- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Co-worker claiming “Top Gun” is better than “Blade Runner”
Posted on 3/20/19 at 12:38 pm to TeddyPadillac
Posted on 3/20/19 at 12:38 pm to TeddyPadillac
That you struggle with context.
Not going into all the reasons why 2001 is probably the most groundbreaking, awe-inspiring, and influential movie ever made in an effort to convince you that it's better than a movie like Fast and Furious
Not going into all the reasons why 2001 is probably the most groundbreaking, awe-inspiring, and influential movie ever made in an effort to convince you that it's better than a movie like Fast and Furious
0
Posted on 3/20/19 at 12:48 pm to Fenwick86
quote:
I respectfully disagree with the notion that Blade Runner is boring.
OK, that's fine. You can disagree. That doesn't mean that Blade Runner isn't boring, or that 2001 is objectively a better film than Varsity Blues.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 12:51 pm to theantiquetiger
Tell him to ho jump off a cliff
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:26 pm to Philzilla2k
quote:
Movie opinions are subjective
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:29 pm to Baloo
quote:
The theatrical version was marred by a narration that sounded like Harrison Ford read it at gunpoint.
True story, funny story - Ridley threatened to take his name off the film if they made him include the narrative. After some discussion, I suppose he must have relented under protest. Ford intentionally tanked the narration in the hopes it would be so bad they would scrap it.
quote:
There's some cool visual moments
The entire film is a visual masterpiece. That is as good as "in camera" practical effects get. Even if the movie was unlistenable, it would be gorgeous with the sound turned down. The effort for "The Final Cut" bringing it to the HD era was heroic - overseen by Ridley himself, it omits the voiceover (of course), corrects some of the continuity errors in the script and with a little help from CGI, puts Joanna Cassiday's (Zhora) head onto the stuntwoman with a bad wig's body for Zhora's death scene.
The rest of the film is, frankly, a literal masterpiece, which very few (major releases, anyway) films made since can claim.
From a combination of layered storytelling, there is so...much...there. Based loosely on a Philip K. Dick novel, Ridley accomplished that rarefied thing of elevating the source material with the visual image.
No. It is not perfect. The pacing is slow for the modern audience, but this is a story literally about a man (artificial man who doesn't know he is, perhaps) seeking out what it means to be human. Why some have rights (organic) while others do not (synthetic). But, it parallels a similar search for meaning (and longevity denied them, also by virtue of being synthetic) of artificial humans who definitely know they're artificial.
And the literal struggle of life and death. When to choose which. Placed on top of this dystopian futuristic, yet noir, setting with dark lighting, 30s/40s era fashion sense, anachronistic (even in the early 1980s) smoking habits and even language that pull you in.
Artificial animals are the norm. Common language is all languages mixed together. It's always raining and nighttime.
The nominal villain of the film (Roy Batty) actually turns out to be the hero that saves the protagonist, rather than be defeated by him. The acting was stunning, overall, particularly the supporting cast. The framing and lighting were all perfect for the film's setting, tone, mood, story, message. The Vangelis score.
Obviously, I could go on and on about this particular film. It would be the rare film scholar that wouldn't consider this one of the finest 20 to 30 films ever made, and within the genre of science fiction has to be up there in the Top 3 with Metropolis and 2001.
Period. Full stop.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
So mind-numbing.
McDonald's hamburgers are the best in the world. Taco Bell makes the best tacos. Polly Pocket is better than the Sopranos. Dominos is better than any Brooklyn pizza restaurant. Subways cold cuts are the best in the country.
It's just being a troll, and not being able to articulate any reasoning that makes Varsity Blues "better" than 2001. 2001 is, in fact, one of the most important movies ever made. It did, in fact, change the genre forever. It did, in fact, employ groundbreaking visual effects never before seen. It did, in fact, lead the way for countless other sci fi movies to be made whose stories would have never been visualized and left to be read in magazines. It is, in fact, one of the most ambitious movies ever made. Stanley Kubrick is, in fact, one of the great directors to all time.
Whether or not you find 2001 entertaining doesn't really matter and doesn't change the FACT that is "better" than Varsity Blues. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone objectively enjoying it more than 2001.
McDonald's hamburgers are the best in the world. Taco Bell makes the best tacos. Polly Pocket is better than the Sopranos. Dominos is better than any Brooklyn pizza restaurant. Subways cold cuts are the best in the country.
It's just being a troll, and not being able to articulate any reasoning that makes Varsity Blues "better" than 2001. 2001 is, in fact, one of the most important movies ever made. It did, in fact, change the genre forever. It did, in fact, employ groundbreaking visual effects never before seen. It did, in fact, lead the way for countless other sci fi movies to be made whose stories would have never been visualized and left to be read in magazines. It is, in fact, one of the most ambitious movies ever made. Stanley Kubrick is, in fact, one of the great directors to all time.
Whether or not you find 2001 entertaining doesn't really matter and doesn't change the FACT that is "better" than Varsity Blues. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone objectively enjoying it more than 2001.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:38 pm to Baloo
quote:
I will never understand the cult around BLADE RUNNER. Yes, it's got a cool and influential production design
Well theres one reason.
Blade Runner is one of only two movies I'd say is better than the book. If you thought Blade Runner is a mess, its 10x cleaner than the book. Although oddly enough Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is one of the best book titles of all time. Anyway.
I love gritty movies, and it's almost impossible to do a good, gritty sci fi. That's just one of the influential aspects.
quote:
BLADE RUNNER is a complete mess of a movie marred by some dreadful acting (Sean Young in a major role was a huge mistake
I could argue all day that this is by far Harrison Ford's best acting job. Yea he was cool in SW and Indiana Jones, but he was playing Harrison Ford, that's not that hard. He actually showed acting chops in Blade Runner.
As far as Sean Young, I'd actually disagree with that. I try not to be some overly harsh movie critic, but I am pretty critical with acting. I thought she was great in this. William Sanderson was really good. Rutger Hauer, imo, a top 5 all time "bad guy." If you can even consider him a bad guy. The final scene with him shedding a tear in the rain while running out of time is so freaking good. I'd say Darrell Hannah's part was underwhelming, sure.
Also, with the acting, just bc its star studded, doesnt mean it's great acting.val Kilmer, who I really like, was basically one giant walking one liner. This isn't the movie I'm thinking of when I think of any of their great acting, for any of the actors. But in Blade Runner, I do with the star of the movie.
quote:
TOP GUN on the other hand is funny, eminently quotable, and has a star making turn by Tom Cruise.
Why would Top Gun get the benefit over Blade Runner bc its it's funny? That's like saying "Blade Runner on the other hand has androids from a different planet." I dont think it's fair to compare them based off the genre.
Btw, I like volleyball in wranglers. I like karaoke. I like living dangerous. I like Top Gun. But like you say, its brainless and like you say, Blade Runner is actually influential in a genre that is hard to do so.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:48 pm to jodyHighroller
quote:
Kelly McGillis
The only movie she looked decent enough to have the sex with. Unless you zoom in on her, jeebus this chick is ugly. All the hot chicks in the 80's and this was all they could get? At least swap her out with Meg.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:53 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
The entire film is a visual masterpiece. That is as good as "in camera" practical effects get. Even if the movie was unlistenable, it would be gorgeous with the sound turned down. The effort for "The Final Cut" bringing it to the HD era was heroic - overseen by Ridley himself, it omits the voiceover (of course), corrects some of the continuity errors in the script and with a little help from CGI, puts Joanna Cassiday's (Zhora) head onto the stuntwoman with a bad wig's body for Zhora's death scene.
The rest of the film is, frankly, a literal masterpiece, which very few (major releases, anyway) films made since can claim.
From a combination of layered storytelling, there is so...much...there. Based loosely on a Philip K. Dick novel, Ridley accomplished that rarefied thing of elevating the source material with the visual image.
No. It is not perfect. The pacing is slow for the modern audience, but this is a story literally about a man (artificial man who doesn't know he is, perhaps) seeking out what it means to be human. Why some have rights (organic) while others do not (synthetic). But, it parallels a similar search for meaning (and longevity denied them, also by virtue of being synthetic) of artificial humans who definitely know they're artificial.
And the literal struggle of life and death. When to choose which. Placed on top of this dystopian futuristic, yet noir, setting with dark lighting, 30s/40s era fashion sense, anachronistic (even in the early 1980s) smoking habits and even language that pull you in.
Artificial animals are the norm. Common language is all languages mixed together. It's always raining and nighttime.
The nominal villain of the film (Roy Batty) actually turns out to be the hero that saves the protagonist, rather than be defeated by him. The acting was stunning, overall, particularly the supporting cast. The framing and lighting were all perfect for the film's setting, tone, mood, story, message. The Vangelis score.
Obviously, I could go on and on about this particular film. It would be the rare film scholar that wouldn't consider this one of the finest 20 to 30 films ever made, and within the genre of science fiction has to be up there in the Top 3 with Metropolis and 2001.
Period. Full stop.
And I want you to put that in your hearts. Boys my heart is full. My heart is full
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:57 pm to Fenwick86
quote:This post is, in fact, mind numbing to read.
So mind-numbing.
McDonald's hamburgers are the best in the world. Taco Bell makes the best tacos. Polly Pocket is better than the Sopranos. Dominos is better than any Brooklyn pizza restaurant. Subways cold cuts are the best in the country.
It's just being a troll, and not being able to articulate any reasoning that makes Varsity Blues "better" than 2001. 2001 is, in fact, one of the most important movies ever made. It did, in fact, change the genre forever. It did, in fact, employ groundbreaking visual effects never before seen. It did, in fact, lead the way for countless other sci fi movies to be made whose stories would have never been visualized and left to be read in magazines. It is, in fact, one of the most ambitious movies ever made. Stanley Kubrick is, in fact, one of the great directors to all time.
Whether or not you find 2001 entertaining doesn't really matter and doesn't change the FACT that is "better" than Varsity Blues. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone objectively enjoying it more than 2001.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:05 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
This post is, in fact, mind numbing to read.
Sorry you have no real answers and can't articulate what makes a movie like Varsity Blues or Top Gun "better" than Blade Runner or 2001. Sorry you don't see the obvious pitfalls in the shallow "its all objective" argument.
Maybe you just need to admit to yourself that a movie striking your fancy more so than say, Citizen Cane, doesn't make it "better".
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:20 pm to Fenwick86
Top Gun literally changed my life.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:22 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Top Gun literally changed my life.
I think I've been fair to Top Gun in this thead. Top Gun isn't a good popcorn film.
Top Gun may very well be THE GREATEST popcorn film of all time. The score is almost like cancer (in a good way), the jingoism and machismo in the film, by itself, harkens us back to the far, far better days of Reagan.
But, just because Top Gun does these things extremely well, doesn't make it a "better" film than a masterpiece like 2001 or Blade Runner. The world has room for both when the popcorn is this good.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:24 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
I respect that. I just differentiate between what my favorite movies are and what I find to be the best movies. Sometimes those lines cross and others times I can easily identify when a movie that I like and hold dear is, in the traditional sense, not really a good movie at all (Grandmas Boy, Con Air, Half Baked). This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:33 pm to Fenwick86
quote:
Con Air
This is a great example of an extraordinarily fun movie that isn't very good at all.
Compare that to Armageddon, that shares a lot of aspects, IMHO, but isn't as fun. However, much like Titanic, Armageddon's supporting cast made as heroic an effort as possible to save a terrible film from it's terrible romantic leads, director and screenwriter.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:41 pm to Fenwick86
quote:
So mind-numbing.
Yeah, I agree.
quote:
McDonald's hamburgers are the best in the world. Taco Bell makes the best tacos. Polly Pocket is better than the Sopranos. Dominos is better than any Brooklyn pizza restaurant. Subways cold cuts are the best in the country.
The inverse is true. Just because you like some burger or taco better than McDonald's or Taco Bell doesn't mean that they are objectively better.
You do know what objective means, correct?
quote:
Whether or not you find 2001 entertaining doesn't really matter and doesn't change the FACT that is "better" than Varsity Blues. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone objectively enjoying it more than 2001.
OK, so no, you don't know what it means.
I suggest you figure out what objective means and what a fact is.
quote:
It's just being a troll, and not being able to articulate any reasoning that makes Varsity Blues "better" than 2001.
They did articulate it. Your disagreement doesn't override their opinions. That's just not how it works. Sorry bout it.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:51 pm to Fenwick86
quote:
Sorry you have no real answers and can't articulate what makes a movie like Varsity Blues or Top Gun "better" than Blade Runner or 2001. Sorry you don't see the obvious pitfalls in the shallow "its all objective" argument.
I don't know about Varisty Blues as i haven't watched that movie but a handful of times, but as i mentioned before, i love Not Another Teen Movie.
Of course it's a shallow movie. What i love about that movie is how many parts of the popular teen movies of the 80's and early 90's they were able to intertwine into the plot of this movie. I love watching all those parts and remembering them from the original movie.
That is why the 3 Family Guy Star Wars episodes are so awesome. As someone who loves Star Wars, and has seen them countless times, the Family Guy episodes hits the nail on the head as far as taking scenes from a movie and over exaggerating them. Something as simple as the guys on the Death Star that are standing on this platform when the big laser passes by them to blow up Alderon have no railing. You never notice that when watching it, but Family guy was able to take that 2 second shot of nothingness and make it a 15 second hilarious part of their episode.
As someone who has enjoyed all the James Bond films, that make Austin Powers even more hilarious than it already is.
as you can tell, i love a great parody film.
Airplane, Monty Pythons, Blazing Saddles, The Naked Gun, Don't Be a Menace, etc.
2001 was a great movie for a certain generation, but most people that watch it for the first time years sometimes decades after it first came out, like myself, are not going to be impressed by the things you pointed out. How you feel about 2001, is how i felt about The Matrix, but you show that to a kid today for the first time, and they'd probably think it was just an average movie at best.
There's also no point whatsoever in debating what film is better, a syfy film or a satirical comedy. They have nothing in common. They can both be enjoyed for what they are.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:55 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Blade Runner is boring
quote:
quote:
I respectfully disagree with the notion that Blade Runner is boring.
quote:
you can disagree. That doesn't mean that Blade Runner isn't boring
That's some deep stuff right there.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:04 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Tell him to ho jump off a cliff
quote:
I like volleyball in wranglers. I like karaoke. I like living dangerous. I like Top Gun.
quote:
And I want you to put that in your hearts. Boys my heart is full. My heart is full
quote:
That's some deep stuff right there.
That's some even deeper stuff right there.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I'm saying that there is of course nothing wrong with someone being able to put all bias/reviews surrounding the movies aside and personally enjoying VB more than 2001. But saying that VB is a "better" movie than 2001 is wrong from both a historical and critical stand point. Using the idea that its a matter of opinion / you can't prove one is better than another, is wrong.
Everything I said in that post about 2001 is a fact and is well documented. Hey, maybe in 30 years Varsity Blues will have that type of influence.
Everything I said in that post about 2001 is a fact and is well documented. Hey, maybe in 30 years Varsity Blues will have that type of influence.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 3:23 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News