wolfshadowheart

I gave it a read and there's some interested takes but overall disagree and I think this particular read may miss some of the best parts of what make Blade Runner work. To just respond to the surmise, since all 10 points to me are more like 7 and even those 7 kind of just come down to these 3, lol.

First and foremost, its pacing is fine. Bad pacing in a movie is far worse, like Anna, and even pacing in a good one like Dune, doesn't mean anything necessarily - Blade Runner does a fine job if you are able to pay attention, I guess. Personally it seems a little odd to blame being molded by contemporary media to be the reason why an older film no longer holds up. Let me put it this way though - We have Drive (2011) and Baby Driver (2017). In a lot of ways, these movies are exactly the same at times being almost shot for shot early on (likely homage). But Baby Driver is an extremely fast paced movie, and Drive is an extremely slow burn. Both of these movies, like Blade Runner, do something different, so of the critiques there can be I'm not fully on board with this one, unless the argument is that old movies should be able to take any viewer out of their subjectivity mold, I can't really agree with the takeaway from this. I had a harder time watching the new Dune than I did Blade Runner, does that make Dune's pacing worse than Blade Runner or is Blade Runner's pacing better than Dune? See what I mean? I might feel different had there been any examples, but it seemed that it just found a "Blade Crawler" comment and made a point about it, and now that's bad because... movies are faster paced? Nyeh, not sold, lol.

Decker is no more than an analogue for the viewers to be in the world, he may be the protagonist but Decker, IMO, is far from the main character. I also disagree about him lacking complexity, however I would say that it is indeed because he is 100% a foil to the antagonists. Decker isn't meant to be this incredible Blade Runner that no other can live up to - he's good sure, he's alive and has his faculties and limbs, but he quite literally takes the role of the futuristic Desk Jockey, he is just the pencil pusher that grinds up the replicants. More on this later.

Whenever I watch Blade Runner I'm always surprised by how it's such a quiet film with so much exposition in just a few sentences. I don't think anything overshadows anything else. I think there is a strong emphasis on atmosphere which helps with the world building we get from the characters and interactions. It critiques hyper-capitalism by showing a world far in the future that by all accounts is exactly the same, save a few office jobs that have evolved. The underground is still working girls and chefs and the government is still uncoordinated and corrupt. Without the focus on visuals to evoke just how different this world is supposed to be, we don't get snapped back into mundanity when we see Decker ordering food and getting stopped by other officers. Moreover, the depth of the story comes specifically from Roy Batty, who as I mention should be viewed as the real protagonist. I think the movie itself argues this point to the bone, but everyone only ever seems to want to talk about Decker so maybe not.

I find it hard to see a lack of depth when Roy and Pris, literal cybernetic robots, are the most emotive characters in Blade Runner. The only other character we genuinely see some emotion from is the Tinkerer J.F. Sebastian, who has a love for his toys and makes friends with the replicants. They get inhumanly emotive at times, but they more than anyone we see express just how much they want to live. Roy's entire journey is a process of becoming human, until death when he gives birth to Decker by saving him. Roy lived as a human would have. In life, Roy was enslaved, escaped, and lived on the lamb. He sought vengeance towards God (Tyrell), found love, exacts vengeance once more before, in my opinion, realizing and accepting that God was right. There is no extending life. Not his own.

As he sees Deckard about to die, with the understanding that Roy himself will soon as well, Roy saves Deckard not as an act of mercy but as a birth. To extend life. For me, the story isn’t much about Deckard. It’s about what Deckard’s piece represents for humanity. He isn't complex, he doesn't need to be. Not everyone is. Particularly when Deckard himself isn't even the point that the film was trying to make, each and every quintessential moment of philosophy comes from the antagonists musings, not the protagonists inquisitions.

Your final act in death is to give life which you were no longer allowed.

That is complexity.

Jack Black rarely really plays himself in voice acted roles. He really embodies Bowser in the Mario Movie, and even Kung Fu Panda he isn't really himself, so I'm not really worried for Claptrap.

As for the other examples, I don't think actors have to be young or yolked to play a character. Not that I see Hart as Roland, just that I don't think his size matters for this at all.

But yeah the movie could really go either way, there's a lot of potential but Borderlands could very easily be a franchised series so I do wonder about the casting from a different perspective.

It reminds me of that bit from Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia where Dennis is talking about Hollywood movies.

I mean, it used to be only, like, the hard-line conservatives, like the pearl-clutching types, were the only ones that were overly vocal and extreme in their policing of sexuality. But now you got this, like, liberal wave of moral authority sweeping the nation. You know, it's nuts. I mean, think about it. If the conservatives had always run Hollywood, movies would have sucked. You know what I mean? The art would have suffered. So I guess the question we're asking is how will art fare under the oppressive thumb of this new liberal Hollywood moral PC elite?

It's just so silly and yet so accurate. Whether it's social values, politics or even just the opinion of AI and it's capabilities vs. it's potential vs. how people actually use it, there's this pervading idea that restrictions en masse are a viable solution. I feel almost the opposite, like to some extent the oversaturation of it intrinsically lowers the negative reception of it. Prohibition philosophy - when it's not allowed people will work even harder to use it in those ways, when it's not only allowed but widely used and even encouraged, people just inherently care less over time.

We're at a point right now where we are getting some pretty poor quality oversaturation of AI content and the tool alone is what is being blamed, to the point where copyright is being touted as this saving grace despite it consistently having been used against us smaller artists when corporate money is involved. Copyright isn't promoting small artists, rarely has, nor is it preventing AI, but it's somehow suddenly meant to ensure that the art you uploaded isn't reproduced? That seems not only unlikely, but like it's a scapegoat for a larger issue. Generative art isn't a problem because Ms. Jane working two 40-hour jobs uses it to make art featuring existing characters. That circumstance was and never will be a problem because Jane very likely would never have the money to commission an artist in the first place. What Jane makes is 100% irrelevant, so long as she's not claiming it as her original creation and trying to sell it - beyond that? I don't think anyone should care or fault her, because she is doing the amount of art that her circumstances allow her.

What I absolutely agree is an issue is businesses and corporations using AI, cutting staff further overworking employees that remain. However, that Secret Invasion intro that seemed likely AI generated? I can't in good faith try to argue "they should be tried for infringement" but I can fully support the fact that they should have hired an artist who would at least try to better use the tools at their disposal. I can simultaneously feel that the fact that Deforum may have been used is absolutely awesome, while also being annoyed and frustrated that they didn't utilize artists who deserve it.

There is a very large difference between Ms. Jane making AI images, even movies, and any corporate product - or that AI generated rat for the science journal. For the former, it is something that IMO is fully necessary in order for Jane to be able to enjoy the experience of a creative process under the bullshit system we've worked out. The latter is a completely unnecessary replacement used to cut costs. And yet, for neither does the concept of infringement actually matter that much, because copyright isn't the fundamental issue of AI, it's just the one people are latching on to. Without realizing that the likelihood of copyright laws helping someone like us is nil. Especially since there's probably an overlap of people who laugh at NFT's and pirate files because bits of data aren't a physical commodity that runs out, but a generative Imaging tool that does it is... Too far?

I think AI's issues are separate from what I've mentioned here. What people blame AI for is something else entirely. AI is still just the tool that speeds up the process. We have the concept of safeguards utilized as signs, barriers, and nets, so that if someone wants to use a bridge for the wrong purpose there are some measures in place to prevent them. We don't blame bridges for what the person is trying to do - we recognize that there is some reasonable level of safeguard and beyond that we just have to trust the person to do the right thing. And when it does show to be a pervasive issue, even still there is pretty much a bare minimum done - add another layer and a net and call it a day - instead of focusing on maybe why people in society are so inclined to jump.

The issue is always us. Yes AI makes evils job easier, like so many tools have. But trying to safeguard AI to the point of non-existence is just absurd from every angle, given that the bad stuff is likely going to happen in abundance regardless. I don't particularly see AI as the evil so much as the humans creating the meaningless AI generated articles.

There was the 1991 Point Break with Keanu and Patric Swayze, and then there was the 2015 one with Luke Bracey and Edgar Ramirez.

1991 was a gem, 2015 felt a bit like what happened with the 2010 A-Team movie. The only thing "wrong" with it is that it exists when it never really needed to. Does that make it bad? No. Does that make it not worth watching? Also no, it's just different.

'91 feels very much like an undercover agent, '15 very much feels like a high paced action mission impossible thriller. Again, not necessarily bad, just different.

You want a third point break? Lol

SteamDRM on GitHub

This one needs to be remade with the contemporary version.

Answer: "Comment deleted by creator/This user has deleted their account"

Response: "Wow thanks, that worked perfectly!"

I think the only difference is the encoding quality of 1080p can beore noticeable, but if it's a high quality file then it's fine. Other than that, dark movies. Dark movies seem to greatly benefit from 4k even on 1080p displays.

Could be the encode again, but I've tried a few different versions of files

I just want people to be able to compete if they use cannabis. But you're right that it would likely devolve lol

Glad to hear it!

There's a lot of disappointing comments on here, like no shit you would use a different vehicle if you had access.

First, someone mentioned any cop has the right to check for insurance/etc, so being prepared for that and being amicable, as bright-eyed as you can be. Those marks usually get noted I think though. And another mentioned a sob story, harder in some circumstances but you can get pretty creative from Moms colonoscopy to funeral road trip (from the colonoscopy ofc).

However, I would like to add - do you have any way to meet creative people willing to turn your ghetto van into a painted art car? I was wondering what region you're around (don't need to mention it no worries) and you've mentioned a lot of small towns which makes me think mid-south or west. Either way, going over the car with some primer and a theme may help turn it from ghetto to art-van.

I would try hitting up craigslist or posting on local pages, if funds are an issue I would maybe just mention the situation, doing it in sections. A for sure place you can get it done though for free? Pretty much anywhere in the PNW (OR/WA at least) there are all kinds of weird parties and gatherings and I've seen tons of "paint me" vans, and honestly most of the time they look freaking sick. They're always a mix of hand paint and airbrush.

If you are able to save some over time, you could technically apply these yourself for just barely cheaper than an auto-shop, but it would be some work. You'd need 1 - 1 1/2 of grey primer to cover the van - anywhere from $35 (check dates then shake really, really well) to $85. And then probably the spray/air gun.

Either way, you'll want to follow the proper care for treating the car before you paint it - clean, sand, primer, (maybe sand, maybe not if art car), then the hard part is the clear coat. That part I'm not as familiar with unfortunately.

Last random idea, there are these like rental camper vans, probably a bunch of companies but faking one of those. Same idea as the art car just dumber lol.

Anyways, good luck and I hope in the future you have better reception to questions like this - and that you're able to relax wherever you're staying.

Chewing pepper corns greatly decreases a high, it's not exactly pleasant but it works very well.