demagogue on 26/1/2020 at 10:24
I saw Predator 2 in the theatre and the film melted halfway through. (Edit: just to be clear, that's not a metaphor. I mean literally melted, like it stopped up and a browning melting hole grew out from the center out; and we had to wait 10 minutes for them to reset it.) I have to say it kind of fit the movie. IIRC people applauded and were laughing at it. It was dumb but some movie "awesome" things happened.
uncadonego on 26/1/2020 at 12:25
I feel like I'm shifting the gears here, but has anyone else watched Atypical? I binged it Wednesday and Thursday, and I thought it had some weaknesses, but is overall interesting. I find it interesting the way the actor portrays autism, different than Dustin Hoffman, different than Freddie Highmore. All showing different aspects of the ASD spectrum. Anybody else like it?
Harvester on 29/1/2020 at 09:59
Quote Posted by SubJeff
And in Total Recall there is only one thing that suggests it's a dream/implant. What do you think it is? Let's see if we agree.
I don’t know, maybe the fade to white at the end?
demagogue on 29/1/2020 at 12:19
Definitely what he ordered in his Mars package, point by point, is an indication.
It kind of wrote itself into an interesting corner, if you take the implant interpretation.
If we're to believe the doctor and wife intervened in real time while he's still hooked up, then it's not all one holistic memory implant. Some is implant memory and some is real time intervention.
So when he 86's them, if he's still hooked up, I think there are 3 options maybe:
1. They let his original memory implant play out while he's being lobotomized. But if we're being nitpicky, why should it play out taking into account the real-time intervention as part of its story now? I feel like it'd just ignore that and go on with the vanilla hero story. Ok, it might be that these are now his own original dreams he's making up mixing his hero story with the intervention but ... eh. That's not really following the rules of the movie; the whole point is our dreams aren't this real.
2. If they can do the real time intervention thing, I feel like the next step (if it's not going back to the vanilla hero story) is that they just cut him off and everything falls totally apart, goes to black or glitches out or whatever.
3. Anyway, because it's not 1 or 2, I think what it actually would be is that the "intervention" was part of the original implant to begin with, beads of sweat and everything.
That is, I think the options they give you are, either the straight story is true (he's not hooked up) or he is hooked up and the doctor/wife intervention is part of the implant. I think the story the doctor gave (he's hooked up but this is a real intervention) doesn't fly one way or the other.
So if the white fade out & package order match-up have any significance, then I think it was option 3 from the start and he's waking up at the end of the movie after his successful trip wraps up.
But what do I know? It's a Schwarzenegger movie so, you know, it doesn't really call for this much thought. vOv
catbarf on 29/1/2020 at 17:34
Worth pointing out that Total Recall is very loosely based on (and provides a much better name for) a Philip K Dick short story, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale. They did a pretty good job of keeping the central themes intact despite the transition to a Schwarzenegger action film. I really enjoy the ambiguity of whether it's all the implanted memory, or whether his choices for the implant were based on subconscious buried memories.
Anyways, speaking of transitions, I'm with Icemann on Picard. Some interesting ideas and Stewart is great as ever, but it takes some hefty liberties with the backstory, the pacing is way too fast and undercuts the impact of some of the scenes, and IMO the River Tam character archetype is a little overdone at this point. But every other Trek has had a poor start, so I guess we'll see where it goes.
Sulphur on 29/1/2020 at 17:42
Well, it's a good thing the River Tam character bites it anyway. Yeah, I know that doesn't really mean anything, but it's possible they'll go a different way there. I'm not sure what's so unbelievable about Star Fleet's actions given that even in the far future, people are still human, still age, and still have no cure for baldness - what they do with the Romulans is a perfectly reasonable analogy for current-day isolationist policies given their fraught history with humanity.
Pacing-wise, sure, it's definitely uneven. But most pilots suffer from needing to frontload the exposition, and given the numerous ways it ties back to TNG, this one is no exception.
catbarf on 29/1/2020 at 18:51
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I'm not sure what's so unbelievable about Star Fleet's actions given that even in the far future, people are still human, still age, and still have no cure for baldness - what they do with the Romulans is a perfectly reasonable analogy for current-day isolationist policies given their fraught history with humanity.
It'd be fine in any other series, but feels odd in a Star Trek, particularly a new series so closely tied to TNG. TNG and DS9 had characters like that (particularly Section 31 in DS9), but they were explicitly a minority, not the Federation as a whole. I mean, Star Trek VI is about a similar ecological catastrophe on the part of an old enemy (Klingons), and the Federation's response is to exploit it to sign a peace treaty, foster a relationship between their cultures, and assist in drawing evacuation plans. It's jarring to go from TNG's diverse, welcoming post-scarcity utopia to a vindictive, isolationist xenophobic state in Picard, with no apparent explanation for the change.
Anyways- beyond the sudden characterization of the Federation as being unwilling to perform a humanitarian mission on behalf of almost a billion people, abandoning what aid they do provide because an unrelated third party carried out a terror attack didn't make sense to me. It felt written to shoehorn in the allegory, but I suppose that at least is par for the course with Trek.
I didn't hate it by any means, but overall the style felt similar to the JJ Abrams Treks, and that's not my cup of tea. I'm optimistic that it can grow beyond that.
Sulphur on 29/1/2020 at 19:12
Quote Posted by catbarf
I mean, Star Trek VI is about a similar ecological catastrophe on the part of an old enemy (Klingons), and the Federation's response is to exploit it to sign a peace treaty, foster a relationship between their cultures, and assist in drawing evacuation plans. It's jarring to go from TNG's diverse, welcoming post-scarcity utopia to a vindictive, isolationist xenophobic state in Picard, with no apparent explanation for the change.
Isn't that the point, though? That Star Fleet reflected the idealism of the 60s and the 80s, that if we took all our good ideas and put them together, we'd eventually get to a future where everything's bright and shiny and people can get along? Which is to say, it was a stand-in for the US. The North American model worked for that moment, and then you have today where second-guessing ideals is the agenda, especially easy when you can unite people under the fear of yet another bogeyman. Utopian systems can't last all the time because, let's face it, we're human. We're prone to making the same mistakes. It's a good launching point; while the previous shows were happy to hand-wave how we got to utopia, reality says utopias can only happen if the challenges are constant.
It's almost as if the show wants to say that you can't reverse course without being held accountable for it - and that's an issue that's as old as time. The show will obviously try to get back to the status quo TNG presented - but it seems to be more interested in the journey towards it as the message. And if that's true, then it really is a good place to begin from for any show that calls itself Star Trek today.
I'll admit I don't see the Mars plot as adequate justification for the withdrawal, but time will tell if that's adequately handled or not.
Renzatic on 29/1/2020 at 19:46
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I'll admit I don't see the Mars plot as adequate justification for the withdrawal, but time will tell if that's adequately handled or not.
My impression is that the whole Mars excuse didn't need to be adequate, it just needed to be an excuse. Starfleet was already reticent over the whole affair, only committing to it due to Picard's constant insistence, and bailed on it the first chance they got.
Given that this is a Starfleet that's been attacked by the Borg twice, had only just ended the war with the Dominion, and were fresh off an attempted attack by the very people they were now trying to save, it's understandable why they'd be taking a more isolationist stance, and would use anything as an excuse to pull up stakes, and head home.