Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Blade Runner - What am I Missing?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    668
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    So what am I missing. Admittedly I barely remember this one except it being pretty bad.

    Directed byPaul Michael Glaser
    Written byLeo Garen
    Jack Baran
    Produced byMichael Rauch

    Those are your problems right there. Mann was one of two production companies which means they basically put up the cash.

    Production
    companies

    Delph V Productions
    Michael Mann Productions

    I'd be willing to be the big reason it sucked is because Paul Michael Glaser directed it.

    But again, don't think I'm a huge fanboy who see's no wrong. LA Takedown was pretty bad. Also once he started dropping powerhouse films, people began to see his earlier films as more brilliant than they actually were.

    I appreciate the gun handling in Thief, but it wasn't a brilliant film. It was good, not brilliant. Manhunter? Didn't even know it existed until I decided to look into earlier Mann films and it was ok, but Silence of the Lambs still blew it away. Everyone loved Last of the Mohican's and it's probably a great film, but it personally didn't move me. Heat (besides the shows like Miami Vice) put Mann on the map. That is when I first took notice of his films.

    I dug most of his tv shows from Miami Vice, Crime Story and even Vega$. Police Woman, Police Story and Starsky and Hutch of course kicked retro ass but I had no idea Mann was involved in any of those.

    Never saw Ali, couldn't buy Will Smith in the role and mostly just didn't care. Collateral was a good film, not perfect and far from brilliant but I enjoy it. Public Enemies is the only other Mann film to rival Heat, he really was in his element and got to do all the landscapes and lightscapes that he is famous for and quite honestly light and reflected light is almost his signature. Which is a shame because again Miami is basically neon city and he could have gone crazy if he could have gotten his act together.

    But actors hurt it more than anything, they all were terrible. Colin Farrel is awful in almost everything he does. Jamie Fox is talented but I didn't really buy him as a Miami vice cop. I think Denzel could have been a very credible Tubbs but then you'd need to find a serious actor for Sonny Crockett that wouldn't be constantly overshadowed by Denzel. Ghetto Trudy and Gina were the worst, they could have gone with almost any other actresses and done better. Mann should have also written a new storyline relevant to the times, he tried but seriously aryan bikers? Give me a F'ing break. Ironically Depp "might" have been able to pull off Sonny Crockett.

    Even worse was many of the firearm choices which classically is his strong suit. They had a guy on a Barrett .50 doing Carlos Hathcock shit and it was ridiculous.
    Not missing anything. Just that on
    my list, I lay the failure at Mann’s feet as if he were the director, or it was a TV pilot.

    Of course he later busts out Last of the Mohicans. Kind of a mess of a movie, but I watch it every time I come across it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    27,493
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jbjh View Post
    Not missing anything. Just that on
    my list, I lay the failure at Mann’s feet as if he were the director, or it was a TV pilot.

    Of course he later busts out Last of the Mohicans. Kind of a mess of a movie, but I watch it every time I come across it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So if he was the director, I'd agree with you. But the director was Paul Michael Glaser. Perhaps PMG was a poor choice and by extension that would be the fault of the producer, but again that wasn't Mann that was Michael Rauch whoever the hell that was.

    Mann was just one of two "money companies" so the worst I could say was the Mann was responsible for iffy money management. It's not quite the same as Miami Vice the film, which was written, produced and directed by Mann...that one was 100% his failure. He can't even take credit for the one single good feature of the film, which was the new theme music.

    Now I'm not here trying to give Mann a pass, maybe he was guilty of really believing in this project enough to be one of the production companies, but beyond that I can't lay Band of the Hand at his feet. The success or failure of a film usually begins with the director and ends with the cast. By the same token Heat was a success because that was all him, it wasn't because of the involvement of Regency Enterprises and Forward Pass. And by the same criteria LA Takedown was his responsibility, and pretty terrible, the only good thing about it was a test run film that resulted in a superior film years later.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,602
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    The result is he took a brilliant Arthur C Clarke story and produced a film most people viewed to enhance their LSD experience.
    The introduction of the Brilliance Audio edition of "2001: A Space Odyssey" is read by Arthur C. Clarke himself. In it, he states he and Stanley Kubrick wrote the novel and screen play simultaneously with feed back in both directions. Clarke re-wrote some sections after seeing early parts of the film.
    Last edited by MistWolf; 09-23-21 at 20:20.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    27,493
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    The introduction of the Brilliance Audio edition of "2001: A Space Odyssey" is read by Arthur C. Clarke himself. In it, he states he and Stanley Kubrick wrote the novel and screen play simultaneously with feed back in both directions. Clarke re-wrote some sections after seeing early parts of the film.
    I don't think the writing was as problematic as the visual challenge which I alluded to earlier. I wouldn't be surprised that Clarke went along with it, what was he gonna do? Come up with a better visual representation of what alien driven evolution would look like? Many people think David Bowman discovered the Star child, they didn't realize he evolved into the Star child. Most viewers got lost in the hotel room, there is a lot going on and Kubrick did his best to present a visual account of what is happening.

    It a bit like making a film where you show God. Does he look like Zeus or does he look like what a eternal, creator of everything we know and a universe of things we will never see or understand or even be able to relate to might look like.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    17,338
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    I don't think the writing was as problematic as the visual challenge which I alluded to earlier. I wouldn't be surprised that Clarke went along with it, what was he gonna do? Come up with a better visual representation of what alien driven evolution would look like? Many people think David Bowman discovered the Star child, they didn't realize he evolved into the Star child. Most viewers got lost in the hotel room, there is a lot going on and Kubrick did his best to present a visual account of what is happening.

    It a bit like making a film where you show God. Does he look like Zeus or does he look like what a eternal, creator of everything we know and a universe of things we will never see or understand or even be able to relate to might look like.
    I thought all things considered, they did a great job. Considering when it was done, it's a masterpiece that still holds up. My mother brought me to see it at 4 or 5 years old. She said she figured I'd squirm and drive her crazy and such, and said I sat transfixed for the entire movie. I do have some recollections of that. She said that's when she knew I'd be an SF fan. That's another one of those movies you have to view multiple times to really appreciate and will get something new from at different ages you watch it.

    It's also one of those stories that leaves the viewer to decide what happened at the end, and some people need a clear obvious rap up to be happy. Me, I interpreted as we had taken the next step in our evolution from the apes that had been given a push to become humans, than to a much higher being we as humans can't even fathom. Hence, viewing it from the outside as we are, it's as impossible to fully relate to and the consciousness that's assisting the transformation doing its best to use some reference point we can comprehend. It's confusing to us the viewer as it should be and would be. You're not meant to fully understand it, you're meant to process it as it makes sense to you, not unlike people's experiences with God(s) and higher powers and such, or a small child trying to "get" what a parent is doing.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com


    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    4,416
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    I thought all things considered, they did a great job. Considering when it was done, it's a masterpiece that still holds up. My mother brought me to see it at 4 or 5 years old. She said she figured I'd squirm and drive her crazy and such, and said I sat transfixed for the entire movie. I do have some recollections of that. She said that's when she knew I'd be an SF fan. That's another one of those movies you have to view multiple times to really appreciate and will get something new from at different ages you watch it.

    It's also one of those stories that leaves the viewer to decide what happened at the end, and some people need a clear obvious rap up to be happy. Me, I interpreted as we had taken the next step in our evolution from the apes that had been given a push to become humans, than to a much higher being we as humans can't even fathom. Hence, viewing it from the outside as we are, it's as impossible to fully relate to and the consciousness that's assisting the transformation doing its best to use some reference point we can comprehend. It's confusing to us the viewer as it should be and would be. You're not meant to fully understand it, you're meant to process it as it makes sense to you, not unlike people's experiences with God(s) and higher powers and such, or a small child trying to "get" what a parent is doing.
    Actually, again, it makes perfect sense if you view it through the “lense” of Occult and Gnostic teaching.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,602
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    I don't think the writing was as problematic as the visual challenge which I alluded to earlier. I wouldn't be surprised that Clarke went along with it, what was he gonna do? Come up with a better visual representation of what alien driven evolution would look like? Many people think David Bowman discovered the Star child, they didn't realize he evolved into the Star child. Most viewers got lost in the hotel room, there is a lot going on and Kubrick did his best to present a visual account of what is happening.
    I saw the movie when it first came out and the ending thoroughly confused me. Of course, I was just a kid and my mother had to explain it to me. But the first half of the movie was so real, I wondered why we were still bound to the ground.


    Seeing it on the big screen in a high quality theater was amazing. It had an astounding impact on me, a child wanting to live in a Chesley Bonestell scene.





    It a bit like making a film where you show God. Does he look like Zeus or does he look like what a eternal, creator of everything we know and a universe of things we will never see or understand or even be able to relate to might look like.
    That part is easy-
    Last edited by MistWolf; 09-24-21 at 13:20.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    422
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Because of this thread I sat down and watched 2001: A Space Odyssey with my 19 year old son who had no idea what it was. I had read the book and seen the movie as part of a science fiction class when I was in high school. I didn't really care for it then and my opinion of it now is that even a movie as influential, groundbreaking and famous as this one can be practically unwatchable. But I admit I'm not much of a film critic.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    17,338
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Business_Casual View Post
    Actually, again, it makes perfect sense if you view it through the “lense” of Occult and Gnostic teaching.
    No, that's you who views everything through that lens. People can see what ever they want if they look hard enough, and if that's what helps you sleep at night, all good by me. As the man said " sometimes even a cigar is just a cigar."
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com


    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    4,416
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    No, that's you who views everything through that lens. People can see what ever they want if they look hard enough, and if that's what helps you sleep at night, all good by me. As the man said " sometimes even a cigar is just a cigar."
    You: These films are weird and difficult to make sense of, lots of things don’t correlate with our understanding.

    Me: Nope, here’s a key that fits the imagery and story lines perfectly as well as the author and filmmaker have expressed these ideas separately.

    You: That’s just your view of the material.

    FFS, Clarke’s story “Childhood’s End” literally has a horned cloven hoofed demon/Satan as the main character. Dude.
    Last edited by Business_Casual; 09-26-21 at 20:44.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •