Page 57 of 61

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:34 pm
by Grace Speaker
Pat wrote:Blade Runner 2049. Very pretty, very colourful in some scenes, deliberately colourless in others, bland and rich textures as required - but TOO LOUD! Didn't like the ending and the whole bit about the identity of the hidden child being who it was just didn't work for me. Apart from anything else, it pops the whole plot balloon of how important the child is!
Am I the only one who loved the loudness? It can't all be down to the bass sounds coming up through the chair and vibrating my bum, surely? :wink:

Does the ending really pop the balloon of how important the child is, though? For instance, if she's the child of either one or two Replicants (there's still the question over Deckard) then surely she can't have a compromised immune system, meaning the glass bubble thing is just a protective camouflage? She is also the main source of memories for the majority of Wallace's Replicants - so what other memories has she been implanting in, possibly millions, of Replicants for the last 10+ years? The knowledge of how to Replicate, for instance?

Also, we know that Rachel was a Replicant but managed to replicate with Deckard (even thought that was supposed to be impossible) but if both Rachel and Deckard are Replicants, then the Rebel Replicants might not need humans to replicate, but if Deckard is human and not a Replicant then the Rebel Replicants will need humans in order to replicate. And then there is the question of whether the replicated daughter of one, or possibly two, Replicants can also replicate the old fashioned way herself, resulting in 3rd gen replicants? So, is she an infertile hybrid, a fertile hybrid, or a fertile Replicant? If it's the latter, than she is potentially Eve to a new race of self-replicating Replicants . . . which Replicant will she choose to replicate with?

I hope Agent K survived his wounds,
as despite misgivings about the casting of Ryan Gosling, I found myself really liking his performance in this film.

As it's now bedtime, I shall Replicate off . . . :lol:

P.S. - do we need a separate Blade Runner 2049 thread where we can discuss with spoilers?

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:16 pm
by steeljam
Thor: Ragnarok
Brilliant; totally tongue-in-cheek. Laughed throughout.
Loved the cameos and themed music.
The Led Zeppelin Immigrant Song was written for the movie!
Willy Wonker & the CF and more - just listen out.
Stan again was great.

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:38 pm
by Grace Speaker
Just caught up with last week's Peaky Blinders on catch-up - Alfie Solomons is back!!! :D :D :D
I love Peaky Blinders (and yes, I know some of the Brummie accents wander about a bit and I don't give a stuff, it's still one of the best things on the Tellybox!) and watching Tom Hardy's performance as Alfie is an unspeakable, ineffable joy :D Actually, watching Tom Hardy in Peaky Blinders, Taboo, or just about anything these days is a joyous experience. Oh Mr Hardy, I have a use for you . . . :wink: :lol:

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 03:29 pm
by phalarope
Hello, my name is phalarope and I am a Grand Tour-aholic. Season 2 opener was great fun, and I really enjoyed May's new look (frighteningly similar to John Thaw :shock: ), that Hammond is still alive and chirpy, and Jezza hasn't changed a bit. And they've gotten rid of the annoying American and revived the celebrity driving challenge. :thumbl:

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 04:44 pm
by Grace Speaker
phalarope wrote:Hello, my name is phalarope and I am a Grand Tour-aholic. Season 2 opener was great fun, and I really enjoyed May's new look (frighteningly similar to John Thaw :shock: ), that Hammond is still alive and chirpy, and Jezza hasn't changed a bit. And they've gotten rid of the annoying American and revived the celebrity driving challenge. :thumbl:
I don't have an Amazon TV sub, so I really miss seeing those 3 daft idiots and their latest daft capers, although I do have to admit to watching the occasional re-run on Dave/Dave-ja-vu :D

The re-booted Top Gear on BBC2 just isn't nearly as much fun.

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:03 pm
by Grace Speaker
Am a bit behind the curve with this one, but just seen the latest trailer for Season 11 of the X-Files, as Channel 5 have finally confirmed that episode 1 will air on Monday 5th February at 9pm - so excited :D :bounce: :D
Although, will be at Drummers that night, so will have to forgo sleep to watch it on catch-up afterwards

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 07:28 am
by Pat
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

I liked it but I can't quite explain why. It's billed as a "black comedy" but I think it's too bleak even for that! It's a tragedy, through and through. But it's wonderfully acted and shot. Script is OK but the redemption arc for one character is a little unbelievable.

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:24 am
by Grace Speaker
Just seen the official trailer for Solo, the Star Wars back-story for Han Solo that is due out this summer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=732bSfijzko

. . . I have a bad feeling about this . . .

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 09:16 am
by Pat
Grace Speaker wrote:. . . I have a bad feeling about this . . .

It looks like a film school project.

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 06:43 pm
by Grace Speaker
Pat wrote:
Grace Speaker wrote:. . . I have a bad feeling about this . . .

It looks like a film school project.
It does, doesn't it? My heart sank when I saw this trailer - for a start, they've cast someone as Solo who looks and sounds absolutely nothing like Harrison Ford and who also looks the same age as Ford was in the original Star Wars in 1977, even though he's supposed to be at least 15 years younger in this prequel. And secondly, unless we find out how the Falcon did the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs, I'm not interested!

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 08:07 pm
by Frank the Younger
Grace Speaker wrote: unless we find out how the Falcon did the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs, I'm not interested!


I must admit I have always wondered how you can measure time with a distance measurement. The lengths some people go to, on the internet mainly, to avoid saying someone cocked it up is amazing.

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 08:45 pm
by Grace Speaker
Frank the Younger wrote:
Grace Speaker wrote: unless we find out how the Falcon did the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs, I'm not interested!


I must admit I have always wondered how you can measure time with a distance measurement. The lengths some people go to, on the internet mainly, to avoid saying someone cocked it up is amazing.
I think this was probably a cock-up on George Lucas' part, and you are right to say that he did mistake a unit of distance for time . . .but if you ignore this cock-up, Han Solo's statement of doing the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs is not technically incorrect when referencing the speed and manoeuvrability of the Falcon given the need to avoid/navigate through/sling-shot around interstellar objects like asteroid fields, star-forming nebulae or high gravitational objects like neutron stars, supermassive stars or black holes in order to get from A to B in 3-dimensional space.

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:23 pm
by chrisboote
Frank the Younger wrote:I must admit I have always wondered how you can measure time with a distance measurement

Well, it is a length of time ...

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:16 am
by Grace Speaker
chrisboote wrote:
Frank the Younger wrote:I must admit I have always wondered how you can measure time with a distance measurement

Well, it is a length of time ...
:lol:

If anyone would like to cure their insomnia, try calculating the length of the Kessel Run if:

Kessel Run = 12 parsecs
1 parsec = 3.26 light years
1 light year = approximately 30 trillion km or 19 trillion miles**


**or if you want to be really precise, you could use the c universal constant (speed of light in a vacuum):
c = 299,792,458 meters per second

Of course, since Lando Calrissian installed an upgrade to the Falcon's Hyperdrive and we're never told how much faster this makes the Falcon, it's impossible to know just how much time the Falcon actually took to complete the Kessel Run.

Also, given Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the longer the Falcon spends at hyperspeed the slower time moves for those on the Falcon relative to those in normal spacetime. So, there's another cock-up that George Lucas over looked - for example, even travelling at 99% of c, a 11.2 hour trip from Tatoinne to Alderaan in hyperspace, would be 3 days 8 hours in normal space/time. Given that Princess Leia had already been captured at least 2-3 days before Luke and Obi Wan Kenobi set off from Tatooine, by the time they turned up on the Death Star to rescue her, she would have been in that bloody dress for a whole week without a shower or change of clothes . . . I mean, imagine the whiff . . . no wonder she dived into the garbage shoot, the poor woman needed a bath! :wink:

Re: What have you seen part II - the sequel *No SPOILERS please*

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:26 am
by Frank the Younger
chrisboote wrote:
Frank the Younger wrote:I must admit I have always wondered how you can measure time with a distance measurement

Well, it is a length of time ...


No it is not it is a distance measurement
From wikipedia
'a unit of distance used in astronomy, equal to about 3.26 light years (3.086 × 1013 kilometres).
One parsec corresponds to the distance at which the mean radius of the earth's orbit subtends an angle of one second of arc.'