[Ulrik]

Abyss, on 20 August 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

MODGOD NOTICE OF if you want to argue about your relative theories on suicide, move it to the Discussion Board.

Tattersail, we don't tell people to 'shut it' just because we disagree with them here.

And Ulrik... addressing someone as 'Honey' and 'Dear' when you're disagreeing with them is condescending. Don't.

In czech is not! So much...well...a little bit...my fault...too much time spent in common "discussions". Modgod notice taken Sorry Tattersail, not polite and constructive from me.

[Aptorian]

Shit, the guy made a handful of the best films to come out of the 80s and early 90s. I didn't even know who he was before I looked up his resume.

I am going to go play the Top Gun anthem in his honor. Maybe top it off with Danger Zone.

[Solidsnape]

I'll be watching True Romance this weekend.


"I like you Clarence. I always have!"

This post has been edited by Solidsnape: 20 August 2012 - 04:26 PM

[Abyss]

Solidsnape, on 20 August 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

I'll be watching True Romance this weekend. ...

Seconded. Awesome flic, hideously under-appreciated.

[polishgenius]

He was pretty uneven but his best films were awesome. I've said it before that I reckon Tony > Ridley. Unstoppable, Top Gun, True Romance, Man on Fire - all top, top class films.

The thinking man's Michael Bay.

[Ulrik]

Tonight is Man on Fire

[Abyss]

That's another criminally under-rated one.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 20 August 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

He was pretty uneven but his best films were awesome. I've said it before that I reckon Tony > Ridley. Unstoppable, Top Gun, True Romance, Man on Fire - all top, top class films.

While the bolded statement is pure lunacy, considering Tony's track record compared with his older brother's...I agree that he has some SOLID, solid hits to his name...

For my own enjoyment, I think I'll just go with a classic and pop in TOP GUN.

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 20 August 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 20 August 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

He was pretty uneven but his best films were awesome. I've said it before that I reckon Tony > Ridley. Unstoppable, Top Gun, True Romance, Man on Fire - all top, top class films.

While the bolded statement is pure lunacy, considering Tony's track record compared with his older brother's...I agree that he has some SOLID, solid hits to his name...

For my own enjoyment, I think I'll just go with a classic and pop in TOP GUN.

Obviously I haven't watched everything these two have made, but looking at the list of films they have directed they seem pretty evenly matched in terms of good to great films. There's some hits and misses in both careers. Sure Ridley Scott has some more "classics" like Blade Runner, Alien and Gladiator, but on the other hand Tony Scott has made some of the most memorable and iconic action movies of the 80s and 90s. Top Gun, Days of Thunder and The Last Boyscout (maaaybe Beverly hills cop 2) could easily make placement on a list of all time favorite action films. True Romance is in and of it self an amazing film.

Tony Scott
Ridley Scott

Which of them is the better director I have no idea. I'd need to go back and pay attention to the technical aspects, but in terms of sheer entertainment I think Tony Scott delivered in spades.

Also, I'm hesitant to admit it but, I don't think Blade Runner is a very good film

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 20 August 2012 - 08:00 PM

[Gothos]

Hm. Never noticed him, myself. Overshadowed by his brother. Wonder what took him over the edge.

[QuickTidal]

Aptorius, on 20 August 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 20 August 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 20 August 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

He was pretty uneven but his best films were awesome. I've said it before that I reckon Tony > Ridley. Unstoppable, Top Gun, True Romance, Man on Fire - all top, top class films.

While the bolded statement is pure lunacy, considering Tony's track record compared with his older brother's...I agree that he has some SOLID, solid hits to his name...

For my own enjoyment, I think I'll just go with a classic and pop in TOP GUN.

Obviously I haven't watched everything these two have made, but looking at the list of films they have directed they seem pretty evenly matched in terms of good to great films. There's some hits and misses in both careers. Sure Ridley Scott has some more "classics" like Blade Runner, Alien and Gladiator, but on the other hand Tony Scott has made some of the most memorable and iconic action movies of the 80s and 90s. Top Gun, Days of Thunder and The Last Boyscout (maaaybe Beverly hills cop 2) could easily make placement on a list of all time favorite action films. True Romance is in and of it self an amazing film.

Tony Scott
Ridley Scott

Which of them is the better director I have no idea. I'd need to go back and pay attention to the technical aspects, but in terms of sheer entertainment I think Tony Scott delivered in spades.

Also, I'm hesitant to admit it but, I don't think Blade Runner is a very good film

The majority of Ridley's films are bonafide hits, while a lot of Tony's flicks haven't been greatly recieved (DOMINO for example). For Box office clout, Ridley wins hands down.

And BLADE RUNNER is fucking phenomenal you heathen bastard.

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 20 August 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

And BLADE RUNNER is fucking phenomenal you heathen bastard.

It's boring.

[Macros]

YOU'RE BORING!!

[Battalion]

Gothos, on 20 August 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Hm. Never noticed him, myself. Overshadowed by his brother. Wonder what took him over the edge.

Gravity?

[worry]

Battalion, on 21 August 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Gothos, on 20 August 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Hm. Never noticed him, myself. Overshadowed by his brother. Wonder what took him over the edge.

Gravity?

[D'iversify]

No one kills themselves out of pique - it's usually either a result of very serious consideration or when in a constant state of extreme mental trauma. I think all forms of help should be provided to the suicidal to try and persuade them otherwise, but only to a point - if they are fully convinced of their desire to die, it only causes more trauma actively preventing them (and in cases of extreme disability, failing to act to enable them). As someone who believes in the rights and freedom of individuals, I think the view of suicide as 'selfish' belies the point that it is also often selfish of those who love the would-be-suicider to feel that the autonomy of that individual should be delimited for the sake of their being forced to spend more time in a world they can no longer cope with. Yes, children do change the situation to a certain degree, but only because they are dependents, and therefore their autonomy is diminished by the loss of an active parent, because their love for their parents is often immature and lacks a true understanding of their parents' right to individual autonomy, and because they are unlikely to truly understand the 'why' of the suicidal state, which will typically lead to them interpreting a parent's suicide as evidence of the absence of that parents' love for them (whereas I would argue that love for others and suicidal tendencies often coexist [some might argue that the parent who 'truly' loved their children would not kill themselves, but that's just pure 'no true Scotsman']).

[worry]

D, on 21 August 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

No one kills themselves out of pique - it's usually either a result of very serious consideration or when in a constant state of extreme mental trauma. I think all forms of help should be provided to the suicidal to try and persuade them otherwise, but only to a point - if they are fully convinced of their desire to die, it only causes more trauma actively preventing them (and in cases of extreme disability, failing to act to enable them). As someone who believes in the rights and freedom of individuals, I think the view of suicide as 'selfish' belies the point that it is also often selfish of those who love the would-be-suicider to feel that the autonomy of that individual should be delimited for the sake of their being forced to spend more time in a world they can no longer cope with. Yes, children do change the situation to a certain degree, but only because they are dependents, and therefore their autonomy is diminished by the loss of an active parent, because their love for their parents is often immature and lacks a true understanding of their parents' right to individual autonomy, and because they are unlikely to truly understand the 'why' of the suicidal state, which will typically lead to them interpreting a parent's suicide as evidence of the absence of that parents' love for them (whereas I would argue that love for others and suicidal tendencies often coexist [some might argue that the parent who 'truly' loved their children would not kill themselves, but that's just pure 'no true Scotsman']).

[QuickTidal]

Aptorius, on 21 August 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 20 August 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

And BLADE RUNNER is fucking phenomenal you heathen bastard.

It's boring.

Maybe the secret is that it's a drama NOT AN ACTION movie.

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 21 August 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Aptorius, on 21 August 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 20 August 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

And BLADE RUNNER is fucking phenomenal you heathen bastard.

It's boring.

Maybe the secret is that it's a drama NOT AN ACTION movie.

You know what, you're totally right. And if I had gone into the movie knowing that this was a dramatic story about the will to live (or what ever the running theme is in that film) set in a futuristic bleak future, I would have enjoyed the movie much more. But when I hear people talking about Blade Runner they talk about cyberpunk and cool cyborgs and futuristic action what ever. I came in expecting something like Johnny Mnemonic mixed with Neuromancer combined with Dark Angel or Split Second, only with a much high production value and a more refined definition of style. What I got was disjointed life stories, that are poorly tied together, that culminate in a tragic fight that felt sad and unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, the acting, the setting, the style, the whole feel of the film is amazing (for its time) but as a story, there's just not much to it at all.

Of course I think I may have been more impressed with it if I had watched it in the 80s or 90s for the first time instead of in 2012.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 21 August 2012 - 02:36 PM

[QuickTidal]

Aptorius, on 21 August 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 August 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Aptorius, on 21 August 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 20 August 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

And BLADE RUNNER is fucking phenomenal you heathen bastard.

It's boring.

Maybe the secret is that it's a drama NOT AN ACTION movie.

You know what, you're totally right. And if I had gone into the movie knowing that this was a dramatic story about the will to live (or what ever the running theme is in that film) set in a futuristic bleak future, I would have enjoyed the movie much more. But when I hear people talking about Blade Runner they talk about cyberpunk and cool cyborgs and futuristic action what ever. I came in expecting something like Johnny Mnemonic mixed with Neuromancer combined with Dark Angel or Split Second, only with a much high production value and a more refined definition of style. What I got was disjointed life stories, that are poorly tied together, that culminate in a tragic fight that felt sad and unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, the acting, the setting, the style, the whole feel of the film is amazing (for its time) but as a story, there's just not much to it at all.

Of course I think I may have been more impressed with it if I had watched it in the 80s or 90s for the first time instead of in 2012.

Whomever you spoke with that referred to it as having "futuristic action" ect. did you a HUGE disservice then. None of the trailers ever released has portrayed it as anything but a sci-fi drama. No fast cuts, it's all about atmosphere. I've never heard people discuss it in such a way.

Also: Disjointed little stories? WTF movie did you watch? BLADE RUNNER is interconnected on more than a few levels throughout. Did you only see bits of it or something? I'm seriously asking the question here...since I can't fathom anyone walking away from it calling it disjointed.