The Movie topic

myp · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:34

devilman wrote:

I watched The Office for the first time at the weekend. Just left it running in the background while I was on the laptop so I was listening more than watching, but I didn't find it all that funny. In something like Alan Partridge, the main character is an idiot, but in the Office, it's an unlikable idiot, so paid less attention to the scenes with Brent in.

In the original Office Brent is not a cardboard cutout one-dimensional character though. At first you hate him, then you feel sorry for him when you realise no one likes him and start to understand why he's like he is, and then you empathise with him as his character redeems himself. It's one of the best television comedies of all time, imo. Obviously helped by a brilliant supporting cast - The Office is really about Dawn and Tim in a lot of ways.

devilman · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:38

Lonewolves wrote:

devilman wrote:

I watched The Office for the first time at the weekend. Just left it running in the background while I was on the laptop so I was listening more than watching, but I didn't find it all that funny. In something like Alan Partridge, the main character is an idiot, but in the Office, it's an unlikable idiot, so paid less attention to the scenes with Brent in.

In the original Office Brent is not a cardboard cutout one-dimensional character though. At first you hate him, then you feel sorry for him when you realise no one likes him and start to understand why he's like he is, and then you empathise with him as his character redeems himself. It's one of the best television comedies of all time, imo. Obviously helped by a brilliant supporting cast - The Office is really about Dawn and Tim in a lot of ways.

I agree with the support cast and Dawn/Tim stuff, but I hated Brent all the way through.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

Lonewolves wrote:

LewieP wrote:

It's rather telling that when you listen to interviews with him, he doesn't really understand what made The Office so good. I'm giving Stephen Merchant most of the credit.

Nah, Merchant's solo stuff has been guff as well, but I wonder if he's suffered from the same issues. They just obviously seemed to hit upon one or two very good ideas and worked well together. I still watch the Office and Extras now.

Brent was Ricky Gervais idea, it was developed from some character called seedy boss or something. Steve Merchant did a lot of the writing for the show though.

I wonder what has happened with these 2? They don't work together now and are always polite about it in interviews blaming calendars etc

Was surprised that Steve Merchant wasn't involved in this film

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

Lonewolves wrote:

LewieP wrote:

It's rather telling that when you listen to interviews with him, he doesn't really understand what made The Office so good. I'm giving Stephen Merchant most of the credit.

Nah, Merchant's solo stuff has been guff as well, but I wonder if he's suffered from the same issues. They just obviously seemed to hit upon one or two very good ideas and worked well together. I still watch the Office and Extras now.

I liked Hello Ladies.

Looking forward to seeing him in Logan, too.

Edit: He's playing Caliban, btw. He looks like this in it.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:41

Bruce Campbell is my Beyonce.

Kern · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:44

Merchant was a poor choice for the 'Crystal Maze' one-off remake.

I'm staggered that the 'Office' is over fifteen years old now.

Trousers · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3073

For reasons of deference to a guest's wishes we watched God of Egypt last night.

It is FUCKING terrible as you might expect but it's terrible to the point where you're agog at the sheer audacity of everyone involved in making it.

It's got Jamie Lannister, Black Panther, Captain Barbossa and GERARD BUTLER in and none of them can lift it from the sewer in which it was conceived.

7/10

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Trousers wrote:

God of Egypt

Mandatory link every time someone mentions this movie: http://io9.gizmodo.com/murder-is-legal- ... 1761496886

Trousers · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3073

Ooh good link cheers and it's all absolutely spot on. Absolute turd of a film.

devilman · **Posted:** Wed Dec 14, 2016 18:51

I was trying to remember where I'd seen bits of Gods of Egypt before, then I remembered - Mark Kermode wasn't a fan either

zaphod79 · **Joined:** 16th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14489

TheVision · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2016 0:47

I've just watched the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the Michael Bay one.

It was ace!

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:32

Damn right it was!

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6515

Off on our office trip to Rouge One shortly - feeling pretty optimistic as have heard some pretty good things about it. Sadly we're going to see the 3D version, which will make my brain ache after about 30 mins.

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6515

NOTE: Intentional Misspelling. :boots:

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2016 13:17

I've got free tickets to see it on Saturday morning with my brood.

FREE!

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14360

I watched that Magnificent Seven. I really enjoyed it but I discovered that I'm actually sick of Denzil Washington's indestructible characters.

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6515

Zardoz wrote:

I've got free tickets to see it on Saturday morning with my brood.

FREE!

Pfft, my workplace paid for me to go DURING WORK HOURS.

myp · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2016 17:28

My workplace wouldn't piss on any of us if we were on fire.

Trousers · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3073

To be fair that could lead to some awkward fire drills

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2016 17:31

'Ealth n Safety innit.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Squirt wrote:

Off on our office trip to Rouge One shortly - feeling pretty optimistic as have heard some pretty good things about it. Sadly we're going to see the 3D version, which will make my brain ache after about 30 mins.

I used to get terrible headaches from 3D, but I learned that there's a deliberate 'foreground' where the action is focussed, and as long as you stop trying to look at the background parts of the screen, you won't end up with a headache. Sitting further back helps with this.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2016 18:00

Lonewolves wrote:

My workplace wouldn't piss on any of us if we were on fire.

I'd piss on you.

You know what? I'd even shit on you.

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2016 18:13

Bee bap bap bada bop!

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38464

Get two pairs of 3d glasses. Pop out the lenses and put two rights (or lefts) in a single pair. Ta da, 2d glasses

DBSnappa · **Posted:** Mon Dec 19, 2016 19:15

Teaser trailer for Blade Runner 2049 has dropped. Get thee to IMDB

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14360

FUCK YES! New dog!

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Hearthly wrote:

Malc wrote:

I hated Lucy.

It was just stupid. I gave up watching after 30 or 40 minutes as it got worse and worse.

Well I went into with no real expectations, I had it in my head that she was created deliberately as a superhero or something, and didn't realise it was an accident.

Yes it was preposterous and based entirely on junk science, but it created a set of rules and then obeyed them, which is all sci-fi needs to do in my book.

Great special effects too, I'm not normally a big CGI fan but it was very well done here, and either they used practical effects for the stuff that they could (the car chase for example), or the CGI was so good I couldn't tell - either of those is fine.

Actually the car chase was silly really, because her powers were such that there wasn't really any need for it at that point, but it was still fun.

I hate myself for it, but I agree with hearthly. Why isn't he this forgiving of TWD though?

Morte · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:36

Satsuma wrote:

FUCK YES! New dog!

John Wick murders the world, I approve.

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14360

Emma Stone was in a Spider-Man movie!?

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14360

Satsuma wrote:

Emma Stone was in a bad Spider-Man movie

FeeX

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Nothing with Emma Stone in is bad.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2016 23:22

Hush is brilliant. Got netflix? Watch Hush.

Pundabaya · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 5016

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

Pundabaya wrote:

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

One possibility is it could be the person that the replicant we saw in the first film was based on.

But yes it seems like they might struggle to maintain the ambiguity.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Pundabaya wrote:

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

Well

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

The theatrical cut happy ending voiceover says because Rachel was an experimental model, she didn't have a four year lifespan. That's probably not canon now, given that Scott famously hated it, but the underlying plot point that the four-year lifespan was a concious design decision by humans and not a requirement of making replicants (and hence could be left out) still holds.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

LewieP wrote:

But yes it seems like they might struggle to maintain the ambiguity.

Of course, as shown in The Edge Of Human, both Ford and Scott don't think there is any ambiguity...

...except they believe opposite things!

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:43

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Pundabaya wrote:

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

Well

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

The theatrical cut happy ending voiceover says because Rachel was an experimental model, she didn't have a four year lifespan. That's probably not canon now, given that Scott famously hated it, but the underlying plot point that the four-year lifespan was a concious design decision by humans and not a requirement of making replicants (and hence could be left out) still holds.

Spoilers for a thirty year old film?

DBSnappa · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:51

MaliA wrote:

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Pundabaya wrote:

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

Well

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

The theatrical cut happy ending voiceover says because Rachel was an experimental model, she didn't have a four year lifespan. That's probably not canon now, given that Scott famously hated it, but the underlying plot point that the four-year lifespan was a concious design decision by humans and not a requirement of making replicants (and hence could be left out) still holds.

I don't think our lord and master has seen it...

Spoilers for a thirty year old film?

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:06

I thought the four year lifespan was to prevent the replicants going insane. To prevent this creeping lunacy, in the more recent iterations, memories were implanted, to make them think they were human. Hence Rachel almost passing the VK, Deckard knowing her memories, and the police guying knowing what Deckard dreamt of. I suspect that there was knowledge that the VK wouldn't be as good as discovering these newer models, so Deckard's test was to see if he would fulfil his assignment he was brought back in for, or side with Batty.

Grim... · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:12

Indeed I haven't. I don't think there's anything about it didn't already know, but I appreciate the effort

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Grim... · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:14

Cras wrote:

Wtf

Ikr

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Also, 2018.

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:18

So, these people could be replicants as they share a memory that didn't happe-fhchcgsbfhchdnchcdbchxgdndhchch{carrier lost}

Grim... · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:24

Cras wrote:

Also, 2018.

Yaaaaaasssssssssssssss

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

MaliA wrote:

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Pundabaya wrote:

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

Well

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

The theatrical cut happy ending voiceover says because Rachel was an experimental model, she didn't have a four year lifespan. That's probably not canon now, given that Scott famously hated it, but the underlying plot point that the four-year lifespan was a concious design decision by humans and not a requirement of making replicants (and hence could be left out) still holds.

Spoilers for a thirty year old film?

I'll go the extra mile for my favourite film ever.

GazChap · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:08

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Pundabaya wrote:

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

Well

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

The theatrical cut happy ending voiceover says because Rachel was an experimental model, she didn't have a four year lifespan. That's probably not canon now, given that Scott famously hated it, but the underlying plot point that the four-year lifespan was a concious design decision by humans and not a requirement of making replicants (and hence could be left out) still holds.

Would an unlimited lifespan replicant age though?

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:12

GazChap wrote:

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Pundabaya wrote:

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

Well

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

The theatrical cut happy ending voiceover says because Rachel was an experimental model, she didn't have a four year lifespan. That's probably not canon now, given that Scott famously hated it, but the underlying plot point that the four-year lifespan was a concious design decision by humans and not a requirement of making replicants (and hence could be left out) still holds.

Would an unlimited lifespan replicant age though?

I'd think so, as they are genetically designed. Tyrell has aged, and he's the sort of guy to take steps to avoid that, I'd wager. so, although they can appropriate the cellular machinery, it seems they cannot stop the wear and tear. Tyrell says he tried, too, but (technobabble). Whether that was just to appease Batty or not, is another thing.

Pris would be 8 months old, now.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:17

GazChap wrote:

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Pundabaya wrote:

Theres a whale in the Thames, but I watched the Blade Runner 2049 teaser... if old Deckard is in the new film, he can't have been a replicant?

Well

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

The theatrical cut happy ending voiceover says because Rachel was an experimental model, she didn't have a four year lifespan. That's probably not canon now, given that Scott famously hated it, but the underlying plot point that the four-year lifespan was a concious design decision by humans and not a requirement of making replicants (and hence could be left out) still holds.

Would an unlimited lifespan replicant age though?

Well a Terminator did

Be Excellent To Each Other

The Movie topic
...as there is none

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

The Movie topic ...as there is none

Who is online

The Movie topic
...as there is none