 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
I haven't even bothered to watch series 2 after the fucking cliff hanger ending of the first one. Is S2 providing some sort of ending or is it similar?
Yah - that was awesome. I even got over Bruce Willis normally annoying persona and enjoyed his performance.
Eva Green in Dark Shadows was a hoot, so i guess i'll catch SinCity2 sometime. Saw Show White and the Huntsman. That's a damn fine movie. I thought Snow White was rubbish but hey, it's me.
How to train your dragon 2 on the other hand is as good as the first one. #‎Luther‬ is coming back to where he belongs. Back to London. Back to work. And back to BBC One.
Idris Elba will reprise his role as DCI John Luther in two hour-long specials for BBC One. LUTHER will film in and around London in March 2015 and will be broadcast on BBC One next year. The most gigantic and epic Nolan movie ever, probably too much so; like Inception this could have used some serious trimming (I think the snow base section of Inception could have been removed; here there's at least one plot I think should be removed, compressed, or handled better). Also, an annoyingly sentimental message, ESPECIALLY given the hard sci-fi angle (I love Arthur C Clarke and although I like Ray Bradbury, the latter's sentimentalism cannot work in the science-inspired universe of the former). Some of the roles/performances were a bit predictable (the unpredictable ones were awesome though).
The reason to see this movie, and to see it in theatres, is the intense and colossal imagery of other worlds and spacecraft navigating/landing/docking etc. Some of the imagery is jaw=dropping and there is more than one surreal moment in the movie. Overall, I kind of wish Nolan would dial it back a bit, as The Prestige and The Dark Knight are my favourite movies of his, and his last three movies seem on too huge a scale. But with all the remakes and sequels and retarded shit out there, it's undeniably nice that someone is trying something more ambitious and has a budget to back that. Also, yay more Luther! okay fine, but I can't imagine Clarke having any new-age type of sentiment like love conquers all or free will defies the laws of physics or anything like that, when a major theme of his fiction - perhaps THE theme - is the immense scale of time and space in the universe relative to humanity.
depicts evolution as a unilineal transcendence of corporeality achievable only by humans, and as a process by which they cohere and then merge with "the Overmind', a great "burning column like a tree of fire" which is "as much beyond life as that is above the inorganic world� (208).
It's certainly not a portrayal of evolution that Wells would endorse, and I would argue it's pretty new-agey, or perhaps more disparagingly, quasi-religious sentiment. I'm going to stop now, honest! this is an awesomely detailed conversation.
Okay, I haven't read Childhood's End, but I'm familiar with the concept/premise and how similar it is to 2001 and stuff that appears elsewhere in Clarke's work. I'm basing my opinion mainly on reading his complete stories, More Than One World, which gives the impression that MANY "destinies" for humanity, or life, or consciousness, are possible in the universe - it's a thought experiment view rather than a faith view. I mean he's discussing life that could exist on Venus or in the atmosphere of Jupiter or even inside the sun, and what kind of intelligence dissimilar to us might arise in the universe - this does not at all resemble to me some anthropocentric "Love Conquers All" Oprah-style consumer copout to exactly the existential issues the fiction is trying to discuss. Lol, there, now you look good! has many clunky moments, enough that it is probably my least favorite Nolan film apart form Insomnia. But that's a relative statement as it's still a 7.5-8/10 on my scale which is still an excellent film.
As Tronyn says, and this applies even more if you see the film as intended in IMAX, the imagery is an experience. Not an experience in the way 'hulk smash' was allegedly an experience in The Avengers, but you know an actual experience that is hard to describe in words but exhilarating when you are actually going through it. Is almost as woeful an understatement as the general response to Interstellar.
Just wonderful, the whole thing was a real experience. The combination of a very human story and a sci-fi epic was as good as it gets. 9.5-10/10 on my scale and I'm shocked that it isn't the same on everyone else's scale. Above and beyond the (in my mind, anyway) obvious highlight, such as the stunning imagery, unexpected plot turns and quality acting, it was nice to finally put my college-years personal research into higher dimensional physics to use.
I have plenty of beef with it (mostly the 'Nolan-isms').
Regardless it's a decent film. The only thing that bugs me to no end is the predestination paradox at the end. It's got plotholes that can be forgiven for, but this one just feels like a lazy deus ex machina for such a dramatic film. I mean, the higher dimensional poltergeist thing was a nice touch, but then trying to wrap that into this 'it was humanity all along' (how? do tell...) and the 'love' thing just is requiring too much suspension of disbelief for me. You just come out of the theater feeling like you're back in the 80s and just watched some frankensteinian lovechild of 2001 and Terminator. Okay, that might be a bit strong, but still. But when you bring it up to people they're all like 'yeah but duuuude, string theory!' or 'bro, teleological model!' or 'anthropic principle'. So... am I not getting something, or are people just trying to be 'deep' and 'profound' again? (like with Inception) Cos I can't be arsed, but something I wrote elsewhere about that bit:
The pre-ending is taken from Flatland - higher dimensional / future beings may be able to interact with us "breaking" some aspects of our spacetime, but only in limited ways due to the constraints of our spacetime and how we can perceive it. In this case it seems to be gravity that can be broken in spacetime, thus the HD/FBs can use that manipulation within a black hole (where IIRC gravity is usually a problem), but Cooper can't perceive what they are doing - exactly the same with how Murp perceived what Cooper was doing (limited communication from higher dimensions to lower). Also the HD/FBs already showed they acted outside spacetime with the wormhole. I get that bit, what I don't get is how that is supposed to solve the paradox... how are humans to become masters of spacetime in the first place?
It's a circular dependency issue: Advanced humanity is a requirement to save primitive humanity from certain death and saving primitive humanity is the requirement to reach advanced humanity. It seems to me the only logical explanation is that it's actually NOT highly evolved humans being the saviors.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |