Vivian on 13/8/2013 at 07:21
Blade Runner is a fucking masterpiece and if you watch the final cut at least, the acting is superb. Full of subtle detail.
Fafhrd on 13/8/2013 at 08:23
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I think the Final Cut is markedly better than the Director's Cut, personally.
I think losing the tactical f-bomb that is only in the Theatrical Cut is a huge mistake.
Speedy Eggbert on 13/8/2013 at 10:05
Fuck my shit stinks.
june gloom on 13/8/2013 at 10:23
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
I think losing the tactical f-bomb that is only in the Theatrical Cut is a huge mistake.
I don't agree, and anyway that's a small loss compared to the big gain of losing the crap voiceovers that Ford very obviously did not want to do.
faetal on 13/8/2013 at 12:43
Final cut has some insanely detailed adjsutments. They completely re-filmed the scene where Zhora gets shot, using a stunt actor because of several blunders in the original scene. They filmed Ford's son voicing some of the lines so they could fix some lip-synching by splicing in the right mouth movement. They fixed the flames at the beginning so they are in synch with the audio. It's an obsessive cut.
One thing I will say about Oblivion is that it surely has to stimulate Morgan Freeman's long overdue break from typecasting.
I agree with all of what Sulphur said (other than the soul part, since the main point of his past life becoming emergent from the clone is that all of the memories are locked into the cloning process somehow - that point is made clearly), but still something very poignant shone through for me. It was very clear from the start that something was up, on account of previous genre canon, but the execution of it and the fact that it turns out that they think they are rebuilding after defeating the aliens, when they are in fact working for them the whole time made for a good viewing experience for me. I think I was practically blind to the film and was just seeing and appreciating the underlying idea a lot of the time. I do wish they could have made less Hollywood and more pseudo-cult. Would have been leagues better and an easy 4 for me.
Sulphur on 13/8/2013 at 20:47
Quote Posted by faetal
I agree with all of what Sulphur said (other than the soul part, since
the main point of his past life becoming emergent from the clone is that all of the memories are locked into the cloning process somehow - that point is made clearly), but still something very poignant shone through for me.
It was very clear from the start that something was up, on account of previous genre canon, but the execution of it and the fact that it turns out that
they think they are rebuilding after defeating the aliens, when they are in fact working for them the whole time made for a good viewing experience for me. I think I was practically blind to the film and was just seeing and appreciating the underlying idea a lot of the time. I do wish they could have made less Hollywood and more pseudo-cult. Would have been leagues better and an easy 4 for me.
In the movie's favour, that was a pretty good bait-and-switch. There's meat in the underlying theme, but it's lost behind an avalanche of terrible decisions, a lot of them made because this had to follow a cookie-cutter Hollywood template.
What does an alien force that can build drones and destroy the moon need to bother with human clones for? Or subjugate the rest of the planet with clones for, for that matter? If it can erase most memories in the cloning process, then why bother with the farce that is Mission and 'effective teams' instead of making a low-maintenance story for itself involving Mission being run by an AI?
Or forget all that for a moment. My point with the soul was this: Cruise and Olga spend most of the movie reforging old bonds, and then he kills himself in the end to free humanity. His clone, who is not him, and can not be him - because your soul is not the sum of your memories - appears like some long-lost twin brother, and Olga acts like this new guy is the person she spent the entire movie with. Well, he isn't, and no one in Olga's place would actually treat him like the one who died, because that guy -- he's dead. The movie's defeating its own point here, where it's basically saying as long as clones can be provided, you can just keep killing off a bunch and it doesn't make a whit of a difference to anyone. Humanity doesn't need to worry about identity or individuality or its own survival when you can just be replicated ad infinitum. This is where the Hollywood happy ending formula completely destroys any resonance the movie might have built up to that point.
And that's where Farscape actually handled this entire point with far more nuance and emotion. If you haven't seen it, season 1 is a bit rough, but the writers find their way around by the end, and seasons 2 and 3 are where brilliant things happen, like how it treats the idea of 'can you clone a soul?' I'd recommend giving it a go, and don't worry about being turned off by the space muppets. Even they turn out an asset to the production in the end.Briareos H on 13/8/2013 at 23:12
Quote Posted by Sulphur
...
I don't understand this.
When does the movie hint at the fact that "soul is not the sum of your memories"? I assumed that Tom Cruise 52 spent some time on his own piecing together parts of the truth and parts of his memories of Julia, realised who she was and came for her at the end. He'll need to reforge the same bonds as 49, but since Julia already accepted a clone as her husband once, I guess she wouldn't have too much trouble accepting a new one. And I thought that it was the interesting part. In the end, he's as much the real Jack Harper as the one who sacrificed himself, which was kind of the point?faetal on 13/8/2013 at 23:33
Quote Posted by Sulphur
In the movie's favour, that was a pretty good bait-and-switch. There's meat in the underlying theme, but it's lost behind an avalanche of terrible decisions, a lot of them made because this had to follow a cookie-cutter Hollywood template.
What does an alien force that can build drones and destroy the moon need to bother with human clones for? Or subjugate the rest of the planet with clones for, for that matter? If it can erase most memories in the cloning process, then why bother with the farce that is Mission and 'effective teams' instead of making a low-maintenance story for itself involving Mission being run by an AI?Quote:
Or forget all that for a moment. My point with the soul was this: Cruise and Olga spend most of the movie reforging old bonds, and then he kills himself in the end to free humanity. His clone, who is not him, and can not be him - because your soul is not the sum of your memories - appears like some long-lost twin brother, and Olga acts like this new guy is the person she spent the entire movie with. Well, he isn't, and no one in Olga's place would actually treat him like the one who died, because that guy -- he's dead. The movie's defeating its own point here, where it's basically saying as long as clones can be provided, you can just keep killing off a bunch and it doesn't make a whit of a difference to anyone. Humanity doesn't need to worry about identity or individuality or its own survival when you can just be replicated ad infinitum. This is where the Hollywood happy ending formula completely destroys any resonance the movie might have built up to that point.But the whole point is that her original husband died, so the very fact that they found their love so easily in the first place is precisely
because all of the bit which matters (i.e. not the part which happens after she crashes on earth, but their shared memories before that) is stored within the clones. They made a big point of the fact that the clones are quintessentially the man she loves, they just need to tap into the memories. Sure it's a fucked up situation, but she isn't swamped with alternatives and from waking up to a dead planet after 60 years of sleep, probably craves some familiarity, even if it's weird sci-fi abomination familiarity.[
Quote:
And that's where Farscape actually handled this entire point with far more nuance and emotion. If you haven't seen it, season 1 is a bit rough, but the writers find their way around by the end, and seasons 2 and 3 are where brilliant things happen, like how it treats the idea of 'can you clone a soul?' I'd recommend giving it a go, and don't worry about being turned off by the space muppets. Even they turn out an asset to the production in the end.
Based on that, I may give Farscape a go, as I've not seen it.
Pyrian on 14/8/2013 at 00:43
Quote Posted by Sulphur
What does an alien force that can build drones and destroy the moon need to bother with human clones for? Or subjugate the rest of the planet with clones for, for that matter? If it can erase most memories in the cloning process, then why bother with the farce that is Mission and 'effective teams' instead of making a low-maintenance story for itself involving Mission being run by an AI?I dunno, Sulphur. Those aren't real issues. Those aren't, like, contradictions in the storyline or whatever. Those are quibbles about things we can't possibly know. You're criticizing sci-fi for being
speculative. Do you really think you couldn't come up with equivalent criticisms of, say,
Blade Runner?
The heightened metabolism should be easy to pick up on with any number of simple physical tests.Why the heck WOULDN'T you employ a disposable local life-form to conquer a planet, if you had that capacity? Why the heck WOULDN'T you use a friendly, rememberable, "human" face to interact with your re-programmed clones, if you had that capability? Those are, like, basically decent ideas.Oh, and the soul stuff? I think you're bringing something to the table there. There's nothing about souls in Oblivion. To me, that's part of the charm.
Sulphur on 14/8/2013 at 07:07
Quote Posted by faetal
They're a resource gathering race, so I guess they don't want to spend their precious drones in all out geurilla war with the remnants when they can have cheap meaty clones treating the harvesting of remaining resources like a cool job. Other possibility is that the aliens prefer to use beings that are familiar with the planet being asset stripped as it removes nasty surprises.
But it's just ham-handed, in my opinion, that the machine uses an army of Cruises ('the best' of the human race) to destroy the rest of humanity, and then goes through all this trouble to make it seem like it's a friend to the clones to have them do maintenance on the surface. If it could simply make an army of bloodthirsty Cruises to kill people, why would it even need to concoct the story that the Scavs are enemies and that the Tet is Mission Control? It's obvious this is the writer pulling the strings from behind the curtain to make his point, and kludging it.Quote:
But the whole point is that her original husband died, so the very fact that they found their love so easily in the first place is precisely because all of the bit which matters (i.e. not the part which happens after she crashes on earth, but their shared memories before that) is stored within the clones. They made a big point of the fact that the clones are quintessentially the man she loves, they just need to tap into the memories. Sure it's a fucked up situation, but she isn't swamped with alternatives and from waking up to a dead planet after 60 years of sleep, probably craves some familiarity, even if it's weird sci-fi abomination familiarity.Quote Posted by Briareos H
I don't understand this.
When does the movie hint at the fact that "soul is not the sum of your memories"? I assumed that Tom Cruise 52 spent some time on his own piecing together parts of the truth and parts of his memories of Julia, realised who she was and came for her at the end. He'll need to reforge the same bonds as 49, but since Julia already accepted a clone as her husband once, I guess she wouldn't have too much trouble accepting a new one. And I thought that it was the interesting part. In the end, he's as much the real Jack Harper as the one who sacrificed himself, which was kind of the point?If you don't mind faet, you and BH are essentially making the same point, so I'm addressing it in one go.
The movie doesn't hint at a discussion about souls. I'm saying it. It's the same philosophical quandary where, if we were able to somehow take all your memories and put them in someone else's head, would that make that person you? I don't think so.
But regardless of that, Julia accepting one clone, I can accept. But any rational, reasonable human being would at least balk at or feel some trepidation at seeing the next clone of her dead lover appear again. Sure, given time and a healthy regression of the memory that the man she loved died twice, they may be able to form a similar relationship, but not right at that point at the end of the movie. The movie's essentially saying that those previous guys are disposable, and that human love is a transferable quantity over beings that ostensibly look and sound the same as long as they have the same memories. I don't agree with that - if you had several clones of someone you loved at the same time, would you love them all just the same? Or would the experiences you've had with the one you put the most time in with be the one you form the most attachment to?Quote Posted by Pyrian
I dunno, Sulphur. Those aren't real issues. Those aren't, like, contradictions in the storyline or whatever. Those are quibbles about things we can't possibly know. You're criticizing sci-fi for being
speculative. Do you really think you couldn't come up with equivalent criticisms of, say,
Blade Runner?
The heightened metabolism should be easy to pick up on with any number of simple physical tests.Sure, I could, but that's really not the point though. I'm not quibbling on it being speculative, I'm quibbling on it being broadly plausible. Most of the best sci-fi stories are the ones that resonate and ask questions at the same time.
Blade Runner's is simple mortality and the struggle against it, which is a very easy and plausible idea to relate to in the end. This one picks up a somewhat more complex theme, one that requires deft maneuvering, and fumbles it. In the broader picture the movie works if you don't ask too many questions and accept it as strands of ideas wrapped around sheer spectacle, but that doesn't work for me.Quote:
Why the heck WOULDN'T you employ a disposable local life-form to conquer a planet, if you had that capacity? Why the heck WOULDN'T you use a friendly, rememberable, "human" face to interact with your re-programmed clones, if you had that capability? Those are, like, basically decent ideas.They are, but they'd make more sense
in a movie with a broad alien intelligence that is smarter than what's portrayed here, and that has a purpose beyond simple resource harvesting.Quote:
Oh, and the soul stuff? I think you're bringing something to the table there. There's nothing about souls in Oblivion. To me, that's part of the charm.
Maybe I am, but the movie at least implies what I'm saying simply by choosing this set of ideas for its theme. When you're dealing with
a story about clones, the soul is an intrinsic part of that discussion, because as human beings, that's what most concerns us beyond the immediacy of narrative feints and twists. It's what you're left with to chew on at the end that marks how good a story is. I didn't find the aftertaste all that enjoyable.
