EPTIt pretty much set the stage for cyberpunk and every dystopian scifi movie since then.
Movie Discussion! - Page 341
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
It pretty much set the stage for cyberpunk and every dystopian scifi movie since then. | ||
|
excitedBear
Austria120 Posts
On April 06 2015 10:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i don't think it was influential. Siskel and Ebert are pretty open minded guys and they say Blade Runner sucks balls. 37th of all time? was it even 37th at the Box Office the year it came out? lol. if u want to talk about influential movies in this era ( late 70s/early 80s ) then i'd go with Superman The Movie. It set the formula for how to make a big-budget//top-name-actor, comic book movie. it was way more influential than Blade Runner and it made like 5X as much cash as Blade Runner at the Box Office. Every Clarke-Kent//Kal-El since Superman THe Movie came out 40 years ago is compared to Christopher Reeve. That's influential. I find it hilarious that you quote Roger Ebert, because he later reverted his criticism and added Blade Runner to his Great Movies Collection: "I have been assured that my problems in the past with "Blade Runner" represent a failure of my own taste and imagination..." http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982 http://rogersworst.blogspot.co.at/2011/01/3-blade-runner-1982.html | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17853 Posts
Wasn't a bad movie, but could use a bit more editing so that they would cut out some pointless stuff making it at least 30min shorter (the movie is 130min and it's definitely too long). Was nice for once to see some actually credible hacking. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On April 06 2015 10:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote: 37th of all time? was it even 37th at the Box Office the year it came out? lol. if u want to talk about influential movies in this era ( late 70s/early 80s ) then i'd go with Superman The Movie. It set the formula for how to make a big-budget//top-name-actor, comic book movie. Hilarious post. How many movie does that make it to compare to ? Those hundreds of superman adaptation ? Comic book movie isn't the only genre in the world, watch other films before talking such nonsense please. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32160 Posts
There's definite a lot of must-sees on there that I still haven't. I've still not seen Citizen Kane! | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17960 Posts
On April 06 2015 18:22 excitedBear wrote: I find it hilarious that you quote Roger Ebert, because he later reverted his criticism and added Blade Runner to his Great Movies Collection: "I have been assured that my problems in the past with "Blade Runner" represent a failure of my own taste and imagination..." http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982 http://rogersworst.blogspot.co.at/2011/01/3-blade-runner-1982.html he adjusted his rating by all of 1 star  and Siskel ? i'd say Blade Runner was an above average movie. no more.. no less... winning no awards... nominated for 2 cursory awards having nothing to do with acting, plot, or theme. some say whether or not a movie "stands up" over time is a non-issue in these rankings. hell, the movie didn't stand up at the box office in 1982 in the prime of Harrison Ford's Star Wars career. 2 Star Wars movies done and the 3rd one on the way. in the 80s almost everything Harrison Ford touched turned to gold, but not Blade Runner. On April 06 2015 23:03 corumjhaelen wrote: Hilarious post. How many movie does that make it to compare to ? Those hundreds of superman adaptation ? Comic book movie isn't the only genre in the world, watch other films before talking such nonsense please. like "This is Spinal Tap" .. another movie on this list. LOL. i applaud it's comedic look at the heavy metal genre. But to stick it on this list is hilarious...as i said before ... Monster > This-Is-Spinal-Tap Superman: THe Movie is a 40 year old movie that stands up just fine today. Comic book movies are not "all there is". However, the entire niche genre started with Superman The Movie. Christopher Reeve's interpretation of the character .... timeless. The big budget realistic comic book adaptation all began with the Salkind's Superman project. Hence, it is influential. go into some real detail before engaging in such silly polemics. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On April 06 2015 16:36 govie wrote: Hopefully they make more moviesaga's because i as a non reader enjoyed the trilogy alot. 1. trilogy about the valar and why the 5 wizards came to middle earth 2. trilogy or two about the two blue wizards that went east and their adventures 3. trilogy about mirkwood and radagast 4. trilogy about the dwarfs and trolls 5. And other storylines etcetc. As long as Disney is set on keeping the copyright on Mickey Mouse, it is unlikely that we'll get many other in universe films outside of remakes of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Works don't go into the public domain anymore and the Tolkien Estate refuse to let anything else have a film adaptation. Which is really too bad because there are some really great stories such as Turin Turamabar and the Fall of Gondolin. (Your examples would be have to be entirely made up.) Even the early drafts of Gondolin have crazy scenes that would translate well into film, I think. Dragons constructed by forges and sorceries, some which disgorge orcs, some that breathe fire. The captain of the balrogs destroying the sword and shield arms of the elf captain of Gondolin, so the elf captain rams the Balrog with the spike on his helm and the two fall from a great height to perish in the fountain. Or Maeglin's betrayal, where he tries to dash Idril's (daughter to the elf king) son off a balconey, but she fights back, delaying him. Maeglin tries to stab the boy, who bites his hand, and at which point Tuor arrives and breaks Maeglin's arm and casts the traitor off the balconey, his body hitting three times before it reaches the ground. The Silmarillion compresses the story way too much. | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
On April 07 2015 04:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote: he adjusted his rating by all of 1 star and Siskel ? i'd say Blade Runner was an above average movie. no more.. no less... winning no awards... nominated for 2 cursory awards having nothing to do with acting, plot, or theme. some say whether or not a movie "stands up" over time is a non-issue in these rankings. hell, the movie didn't stand up at the box office in 1982 in the prime of Harrison Ford's Star Wars career. 2 Star Wars movies done and the 3rd one on the way. in the 80s almost everything Harrison Ford touched turned to gold, but not Blade Runner. He should've upped it to 5 stars and salivated all over it or what? Siskel died in 99, Roger changed his mind in 2007 after seeing the final cut, impossible to say if Siskel would've changed his mind and does it matter? Fight club got 1 nomination for effects and also flopped at the Box Office, how should we rate this movie in your mind? Shawshank Redemption flopped at the Box Office, it got nominated for some Oscars though, but it didn't win any. Box Office top 100 includes some really bad movies (less so if adjusted to inflation but still) I don't know why you keep talking about it. I've no idea why i write these replies, i must stop, nothing good has ever come off of these kinds of conversations. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On April 07 2015 05:38 Daray wrote: He should've upped it to 5 stars and salivated all over it or what? Siskel died in 99, Roger changed his mind in 2007 after seeing the final cut, impossible to say if Siskel would've changed his mind and does it matter? Fight club got 1 nomination for effects and also flopped at the Box Office, how should we rate this movie in your mind? Shawshank Redemption flopped at the Box Office, it got nominated for some Oscars though, but it didn't win any. Box Office top 100 includes some really bad movies (less so if adjusted to inflation but still) I don't know why you keep talking about it. I've no idea why i write these replies, i must stop, nothing good has ever come off of these kinds of conversations. Fight Club is a movie completely of its time though, Bladerunner, which as you pointed out and others did, didn't really come into its own until well after it was in theaters. If you go back and watch Fight Club, it is really not the same movie you thought at 15 or so. One aged like wine, Fight Club aged like milk. The further from 1999 we get, the less I find people lunging at the opportunity to praise Fight Club. As you said though, opinions change and like Phillip K. Dick, he and a lot of the source material he wrote was really only appreciated after he passed or after it left the box office respectively. | ||
|
govie
9334 Posts
On April 07 2015 04:53 Falling wrote: As long as Disney is set on keeping the copyright on Mickey Mouse, it is unlikely that we'll get many other in universe films outside of remakes of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Works don't go into the public domain anymore and the Tolkien Estate refuse to let anything else have a film adaptation. Which is really too bad because there are some really great stories such as Turin Turamabar and the Fall of Gondolin. (Your examples would be have to be entirely made up.) Even the early drafts of Gondolin have crazy scenes that would translate well into film, I think. Dragons constructed by forges and sorceries, some which disgorge orcs, some that breathe fire. The captain of the balrogs destroying the sword and shield arms of the elf captain of Gondolin, so the elf captain rams the Balrog with the spike on his helm and the two fall from a great height to perish in the fountain. Or Maeglin's betrayal, where he tries to dash Idril's (daughter to the elf king) son off a balconey, but she fights back, delaying him. Maeglin tries to stab the boy, who bites his hand, and at which point Tuor arrives and breaks Maeglin's arm and casts the traitor off the balconey, his body hitting three times before it reaches the ground. The Silmarillion compresses the story way too much. Yes all was made up, i never read tolkien just the wiki page and saw some stuff that wasnt in the previous movies. But I dont know which rights they bought and if they can continue with their own stories because a troll or a wizard are universal definitions which i assume you cant claim. Like both blue wizards went tot the east, the east is a different fantasy world... trolls, dwarfs and goblins are not only used in tolkien stories so maybe a saga about the dwarven kingdom could be possible etcetc i still have hope. | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
On April 07 2015 06:46 ThomasjServo wrote: Fight Club is a movie completely of its time though, Bladerunner, which as you pointed out and others did, didn't really come into its own until well after it was in theaters. If you go back and watch Fight Club, it is really not the same movie you thought at 15 or so. One aged like wine, Fight Club aged like milk. The further from 1999 we get, the less I find people lunging at the opportunity to praise Fight Club. As you said though, opinions change and like Phillip K. Dick, he and a lot of the source material he wrote was really only appreciated after he passed or after it left the box office respectively. That's interesting, it has been over 10 years since i last saw Fight Club. Gonna go and check it out when i have the time to see how it has changed for me. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 07 2015 08:16 Daray wrote: That's interesting, it has been over 10 years since i last saw Fight Club. Gonna go and check it out when i have the time to see how it has changed for me. I dunno, I think Fight Club aged fairly well. Then again, I don't really know how ridiculous the following was when it came out. Anyone who liked it as a movie probably will still love it. If anyone actually treated as some kind of cultural revolution gospel, then they've probably realized how dumb they were. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
Many movies, and lots of art in general, weren't well received when they were first made. Hell, 2001 was barely a success with the public and one prominent critic said it was "monumentally unimaginative". | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
On April 05 2015 04:14 farvacola wrote: I think Tim Robbins has a stupid face, if I'm being frank. really makes his character in Mystic River though. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32160 Posts
i've seen this a few times and i just realized it has liu kang. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32160 Posts
| ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
EDIT: Nope, was thinking of Grindhouse. | ||
|
Azza
China650 Posts
| ||
| ||
