating as a historical artifact of cinema, middling as a story to sit down and watch in 2024.
I watched it for the first time a few years ago, and thought it's story was great. It does ask questions that anyone familiar with cyberpunk will recognize, but it does just as good a job of asking them as any more modern media has done, so they don't feel outdated. Rather than requiring you to view it as an artifact of its time, it's just a damn good movie.
Y'know, I like to consider myself a pretty decent cyberpunk fan and I still haven't seen that or 2049?
I do not know your name.
I do not recognize your voice.
You stand in the place where the eye does not see.
I saw the director's cut in a theater right before the sequel came out, and it totally held up. A few random scenes I could take or leave (mainly action scenes), but overall it's brilliant, and hardly even looks aged.
Also, it's like Neuromancer - even if it's not your favorite work, it's so pivotal in creating the genre that if you've never seen it, it's hard to tell whether things you see elsewhere are original or cribbed.
I was surprised to see Ebert gave it 2 stars when it came out, but I've also heard the theatrical version was a fair bit weaker than the director's cuts.
IIRC it went over budget, so the studio invoked some clauses and got to slice it up a bit for the original release - most notably by adding a bunch of voiceovers where Harrison Ford over-explains various subtext. I think they changed the ending as well, but that might be a separate cut? Anyway the directors cut removes all that, and IMO much for the better, but I think some people prefer the original.
Jonman wrote:Controversial opinion - Blade Runner is much overrated, to watch it through today's eyes. Problem is that it inspired so much of what followed that it seems trite and tropey today. Fascinating as a historical artifact of cinema, middling as a story to sit down and watch in 2024.
I was surprised to see Ebert gave it 2 stars when it came out, but I've also heard the theatrical version was a fair bit weaker than the director's cuts.
There is a lot of talk these days about "vibes" movies. Films with plots, or characters, or acting that don't work all that well but really, REALLY nail a sense of something. They give you a vibe. Stuff like Tenet, Miami Vice, etc.
Blade Runner always makes the list.
My friends have called these movies "setting" films. As in, they aren't predominantly about plot, or character or theme but they give such a strong sense of place. Their worlds are immersive and/or give a strong sense of feel/style that is highly particular. In a word, they give you strong vibes way before that word entered the conversation.
Blade Runner is an Ur-example.
You cannot watch that film with feeling the grime in your unwashed hair, tasting the grit in your mouth, the dust in your eyes, and the weight on your shoulders as a viewer.
Y'know, I like to consider myself a pretty decent cyberpunk fan and I still haven't seen that or 2049?
Bro. BRO.
Y'know, I like to consider myself a pretty decent cyberpunk fan and I still haven't seen that or 2049?
Yeah dude, go see the director's cut of the original then 2049. They're fascinating worlds to spend time in, if nothing else.
Prederick wrote:Y'know, I like to consider myself a pretty decent cyberpunk fan and I still haven't seen that or 2049?
Yeah dude, go see the director's cut of the original then 2049. They're fascinating worlds to spend time in, if nothing else.
Blade Runner has such a sordid history of re-releases (again, thanks to Warner Bros), there are TWO versions of the movie that are called the "director's cut." Ridley Scott did not have creative control over either of them, but he did provide notes for the 2nd one. The 1st one, it turned out, was a work print, with missing scenes and some temporary score, and was only shown in a handful of theaters in 1990 and 1991 before Warner pulled the plug. Because the guerilla release was so popular, Warner Bros released their version of a director's cut (assembled by a film archivist) in theaters in 1992, advertised as the Director's Cut.
The Director's Cut which was actually produced by the director is the "Final Cut" version, released with the 25th anniversary of the original theatrical release on DVD and Blu-Ray in 2007. It was packaged with extras, including the international theatrical cut (aka the "unrated" version), and the 1992 theatrical re-release.
Gory details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versio...
I recommend the Final Cut version, specifically the 4K HDR Blu-Ray release if you can watch it that way. Some like the original theatrical release because of the noir style voiceover and the sappy ending. Er, I mean happy ending. The US theatrical release also has slightly less explicit violence. The other cuts of the film are only of historical interest.
As an aside, Denis Villeneuve has said emphatically that there will be no director's cut of Blade Runner 2049. He was very happy with the theatrical release, even though it was considered a box office flop because it only barely made back its budget.
I tried to watch Blade Runner once in the late 90s or early 00s... I fell alseep.
Then I heard about the director's cut, and a friend had it... I borrowed. Never watched, had to give it back after a week.
Then I think it was on streaming back before 2049 came out, so I was like yeah, maybe I'll finally... but got a few minutes in and got distracted and stopped.
I just can't seem to get through it. I should love it. But I dunno...
The only thing I don't like about the Final Cut is that Scott does some things to make his thoughts on whether or not Deckard is a replicant a lot more clear. Personally I think giving it an official answer either way is a mistake, and the audience never knowing for sure fits the movie a lot better.
Then I think it was on streaming back before 2049 came out
Yeah, Warner released the 4K HDR version a month before the theatrical release of 2049.
Well, don't leave us in suspense, weirdos.
I broke the screen on my bed and the walls are away from any phones. What do I do now?
FWIW, I’m pretty certain this is a quasi-parody scam account (I mean, compared to the true believer Q scam accounts)- They’re attached to a website that is basically just a merch storefront and an ominous countdown clock that’s been ticking down almost all year and just resets whenever it hits zero. They’ve also got a patreon with the lowest tier being $20 for chat access and an explanation of how the countdown clock works.
I have no idea how you tell the difference between a QAnon parody account and the real deal.
I have no idea how you tell the difference between a QAnon parody account and the real deal.
“Quasi-parody” may not have been the best description- I don’t think they’re an actual parody account trying to mock Qanon, I think they’re just mimicking Q stuff in order to cynically cash in on the true believers.
I have no idea how you tell the difference between a QAnon parody account and the real deal.
One is incredibly dumb, the other plays incredibly dumb for fun and profit.
No, fair enough I see the problem now.
The primary difference is that one is trying to scare people into handing over money, and the other is trying to scare people into storming government buildings and attacking neighbors who display the wrong bumper stickers or yard signs.
I could swear I already replied to Prederick's screenshot.
Clearly I am a victim of a conspiracy to silence me. Probably because I didn't move my bed away from the wall.
Scattershot fearmongering is dangerous but saying it’s equivalent to directed incitement to violence definitely deserves to be in the “hot takes” thread.
Pages