Grandaddy's Gun

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Grandaddy's Gun

Post by attofishpi »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:39 am
Henry wrote:
never saw the follow up (bladerunner 2067, or somesuch)
2049 I think Henry ..it's on Netflix.
Dammit - you've made me get off the couch and boot the PC up now!

Yes, it's really good, much of the 'ambience' of the original has been captured.

I started watching it again the other night, but there is one thing that really irks me, and I couldn't get past. The bladerunner Ryan Gosling has a virtual hologram chick in his apartment - at some point he gives her an upgrade of some sort, so she can go anywhere and move matter - hard to continue watching something so implausible from there on. I'll have another go eventually, I remember when it first came out I really enjoyed it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8722
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Grandaddy's Gun

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:39 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:39 am
Henry wrote:
never saw the follow up (bladerunner 2067, or somesuch)
2049 I think Henry ..it's on Netflix.
is it any good?
Over-written, high-tech garbage. It lost the whole idea of the first movie. But what do you expect from a remake of a classic, made so much later? It's not going to be good.

Likewise the second and third instalments of "The Matrix." Interesting first concept, waste of time in the second, and genuinely horrendous in the third sequel. Remakes are usually pretty awful, because they're desperate attempts to find the same magic that was really a one-off the first time. Sometimes things just come together, and you can't reproduce it.

"Blade Runner" was a lone movie...there never really could be a sequel, because ever important question it raised was adequately summarized by the first movie.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8410
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Over-written, high-tech garbage"

Post by henry quirk »

then, mebbe I'll just stick with the original

the matrix trilogy: didn't care for any of 'em

the whole humans are batteries thing was dumb

it shoulda been: humans are hard drives instead
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: "Over-written, high-tech garbage"

Post by attofishpi »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:39 am then, mebbe I'll just stick with the original

the matrix trilogy: didn't care for any of 'em

the whole humans are batteries thing was dumb

it shoulda been: humans are hard drives instead
Have you got Netflix>?? Then watch it! The amount of times I see shit reviews (no offense intended IC) about films I love is ridiculous.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8410
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Have you got Netflix>??

Post by henry quirk »

nah, just basic cable

got spectrum internet (fast, unlimited) but no subscription services

I'm behind the times
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8722
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "Over-written, high-tech garbage"

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:39 am then, mebbe I'll just stick with the original

the matrix trilogy: didn't care for any of 'em
Granted "The Matrix" makes a poor and distant comparison to "Blade Runner." And the "batteries" thing was weak. But the first of the series was, actually, in many ways a fairly good exposition of Gnosticism, which is a fairly ancient and somewhat complicated belief system. It dealt with some epistemological and ontological issues, and raised some interesting questions. So there was something to it. There was only philosophical confusion in the second one, which made nonsense of the more appropriate ending of the first one; and the third one...well, the less said about it the better. So it's a pretty good illustration of directors not being able to follow up their first success.

And I would argue that "Star Wars" was actually the same. The first one was a real innovation, with clear archetypes, an epic villain, and heroic plot structure. It was a generational popular event. The second was half that good, and the third was barely worth having. The rest...well, the less said the better, and the worst are the most recent...absolutely dismal writing and character development. I hear they're going to try to reboot the series...they should probably just boot it.

Point being, when you've made a truly original, intelligent film that's moved people's imaginations and engaged their thinking, quit while you're ahead, and move on to a completely different project. Don't do sequels, unless you want that legacy to crash.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8722
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "Over-written, high-tech garbage"

Post by Immanuel Can »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:30 am Have you got Netflix>?? Then watch it! The amount of times I see shit reviews (no offense intended IC) about films I love is ridiculous.
No offence taken, Atto.

But you really liked that? Did you see the original? I'm honestly surprised if you thought the new one was a good film. But you can like whatever you like, of course...you must see something in it that I completely missed, I guess.

What did you like about it?
Gary Childress
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Grandaddy's Gun

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:17 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:39 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:39 am

2049 I think Henry ..it's on Netflix.
is it any good?
Over-written, high-tech garbage. It lost the whole idea of the first movie. But what do you expect from a remake of a classic, made so much later? It's not going to be good.

Likewise the second and third instalments of "The Matrix." Interesting first concept, waste of time in the second, and genuinely horrendous in the third sequel. Remakes are usually pretty awful, because they're desperate attempts to find the same magic that was really a one-off the first time. Sometimes things just come together, and you can't reproduce it.

"Blade Runner" was a lone movie...there never really could be a sequel, because ever important question it raised was adequately summarized by the first movie.
I didn't even know there was a sequel to Blade Runner. So I watched the trailer for it a few minutes ago. It looked a little fun, lots of action scenes of course and suggestions of suspense. Something about "every civilization being built on the back of an expendable workforce." I'm guessing it broaches the question of artificially producing humans for expendable labor, maybe? Although, IIRC that was more or less covered in the first one to whatever degree.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Sentience in Blade Runner 2049

Post by attofishpi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:40 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:30 am Have you got Netflix>?? Then watch it! The amount of times I see shit reviews (no offense intended IC) about films I love is ridiculous.
No offence taken, Atto.

But you really liked that? Did you see the original? I'm honestly surprised if you thought the new one was a good film. But you can like whatever you like, of course...you must see something in it that I completely missed, I guess.

What did you like about it?
OF COURSE I SAW THE ORGINAL!! - love that shit since i was a child!

I am re-watching 2049 - 1 hr in - it is fantastic.

There are so many quotes that I should retell - 'To kill someone that is born? - I don't want to kill a soul'

The wooden horse buried in a pit with an inscription (a memory implant)

This time around, they are truly comparing humanity to replicant humans - the sentience truly is being addressed, as is the conscience of the Blade Runner.

Loving it again, all over.

Matrix? Yeah, I understand - loved the 1st only. But understand, time is redundant in a story about a simulation. Blade Runner - it traverses real time, hence a new story is and was deserved (decades lata)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8410
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Grandaddy's Gun

Post by henry quirk »

Granted "The Matrix" makes a poor and distant comparison to "Blade Runner." And the "batteries" thing was weak. But the first of the series was, actually, in many ways a fairly good exposition of Gnosticism, which is a fairly ancient and somewhat complicated belief system. It dealt with some epistemological and ontological issues, and raised some interesting questions. So there was something to it. There was only philosophical confusion in the second one, which made nonsense of the more appropriate ending of the first one; and the third one...well, the less said about it the better. So it's a pretty good illustration of directors not being able to follow up their first success.

it was pretty and exciting and spooky (the energy farm where neo wakes up with robo-insects tendin' the crops), but I'm jaded, my mind well-corrupted by a childhood readin' science fiction, space opera, and weird comics

the story didn't move me


And I would argue that "Star Wars" was actually the same. The first one was a real innovation, with clear archetypes, an epic villain, and heroic plot structure. It was a generational popular event. The second was half that good, and the third was barely worth having. The rest...well, the less said the better, and the worst are the most recent...absolutely dismal writing and character development. I hear they're going to try to reboot the series...they should probably just boot it.

episode IV was glorious; V & VI were okay

the rest: cynical productions, without love of the story or the audience


Point being, when you've made a truly original, intelligent film that's moved people's imaginations and engaged their thinking, quit while you're ahead, and move on to a completely different project. Don't do sequels, unless you want that legacy to crash

:thumbsup:
Age
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Ace

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm no matter how much you want to deny this fact.

I do deny it, cuz it ain't a fact
So, you deny being under the control of a government and the society that you live in, okay.

This is just more PROOF of just how much in DENIAL you really are in.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm
we do have very different views of what 'freedom' actually means.

yep
So, you accept that your claim is wrong then, correct?

Also, it is noted that you, once again, will NOT answer my clarifying questions.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm there is a LOT MORE that needs to be explained, and understood fully, first, before this can be fully understood.

then: make with explanin'
WHY?

Do you accept that you could be WRONG, and so what to learn and understand MORE?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm Did 'you' ASSUME that most, if not all, see things the same way as you do?

nope
Again noted is your refusal or inability to CLARIFY what you actually mean.

Your answer here also contradicts what you have previously claimed to be true.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm If EVERY one was like these, supposed, ones like 'you' who do not do wrong, then this human being created 'world' would be PERFECT, correct?

never said I do no wrong; the world is not a human creation; perfection is a pipe dream
ONCE AGAIN, you will NOT answer the ACTUAL question posed, to you.

I NEVER said the world is a human creation.

'Perfection', like absolutely EVERY thing else, is relative.

What is a 'pipe dream'?

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm If they SAY that they own their guns for defense, (which is EXACTLY what you say you own guns for), then they are on the EXACT SAME "page" as you, correct?

nope

what the say and do are two different things; what I say and do are the same
LOL It is ALWAYS the "other".

If what you say and do are the same ALWAYS, then I would be VERY SURPRISED.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm we're not on the same page
Obviously, if you BOTH say that you BOTH do the SAME thing, for the SAME reason, then you are BOTH on the EXACT SAME "page", as they say. So, what I said is accurate and correct.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm So, your "explanation" for owning guns is for defense, correct?

defense, huntin', for the pleasure of shootin', cuz a whole whack of folks don't like it, etc.

then that is NOT their fault at all, is it?

you're takin' expressions literally

you: computer or autistic?
i am neither. But i have autism.

Do you realize that we are in a philosophy forum, which is not necessarily the place to speak metaphorically nor figuratively?

Also, if you do NOT mean what you write and say here, then WHY say AND write it here?

Philosophy revolves around 'truth' and/or 'what is true', so I suggest if some one is going to say and/or write things that actually are 'NOT true', then a philosophy forum is NOT the best place to write and say things that are not true or not meant.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

nope

fire is always fire no matter who observes it
Well you misinterpreted and/or misconstrued what I actually said, and then twisted and distorted it around completely and utterly.

What is 'fire'?

And who and/or what EXACTLY is this definition relative to?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm this everything is relative nonsense is mind-poison
ONCE AGAIN, this is MORE PROOF that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm absolutely ANY thing can be put into a context, to 'try to' "justify" just about ANY thing.

nope

some things (slavery, for example) are wrong all the time
Yet here you are A SLAVE to your society, and government.

Also, you treat "others" as though you are 'their' master and they are 'your' slave.

But, OBVIOUSLY, this is NOT true, correct?

Also, ONCE AGAIN, of MORE misconstrued and/or misinterpretation of what I actually said, and meant. But this might be because you do NOT take what I express, literally.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm So, thee actual Truth IS 'No'.

as I reckon freedom: my kid is free
Okay.

You are FREE to 'reckon' whatever you want to 'reckon'.

This is HOW and WHY 'you', adults, 'try to' "justify" your obviously WRONG behaviors.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm Just like 'you' are NOT allowed to do whatever you like.

I do as I choose...I deliberate, I self-regulate
Yes this is OBVIOUS.

You ALSO are NOT allowed to do whatever you like.

You have been 'programmed', since birth, to do and behave in a particular way, which you DO without FULLY realizing WHY you DO 'it'.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm there ain't no leash on me
LOL Like I say; You are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you WANT to BELIEVE.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm 'you' are BOTH constrained by the government/society in which you live in.

as I say: there's always folks lookin' to leash others...their desire is not synonymous with success
But I do NOT know WHY you would say this here, now.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm 'you', human beings, are NOT as 'free' as you would like and wish to be, in the days of when this is being written.

speakin'n for me and mine: we're free
Okay. But like you say 'you' and 'I' have different definitions of what it means to be 'free'.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm are you OPEN to the fact that you could be doing, because you are being told to by "others"?

nope, cuz it ain't a fact
Okay.

Now here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED one is while they BELIEVE some thing to be true.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm I have NOT provided ANY evidence, YET.

well, get to it then
I do NOT have to. The ones who make the slave states provide the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm those who are NOT YET able to back up and support their claim/s

like you
And what is this is reference to EXACTLY?

Just because I might NOT do some things, in this forum, then this has absolutely NO bearing AT ALL if I am able to do that thing or not.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:15 pm the 'constrained morality'

my morality doesn't constrain: it frees
OBVIOUSLY you are NOT constrained by your OWN morality. And, just as OBVIOUS is you are actually constrained by the morality of the society in which you live.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8722
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Sentience in Blade Runner 2049

Post by Immanuel Can »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:10 am OF COURSE I SAW THE ORGINAL!! - love that shit since i was a child!
I saw the original when I was in my teens. It buried itself inside my psyche, from the very first time I saw it. Twenty years later or so, I saw it again...and since then, at least a dozen times. It's better every time you see it: there are layers of stuff in it, and subtext, and really superb timing, and absurdly clever writing and dialogue.

They say the author, P.K. Dick, was stoned out of his brain when he first conceived it, high on hallucinogens. It was a kind of dream he had. If that's how it happened, it makes some sense; because he opened a layer of his subconscious that would be very hard to manage consciously.

Anyway, it's a hard act to follow, in my view. The special effects are better today, of course; but to match the profundity of the original "Blade Runner," that's a tall order. It's really all about what it means to be human, of course -- a question that was never more pressing than it is today, with our virtual reality, our extropians, our plastic surgery, our "artificial intelligence" and universal computation, our abortions, our genetic engineering and our technologies for manipulating life and bodies. We're still trying to figure out the answer to that one. But the movie gives us some good clues as to how to proceed.

Thanks for your reflections, Atto.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8410
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Ace

Post by henry quirk »

i have autism.

tough road to walk: my sympathies
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8722
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ace

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:10 pm i have autism.

tough road to walk: my sympathies
It can be something, though. In my many interactions with "spectrum" folks, they're often gifted, unusually focused, and refreshingly honest in their emotion-action connections. They don't waste much time on lying. There are things in which they quite exceed the average, and in a very good way. So it's tough on them, sometimes, but they're often good folks to have around.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8410
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Ace

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:29 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:10 pm i have autism.

tough road to walk: my sympathies
It can be something, though. In my many interactions with "spectrum" folks, they're often gifted, unusually focused, and refreshingly honest in their emotion-action connections. They don't waste much time on lying. There are things in which they quite exceed the average, and in a very good way. So it's tough on them, sometimes, but they're often good folks to have around.
you're a good egg, Mannie

better than me
Post Reply