@Paul_Is_Drunk: Very few film adaptations cast the people the author imagined when he was writing. Dan Brown imagined Harrison Ford as Robert Langdon, he even describes him as "Harrison Ford in a tweed jacket" or something like that. Ron Howard cast Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks is a great actor but he is a far from Harrison Ford as I am from the Grand Canyon. Warren Ellis is an excellent writer. He should know that describing something as "So Weird" doesn't actually convey any information. There are probably a dozen different interpretations of what he meant in the minds of just those people who read this particular post. #red
@Presidentpez: If you get the chance read the original book written by Brian Garfield. Where the movie plays for laughs, the book is deadly serious. The basic plot idea is so good it works either way, although I think the book is far better.
As for me I'm going to watch some episodes of James Munro's 'Callan' (with Edward Woodward') to get in the mood for 'Red'. #red
@Presidentpez: It helps to be very very old (like me). I saw it in the theater with the future Mrs. Overclock (who I do not think was even a.k.a. Dr. Overclock, Medicine Woman yet). #red
Poor Bruce Willis.
A 'MeatPopsicle' in the Fifth Element.
A 'Meatbag' in Surrogates.
Where-oh-where, is that great feminist champion, of the prostituted profession, Megan Fox, when we really need her?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Empowering Jennifer's Body.
(Was I the only one who wondered, when I heard Brucie enunciate his personal preference "No, I'm a Meat Popsicle!", in The Fifth Element, precisely how much Unilever had paid for the product placement?)
I actually really enjoyed a lot of Surrogates (as I did Gamer[and District 9 with the meatbag becoming a prawnbag]), when it let its attention to 'uncanny valley' detail, just do its thing: Make me wonder and question and think.
Why is it, that writers, directors, studios and networks, think that after they show us something that successfully does all these things, that we want to be told what to think, how to feel about it, what's going to happen next and precisely what the 'happy ending' will be?
The worst offender, by far (recently), was the execrable Terminator Salvation.
The least, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
I think its writer, Josh Friedman gave us a pretty good explanation, of why [io9.com] .
Then again, CJ's "ugly Terminator-esque endoskeletons" struck me as unspeakably meatbagist, so perhaps I'm not the target demographic.
Or maybe, the creators are just completely clueless as to who their consumers really are and what they really want.
One thing I liked about the movie is how the actors were able to (mostly) pull off the "slightly beyond the Uncanny Valley" look when they were in the surrogates -- they're just a tad off, not enough to make it look like a movie full of robo-puppets but enough to make it obvious that something's not right. There were different degrees of that sort of woodenness, and while it's probably due to each actor's ability to pull it off well, I like to think that they corresponded to the more- or less-expensive models that had correspondingly more- or less-expressive faces.
The review should have ended like: "So to sum up: dumb movie, weak nonsense plot, incredibly preachy and sledgehammery, you know, a Bruce Willis vehicle."
well, truth be told, I like Bruce too.. (we're both harmonica players too) but sometimes I wanna just bitch-slap him and say 'snap out of it' and start making smaller indie movies and NEVER make another movie where he's some sort of law enforcement type ever again.
Charlie Jane Anders promoted this comment
iomatic (I know I'm an idiot, but I'll comment anyway) was starred
iomatic (I know I'm an idiot, but I'll comment anyway) was unstarred
This picture perfectly describes how the "healthy" and "pure" nature really looks like just how our luddite and pseudo-environmentalist-friends... imagine it...
@Shadowdagger:
One more thing:
So let's say the directors are all anti-technology and stuff. So I guess they made this movie just with bamboo sticks, stones and.......... wait...
@Shadowdagger:
"luddites" aren't people who hate technology, "luddites" are people who fight against the use of technology to replace humans, specifically human labor. They were originally a group of fabric weavers who fought against the use of the auto-loom (which requires fewer hands to operate) and were united under one of the first union organizers who's name was General Ludd. More colloquially it means one who has a difficult time or resists the implementation of NEW technologies because they introduce NEW procedures which are unfamiliar to the user.
Though, I do think you are right, they, the film makers are probably hypocrites.
@blackmarquet: Sorry about that. I shouldn't have generalize that term.
I know the history of luddism. But today people are calling themselves luddites who just loathe technology. My comment was directed to those kind of people.
I like that poor people have to settle for second-hand robots, kinda like all the poor people with out-of date dumbphones...I wonder if their robots stop working when their surrogate signal is intermittent...
@NerD: Blattella:
rental? I was thinking torrent, personally. If it's any good, I'll catch it on netflix watch it now in 6 months or so, just to make sure the studio gets the handful of half-pennies it deserves.
This whole fad theme of "post modern societies losing their humanity" stinks of of some of the conclusions made in Huxley's Brave New World. I love the book, but the one thing I never fully agreed on was that altering the state of the human (such as chemically- with drugs) need not always degrade us. In fact, I see a lot of potential for drugs/medicine/technology to enhance our humanity and increase our quality of life. Huxley's savage character saw the "soma" drug as something that degraded the soul because of the negative side effects- modern medicine still hasn't reached the point where only positive results are achieved, such as with anti-depression meds. They help with the depression but come with other bad effects such that Huxley would argue takes away from our platonic essence. But this will eventually change when only the depression is cured (enhancing our platonic essence) and doesn't carry other unwanted degradations of the mind. Why must we be against progress and technology for the sake of rebellion? Open your eyes, Luddites!
Well, that confirmed my worst fears about the movie. As someone with a really bad leg, hearing healthy writers preach about the wonderful nature of our biology is infuriating.
@I Think We're Property: I for one don't bother anymore. I've got one of the most complex heart malformation existing since, well ,forever, and I had so much people telling me to trust nature since I'm a baby.
Good for them, but without modern science, I would never have gotten past my first day. And I will be happy to have that mechanical heart installed whenever you want, thanks a lot. I still believe that technology should have its limits (human cloning? Mind Control? Non thanks), but I also see the benefits of it.
So, being so used to these kind of comments, I don,t think I'll be bothered that much with this movie. And Bruce Willis always means "my ass in the seat". It's a law.
11/05/09
Ellis is relatively successful but I'm sure he sees this as a big step forward. And big steps are trippy.
Hence, the "so weird." #red
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
As for me I'm going to watch some episodes of James Munro's 'Callan' (with Edward Woodward') to get in the mood for 'Red'. #red
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
09/26/09
A 'MeatPopsicle' in the Fifth Element.
A 'Meatbag' in Surrogates.
Where-oh-where, is that great feminist champion, of the prostituted profession, Megan Fox, when we really need her?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Empowering Jennifer's Body.
(Was I the only one who wondered, when I heard Brucie enunciate his personal preference "No, I'm a Meat Popsicle!", in The Fifth Element, precisely how much Unilever had paid for the product placement?)
I actually really enjoyed a lot of Surrogates (as I did Gamer[and District 9 with the meatbag becoming a prawnbag]), when it let its attention to 'uncanny valley' detail, just do its thing: Make me wonder and question and think.
Why is it, that writers, directors, studios and networks, think that after they show us something that successfully does all these things, that we want to be told what to think, how to feel about it, what's going to happen next and precisely what the 'happy ending' will be?
The worst offender, by far (recently), was the execrable Terminator Salvation.
The least, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
I think its writer, Josh Friedman gave us a pretty good explanation, of why [io9.com] .
Then again, CJ's "ugly Terminator-esque endoskeletons" struck me as unspeakably meatbagist, so perhaps I'm not the target demographic.
Or maybe, the creators are just completely clueless as to who their consumers really are and what they really want.
09/26/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
well, truth be told, I like Bruce too.. (we're both harmonica players too) but sometimes I wanna just bitch-slap him and say 'snap out of it' and start making smaller indie movies and NEVER make another movie where he's some sort of law enforcement type ever again.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
*sighs* Another luddite-y movie...
This picture perfectly describes how the "healthy" and "pure" nature really looks like just how our luddite and pseudo-environmentalist-friends... imagine it...
09/25/09
One more thing:
So let's say the directors are all anti-technology and stuff. So I guess they made this movie just with bamboo sticks, stones and.......... wait...
ps: luddites are hypocrites.
09/25/09
"luddites" aren't people who hate technology, "luddites" are people who fight against the use of technology to replace humans, specifically human labor. They were originally a group of fabric weavers who fought against the use of the auto-loom (which requires fewer hands to operate) and were united under one of the first union organizers who's name was General Ludd. More colloquially it means one who has a difficult time or resists the implementation of NEW technologies because they introduce NEW procedures which are unfamiliar to the user.
Though, I do think you are right, they, the film makers are probably hypocrites.
09/26/09
I know the history of luddism. But today people are calling themselves luddites who just loathe technology. My comment was directed to those kind of people.
09/25/09
09/25/09
That's too bad because I like the way Bruce Willis isn't afraid to tackle the cheesy film.
09/25/09
09/25/09
rental? I was thinking torrent, personally. If it's any good, I'll catch it on netflix watch it now in 6 months or so, just to make sure the studio gets the handful of half-pennies it deserves.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
Good for them, but without modern science, I would never have gotten past my first day. And I will be happy to have that mechanical heart installed whenever you want, thanks a lot. I still believe that technology should have its limits (human cloning? Mind Control? Non thanks), but I also see the benefits of it.
So, being so used to these kind of comments, I don,t think I'll be bothered that much with this movie. And Bruce Willis always means "my ass in the seat". It's a law.
09/25/09
09/25/09