It probably shouldn’t be the case, but a film’s ending is really it’s beginning. It’s the last thing in your mind when you leave the cinema; so a satisfying ending if likely to define an audience’s response to a film. Similarly  a poor one. One of the most famous examples of this is the original cinema release of Bladerunner. This film was always going to divide audiences, with its dark palette, moody atmosphere and serious themes for a sci-fi story with the star of Star Wars. Some responded well to what they saw, though – struck by the film’s seriousness, skill and depth…until a tacked on ending under studio pressure, that undermined much of went before with a happy and upbeat conclusion. It’s taken 25 years to fully fix that, with a Director’s Cut that wasn’t really, and a Final Cut that probably is. With a suitable ending in place, it stands clearly as the masterpiece it undoubtedly is. A film of Bladerunner’s quality shouldn’t have suffered so much over its last few seconds; but it did, hampered for years by a few misjudged seconds (as well as the needless narration).

The Men Who Stare At Goats is no Bladerunner, but it shares a similar problem with its ending. Its based on a non-fiction book, about the ’secret’ psychic spy division of the US army. The unit’s story is told in flashback, as Ewan McGregor’s journalist accompanies George Clooney’s army man into modern-day Iraq – it’s a device that’s not in the book, understandably added in to give the film narrative momentum. The flashbacks tend to work better; the road movie plot is unconvincing and could have been done more simply and effectively. There is, though, a lovely light comic tone that carries the film along over the many flaws along the way. Some truly hilarious moments will live a long time in the memory – Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey and Ewan McGregor are all engaging presences. This, though, is Clooney’s film, and his pitch perfect portrayal is funny, skeptical, satirical and kindly all at the same time. He is truly a master of his craft; there are few contemporary actors capable of this kind of role.

All of which makes the ending all the more disappointing. Until the last two minutes, the narrative flaws are largely ignorable thanks to the film’s good-nature, fine performances and well-paced laughs.  Up until the end, the viewer’s given just enough to make you understand why people can fall for the nonsense of psychic spies; to see that coincidences can sometimes look like more than that. The film’s conclusion, though, is a ludicrously miss-judged attempt at feel-good up-lift; it’s no less than an insult to audience intelligence and devalues so much good that’s gone before. It’s an attempt at joyful wonder, ignoring that true wonder is about undeserved grace and favour and beauty rather than achieving something patently impossible.

It could be argued that such an ending allows a more honest view of the film’s flaws; that’s understandable, but unfair. See it, but close your eyes and shut your ears for the last minute; that way you’ll walk out laughing at a flawed but entertaining comedy. If not, you’ll just feel let down.

by IntrepidCaptain

More often then not, members of the mainstream culture joke that many Steampunks are simply the matured refugees of the Cyberpunk era. While I know this holds true for myself, this is in general an oversimplification of Anachronistic and Sci-Fi subcultures. The most obvious difference being that Anachronistics (usually) live in the civilized and decadent past, while the Cyberpunks prefer a more rugged, crime-infused world that is either in the future or near future. Key word here? Robotics.

However, some woud argue that robotics plays into both subcultures. Let’s disprove this, shall we? First off, steam-powered gadgets are vastly different from the electronic paraphernalia of the cyberpunk. For one, aesthetics. The steampunk hauls around brass gadgetry that is bulky, obvious, and ornate. It’s showy. The whole thing is showy and outlandish and that’s the point, ladies and gentlemen, for much of it. It is a subculture of statement pieces given new meaning via science that has been made obsolete and therefore attractive to those who feel above the current culture (keep in mind I’m a part of this group and therefore not trying to be insulting). Cyberpunks are sleek, chrome, and decked in black and green, glowing blues, with tiny computers and embedded microchips. Wires abound, yes, but these glorified hackers somehow to keep from electrocuting themselves due to the bad-assery of embracing the computer revolution. And is it just me or do cyberpunks seem to get a lot of time running about grimy and rain-slicked city streets, getting into motorcycle chases despite the general sedentary nature of the hacker lifestyle? At least that’s what all my friends and I discovered in the 90s, the glory days of cyberpunk.

And let’s not forget the power of visual learning. If you want an introduction to the cyberpunk world, go rent two earth-shattering films. The Matrix, and Blade Runner. Curious about steampunks? Check out Steamboy and The City of Lost Children. And no, I do not think it’s coincidental that the American movies are cyberpunk and the foreign films are steampunk. It actually makes a lot of sense. In any event, those movies’ll give you a pretty good idea of the vibe of the two subcultures.

But let’s look at the basics of cyberpunk for a moment. The main things to get your head around when it comes to cyberpunk is ONE that the internet is everywhere and is the answer to any and all problems, and TWO robots infiltrate and are a part of everything, even human anatomy. And on that topic, robotics have become quite advanced in the medical world today, reminding me of something that always bugged me about sci-fi movies and the world of Cyberpunk. If you’ve got the nanotech to go in to someone and monitor their vitals, why not (especially since money never seems to be an issue in Cyberpunk-land due to the high demand for hacked info) have those nanobots in there all the time? They could be hooked up to a LCD screen implanted in the arm that shows all vitals, so when you get hit with the poison that’s burrowing into your bloodstream, you can actually get to the hospital, and NOT just take two Advil and a shot of tequila and wait around your wire-cluttered NYC apartment until you feel a little too dizzy. Like a step up from booster shots. It’d take a hell of a lot of strain off your supply of post-apocalyptic heroes.

And of course, as I mentioned in my previous post, technology is getting amped up
to sci-fi proportions in the world of entertainment. The Cyberpunk wet dream of having the hologram-projecting headgear that’ll plug you into the interactive mainframe of Internet 2.0 may just be around the corner with the gadgets breaking into the market these days. Hail the spawn of man and computer, ye believers!

The Future is Now
~ your Captain

Stock intercoolers have sharp bends and corners. As air flows around these corners dead air zones are created. These dead air zones choke down the air and restrict airflow across the heat exchanger  resulting in power robbing core heat soak.

OCDiesel.com carries aFe intercoolers for:

Dodge trucks 03-07 5.9L Cummins : 46-20011

Dodge trucks 07.5-08 6.7L Cummins: 46-20031

Dodge trucks 07.5-08 6.7L Cummins: 46-20032 (includes tube upgrade kit)

OCDiesel.com carries aFe intercooler tube upgrades for:

Dodge trucks 07.5-08 6.7L Cummins: 46-20039

GM trucks 04-07 6.6L Duramax: 46-20049

MDV Technology Three Multi-Directional Vanes are built into each endtank to efficiently direct air flow throughout the entire heat exchanger. They help eliminate power robbing core heat soak and provide maximum cooling.

Heat Exchanger: 3″ thick bar & plate intercooler core (back) provides more efficient air flow and better cooling vs 2-3/8″ thick stock tube & fin intercooler core (front).

Superior Construction: 3″ billet-machined inlet & outlet fittings ensure leak-free connections. TIG-welded 3/16″ thick aluminum plate provides high strength end tanks vs stock end tanks.

Multiple Ports: 4 tapped 1/8″ NPT ports allow for easy gauge installation and other auxiliary input options.

OCDiesel.com also has intercooler tube upgrades which give a huge flow increase, a bonus to horsepower with an increased torque.

Contact us about our products at 888.OC.Diesel or visit us online at…

Ok. Nå har jeg sett Bladerunner.

Dette blir ikke en filmanmeldelse typ Oldboy , men heller litt meningsutveksling om hele filmen. Så spoilers ahoy, skjøre sjeler bør lese noe annet nå (f.eks om fleecekjoler, anbefales).

Jeg visste egentlig ingenting om Bladerunner fra før. Jeg har hørt navnet. Vet den skal være bra. Eneste assossiasjonen jeg hadde var Oscar Pistorius i paralympics som springer med sånne rare metallben. Og ja, jeg hadde fått det for meg at det skulle være med en sånn i filmen. Og ja, jeg ble litt skuffet.

Dessverre var det jeg tenkte gjennom hele filmen noe sånn som dette: “KJEEDELIG, komana, gi meg noe bedre enn dette, det var corny, dette går treigt, hva er egentlig plottet, hvorfor skjedde dette, det gav ikke mening”. Jeg var jamt øve ikke så veldig imponert. Og jeg vil si jeg kan klare å følge med på en krevende film. Jeg bare likte ikke hele uttrykket i filmen, og syns skuespillerprestasjoner, dialog og utførelse av plottet var MEH.Men det var jo noen gode ting også. Selvom jeg ikke syns Harrison Ford var noe tess i denne fimen, så likte jeg Rutger Hauer og Daryl Hannah (henholdsvis Roy og Pris) sine roller. Og til tross for at jeg noen ganger syns det futuristiske i filmen noen ganger ble litt teit, kan jeg sette pris på arbeidet og kreativiteten som gikk ned i det. Kanskje det faktum at denne filmen skal være i 2019 gjør meg litt skeptisk. 10 år er litt kort tid for at en kan tro på en skitten fremtidsjordklode med nesten bare asiatere og falske ugler (og mennesker)?

Jeg syns konseptet er bra. Seff. Det minner meg om Battlestar Galactica, og det er et bra plot. Forresten superdigg å se selveste William Adama i en tidligere rolle. Men for meg manglet det noe på utførelsen.

Tradisjonen tro, etter at jeg hadde sett filmen måtte jeg gå på imdb og lese. Jeg ble ikke noe klokere egentlig, men jeg ble mer interessert i filmen iallefall. Jeg lærte også at det var mange versjoner av filmen, noe som gjorde at jeg følte meg litt snytt! Jeg så directors cut. Det vil si uten voiceover og ingen Happy Ending. “Happy ending”?! Jeg vet ikke hva den endingen går ut på og det plager meg

Men jeg ble litt oppmuntret av forumet på imdb, der det så ut til som at mange oppfordret til å se filmen flere ganger. Flere hadde ikke likt den første gangen, men så blitt fan. Jeg tror jeg skal se filmen igjen. Noen som har en formening om hvilken versjon jeg bør se? Jeg har på følelsen at jeg også kan bli second-time-around-fan.

Kanskje det går bedre nå når jeg ser for meg dette:

…istedenfor dette:

From the kitchen window (when washing dishes) I can see our bird feeders and the charming visitors they bring. One day I saw a bird that I had never seen before and shot off to fetch my camera. After a bit of research I was sure it was a Nuthatch. What is a Nuthatch? The Nuthatch is about 14cm long and has a wingspan 22.5 – 27cm. Some live to be 10 years old. The Nuthatch’s favourite film is Bladerunner, which is why they always wear a black stripe across the eye. The Robin, I don’t know what films they like. Perhaps, It’s a Wonderful Life. Anyway, have a look at www.rspb.org.uk and keep an eye out for the birds this winter. brrrr
steve

I’m not usually a big fan of sci-fi, but Bladerunner is one of my favourite films. It’s often referred to as a meditation on what it means to be human, though for me it’s all about mortality. “I want more life,” says Batty to the android designer when he, quite literally, meets his maker.

Travel can be about a slow accumulation of tiny eddies which, when put together, forms a powerful current of experience which slowly but firmly moulds you into the product of all those experiences. But it can also be about the ‘big numbers’: those special moments that live in your memory for decades afterwards.

Maybe it’s diving at night in the Pacific and feeling like you’re in deep space, maybe it’s standing on a mountain in the most intense silence you’ve ever known; or maybe it’s just a particularly pretty sunset at the end of a bad day, that felt like a personal present to you.

For me, this scene in Bladerunner sums up that feeling of awe that accompanies those memories. The rush of returning joy in a reverie for things seen, feelings contemplated, souls touched. Those moments where, for maybe just for a few seconds, you felt a direct connection with the universe. The time, as always, is now. It’s time to live.

Tim Doyle 'Blade Runner' In Progress Sneak Peak

Here is a peak at Tim Doyle’s work in progress for an upcoming 12 x 24 inch Blade Runner poster called ‘White Dragon’. Unsure of all the specifics, but this will be released soon. Awesome detail already, can’t wait for the colour to be added!! Maybe some banging metallics to make it pop!

Check it out HERE

Det är knappast någon nyhet idag, men likväl ett intressant faktum som i varje fall inte jag fick reda på förrän i just detta nu. Sega tog många musikstycken till Sonic-spelen från andra och nedan ser vi, eller hör om man nu ska vara petig, hur de gjorde om låten till sluttexterna i filmen Bladerunner.

 Did the Schwarzenator have a soul? Does the current movie business have one?

 Robots gone wrong. Clones without a soul. Removable and sale-able souls. Avatars and virtual stand-ins. Replicants. Real Life and other Massive Multiplayer Role Playing Games.

All these removable or duplicate minds and souls, at the movies and in modern culture. Will we ever tire of separating our “selves” from ourselves, maybe to re-create a better self, so we can sit in a movie theater and cathartically watch our artificial selves make a mess of our “real” selves’ lives (theoretically causing us to value those real lives and authentic experiences, when we walk out of the theater and into real life)? Will we ever be just happy with who we are?

Reading bad reviews of Paul Giamatti’s new artsy Cold Souls film & the big-budget (but sinking box-office) Bruce Willis vehicle Surrogates  got me thinking last week.

What I was thinking was this: haven’t I seen this before? Oh yeah, it was called The Matrix Trilogy! And before that, Being John Malkovich (soul intrusion… where the puppetry theme also made me think of Carlo Collodi’s 1883 Pinnochio… the original robot gone bad). 

Of course, before all of the above movies we had Bladerunner . With its bio-mechanical “replicants” who were really trying to acquire a soul and to feel, this film was probably the best of the bunch. And that was in 1982, so maybe the peak for this subgenre of sci-fi happened long ago. Plus, perhaps the source of all of these stories is in some ways Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and her doc-playing-God’s inability to put a soul back into a re-animated body. But now I’m probably at risk of boring you like an English teacher, so let’s get back to the movies…

For instance, since the numerous Surrogates billboard ads seemed mostly to be selling sex, we gotta reach back even before 1982 to the “make your own perfect woman” model, as seen in such non-classics as The Stepford Wives (both old and new), and John Hughes’ silly 1985 teen version, Weird Science. So now we need to talk about Ovid’s ancient Greek/Cypriot mythic figure Pygmalion (man loves a female statue he’s made), and G.B. Shaw’s 1912 play Pygmalion. These were just a few of the original “build a better mate” stories — which also led to some cool movie versions like My Fair Lady, and in a very different way, Bride of Frankenstein.

Then there are the “robot with a heart of gold” movies, from Robocop to Bicentenial Man (not as bad as critics said… but schmaltzy) to A.I. (note Spielberg and Kubrick’s involvement here), and then some, including several really bad comedies. These movies explore the positive or perhaps teachable and programmable aspects of human emotion and consciousness — unlike Kubrick and Clarke’s HAL computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey, who was both a killjoy and a literal killer.

Oh, and did I mention practically every existing action-packed Schwarzenfillum?!  Starting with Terminator (robots) and also including  The 6th Day (clones), and Total Recall (virtuals). Arnold was a specialist in the “Who is the real me?” action movie.  One might even say that his religio-apocalyptic hack-job in End of Days subsitutes demonic possession for a more technical form of soul removal and transferrance. (Not a good flick, but I like Gabriel Byrne as Lucifer, as I like almost anything Byrne’s ever done.) Those Arnold films have their place, but I would only call the first two Terminator movies great, the second better than the first, which almost never happens in Hollywood. However, Total Recall  also lets us talk about this virtual cops and/or robot robbers thing, as done in such films as Denzel Washington’s somewhat underrated Virtuosity, plus a few others.

Then there’s the rest of the Philip K. Dick film-adapted oevre  (Bladerunner and Total Recall were both based on this pioneering sci-fi writer’s stories). Most of  Dick’s novels and short stories explore what happens when we depend too much on our digital, cloned or mechanical stand-ins, when we try to re-create what is “real” and thus de-authenticate it. A semi-famous quote from Dick puts it this way: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” 

Notably, Dick was not all about science gone haywire either, but also about soul and the nature of consciousness. Maybe this was because he was a twin, whose sister died a few weeks after they were born. Also notable: Dick had a so-called visitation from God in 1974 which he was never certain was real, or a schizophrenic episode.  And he had a drug problem. And was married five times. And, and, and… in other words, this guy literally lived out there on the edges, with one foot in the tragically real world and the other who knows where.

So Mr. Dick , all by himself, causes us to consider such surrogate or fraudulent-copy movies as  Minority Report (Spielberg again), and Gary Sinise’s Impostor, plus a number of other movie adaptations (most recently Nic Cage’s Next). And there are no less than FOUR Dick-adaptation movies currently in production. Too bad this guy died before he was “discovered”. Tragically, he died at age 53, just a few weeks before Bladerunner, the first movie adaptation, premiered. Not funny, God.

Meanwhile, dark comedy is more the angle Cold Souls is trying to take, though with an existential streak that is more gimmicky promise than satirical reality, if I’m to believe the reviews. As for philosophical, art-house comedy, this stuff has been tackled better before as well. Start with the above-mentioned Malkovich , and then move on to almost all of Oscar-winner Charlie Kaufman’s  other top-flight scripts afterward (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation, etc.) . Charlie often explores surreal or absurdist ideas about loss of reality, duplicate or false selves, misuse of tech and creativity, and/or the selling of our souls.

Hey wait, lookit this! Mr. Dick’s novel A Scanner Darkly was made into a movie by another of my favorites: director Richard Linklater (Slacker, Before Sunrise, School of Rock) . Gotta go pick that one up immediately, as I have not seen it yet. Furthermore, Charlie Kaufman says he is very influenced by Philip K. Dick, and Kaufman even did his own adaptation of Scanner  (which went unproduced, but can be read by going to that link there). Who knew?

Meanwhile, for sheer light comedy, Multiplicity, with Michael Keaton (times five), was up-and-down in its writing and acting quality, but had some very funny moments. And I suspect there are plenty of good clone/twin/avatar comedy projects from tv floating around all over the place… I know X-Files worked well with this concept several times, and a recent South Park featuring World of Warcraft was hilarious. 

Bottom line: these two themes (What is the essence of human consciousness? and Will tech lead us where we should not go?) have been done much better in print and movies dozens of times before. The themes often go together, too… so we might say they’re twins (ack! bad joke alert…)

So while both the current movies may be okay, nevertheless, save your $12 (or whatever a flick costs these days… I go so seldom anymore). Instead, rent one of the above classics (or classically bad camp-fests) on DVD.

…or read a book, for cryin’ out loud! Maybe start with a Philip K. Dick short story or two, quicker hits with a whole lotta punch.

I am quite impressed with how many of you have contacted me these holidays with questions about texts that you are studying. So here is a little bit on Bladerunner.

Blade Runner is a film set in a futuristic Los Angeles of 2019. There are two parallel narratives. At the centre is the pursuit by Deckard, a so called ‘Blade Runner’, of a violent group of artificial human beings called replicants. As Deckard hunts them down, one by one, and attempts to eliminate them, the replicants themselves conduct their own quest to find and confront their creator before Deckard destroys them. As the replicants themselves appear more human as the film goes on, Deckard himself is challenged by the thought that he might be a replicant himself.

Director Ridley Scott has said of the futuristic setting of the film that he “wanted to create a futuristic urban film noir”. An understanding of film noir will help you to understand the visual style of the film. It is also very important for the viewer to understand the  futuristic setting of the film that they appreciate Scott’s use of different camera movements and shots. A lot of significant information is conveyed visually, through use of mise-en-scene.

The mise-en-scene establishes what this imaginary future society is like.

* The opening long shots convey a vision of a future Los Angeles.

* The next sequence begins with a giant close-up of an eye. Close-ups are used to highlight or emphasise objects of faces that are important to the narrative.

* The next scene is a street scene, in which a series of medium or mid-shots, along with close ups of Deckard on the streets are shown to the audience.

* Lighting of these scenes for the camera is another important element for creating a mood or atmosphere.

By Matthew Schwartz

The terms have seeped into the sales lexicon: Sales 2.0, Sales 1.5, Web 2.0. The terms remind us that Philip K. Dick, author of  ”Bladerunner,” was probably onto something regarding where the 21st century is headed.  But terms such as Sales 1.5 and Sales 2.0 really mean getting from Point A to Point B, which has a timeless quality.

For sales veteran Steve Martin, author of “Heavy Hitter Sales Psychology: How to Penetrate the C-Level Executive Suite and Convince Company Leaders to Buy,” the new Sales 2.0 emanates from something that technology can never compete with: our mouths. “Sales executives haven’t thought about the most important weapon they have,” said Martin, a sales consultant whose clients include Akamai, Allstate, IBM and McAfee. “They haven’t optimized their mouth and the words they speak. While they may have ten years of sales experience, they know nothing about sales linguistics – the study of how the customer’s mind uses language during the decision-making process.”

Martin said verbal communication – and learning how to use words with myriad levels of decision-makers who are involved in the sales process – is the way to cultivate sales, digital age or no.

“The major problem [in sales] is that there’s very little difference between products,” Martin said. “The only differentiation is how salespeople can speak [to customers] in a unique way so the customer lets down his guard and starts to tell the salesperson what he’s trying to accomplish.”

Martin, whose blog focuses on sales strategy, said that “Sales 1.0” terms smack of a traditional sales pitch. “Using words like ‘reliable,’ ‘easy-to-use,’ ‘scalable,’ ‘industry leader,’ they mean nothing to prospects,” he said, adding that senior sales execs often suffer from using antiquated terms in the sales process (and then mistakenly pass those habits along to newbies). Prospects get “anesthetized by these words, which are not attached to any psychological needs.”

When they reach prospects to start a conversation, sales execs must stop reciting the proverbial sales pitch. They also have to understand the dynamics of the sales call and the who the various players are.  “Increasingly, when you’re on a sales-call presentation it’s in front of a group, so you have to understand a person’s authority within a group is not necessarily commensurate with title and only their language will reveal this,” Martin said.

Adapt, baby

Martin stressed that sales execs have to act like a “communications chameleon,” or someone who can bond with different buyers and influencers through an ability to speak different languages (but the same tongue). For example, “if you’re speaking to an engineer about network products, you have to be able to speak with specification about technology,” he said. “But when you speak with the CIO, his orientation is on how run to a business operation. They speak two totally different languages.”

It’s like a crash course at Berlitz.  But it doesn’t have to be. More than half of the battle to getting a better feel for linguistics is taking personality out of the equation. “Traditional personality assessment as it relates to sales calls is obsolete,” Martin said.  “The better way to map out the sales cycle is based on how decision makers receive and interpret information and how they act when they are alone with the salesperson as opposed to with a group of colleagues. Because a person’s environment will dramatically impact what they say and how they say it.”

Subscribe to RSS

what shall i be for halloween?
yeah its still kind of far away but it is certainly fast approaching and i need to think of something goooood.
last year i ended up going as pris from bladerunner, which was awesome and scary and fun and MAKEUP…

my runner-up costume was judy jetson and i was thinking of reviving that idea for this year. itd be easy, just go to american apparel…

or i could tart it up a little like this classy young lady…

ps: not gonna
…………………………..
and then i was looking up fever ray/the knife and saw these awesome air brushed faces karin has on…yeah these are just skulls but i want to think of something as spooky and haunting and beautiful as their videos. god, what i wouldnt do for a make-up airbrush kit

or maybe something like their medico della peste masks…
they are selling blank, white versions of these at micheals crafts, oh yes they are…

…………………………..
additionally i searched karin’s first band, honey is cool
here is my favorite song of theirs i could find on youtube, the lion…

…………………………
bonus: fever ray performing in my living room and judy jetson running scared…

So, the BBC press office have discovered the joys of Twitter and apparently designated Dean Andrews as the cast’s resident tweeter.

Me thinks the opening scene to ep2 is something people will never have seen before???

Never seen or never expected?

Theories now abound over at The Railway Arms as to what that might be and suggestions over here tend to veer towards replication of outcomes in sci-fi series, which…leave me cold. I’m no fan of Star Wars, Bladerunner and this genre so can’t really relate. I think LOM/A2A are a lot more human, and hopefully more original.

So what haven’t we seen before? I’m guessing one of the following:

• Another character’s point of view
• Another character at home, away from CID, probably Gene or Ray
• Gene’s wife
• Galex

I can honestly say the first two eps are superb. Proper quality with the usual brilliant one liners!!

It can’t all be doom and gloom then? Are we to take it then, that no one has died or been incarcerated?

Well I’m being a little more dramatic than necessary.  Someone did steal my card number but just used it to upgrade their yahoo mail account.  Nothing else.  There’s no pending charges so I guess I was lucky.  I needed a new card anyways so now I can kill two birds with one stone and get a new card and a new number.  I don’t really carry purses.  I’m more of a back pocket kinda girl so my id and my card are usually bent or broken in a short amount of time.

Matt Martin’s wedding was lovely.  Him and Leeann were so cute.  Good times.  I feel like I did a bunch of extended hanging out this weekend.  Mike is a perpetual gallivanter so usually when he’s here there are a lot of activities involved.  I didn’t partake in all of them cuz my finances don’t allow that kind of behaviour but I did go eat at Mana yesterday with him and the rest of the crew for dinner.  Yum.  So good.  A vegan/vegeterian’s dream.  Good cocktails too.

All in all a nice weekend.

Tunes:
Serum & Bladerunner – Just A Beat

Today’s Oldie:
Calibre – Think Again – Signature Records 2004

I am definitely looking forward to this.  Raiden has been killing it lately.
Raiden - Expo Mix Vol. 1

Tracklist

01. Naibu – Fireflies (Seba remix) {Horizons}
02. Ulterior Motive, Fd & Keza – Sticky Tape {Subtitles}
03. Raiden – Muggy Waters {??}
04. Digital & Outrage – Red Letter {Function}
05. Brandon Miles & Tricky Pat – Crazy Pill {??}
06. Martsman – Antique Antic {OffKey}
07. Nymfo – Social Isolation [31 recs]
08. Raiden – La Luna {Renegade Hardware}
09. Ulterior Motive – Glued {??}
10.Rockwell – Stowaway {Digital Soundboy}
11.Raiden – Roentgen {Architecture}
12.Commix – Belleview (DBridge rmx) {Metalheadz}
13.Propaganda & Meth – Stash {OffKey}
14.Ink – Mirage (Raiden & Khanage rmx) {Renegade Hardware}
15.Outrage – Armshouse {Function}
16.Spectrasoul – Mimic {Subtitles}
17.Raiden & Khanage – Amnesia Haze {OffKey}
18.Sunchase – Ultimate Survival {X-tinction Agenda}
19.Raiden & Khanage – 8798 {OffKey}
20.Morphy & 9 Tails – Disco {Tech Noir}
21.Raiden – Baptism of Fire {OffKey}
22.Katharsys – Walking Device {Barcode}
23.Loxy, Raiden & Khanage – In the Face of Adversity {OffKey}
24.Rockwell – Reverse Engineering {Darkestral}
25.Jeff Mills – Silence {Tresor}

Okay, so you take two sets of beings.  One set is made up of humans and one set is made up of non-humans.  One of these sets is a band of ragtag refugees vastly outnumbered but big on heart; the other set has greater numbers and resources, but no heart.  These two sets of beings enter into a violent conflict over a piece of real estate.  As contact between them escalates, the distinction between “us” and “them” grows fuzzier and fuzzier, until the definition of humanity itself becomes suspect, until we become like them and/or they become like us.

I could be describing Battlestar Galactica, where by series’ end the difference between being human and being a cylon is only epistemological.  Or I could be describing District 9, where human discrimination against “Prawns” makes humans the monsters, while in the meantime Prawns–or at least some of them–turn out to be even more humane than humans.  Then there’s Terminator Salvation, whose hero is played like a robot by Christian Bale and whose robot self-sacrificingly plays the hero.  Or The Sarah Connor Chronicles, where it may very well be that John Connor falls in love with the machine Cameron, and she him.  With some stretching, you might even say it’s a paradigm found in the Twilight series, whose vampires and humans are alike enough to fall madly in love with each other and form families that are more tightly knit than most of ours.

It’s always been a big element in science fiction, this blurring between human/non-human.  Way back in 1982, to cite only the most obvious example, Bladerunner gave us a character who didn’t know she was a replicant, and whose (questionably) human lover didn’t care.  But it seems to me that this sci-fi set piece has never before been so  . . . ubiquitous.  And so strangely oriented around the nuclear family, like in Battlestar Galactica when Helo and Boomer get “married” and have a baby, who turns out to be the savior of mankind and cylonkind alike.  Or like in District 9, where we’re first led to believe that Prawns are reared from eggs in hatcheries like insects, but it’s his bond to his son that keeps Christopher Johnson moving when otherwise he’d give up and get killed.  (“Think of your boy!” Wikus orders more than once.)  You’ve got the family unit of Sarah, John, Cameron, and Reese in The Sarah Connor Chronicles; and in the Twlight series . . . . well, duh.  The Cullens make the Brady Bunch look dysfunctional by comparison.

The idea, I guess, is that at the end of the day we all–humans, cylons, “metal,” Prawns, vampires–want the same thing: to live happily ever after with our families in a place we can call home.

I went and saw this last week with Paul, but it took me this long to get around to writing a review. This was not done out of procrastination, but rather, I felt like I needed to digest it for a while so that my review was more than just me repeating “FUCKING AWESOME” over and over and over.

I was not excited to watch this movie. There were a lot of things going for it, months before it was even set to release. The CGI looked good in the previews, it was shot as a documentary. And, Peter Jackson apparently loved the idea of it so much that he produced it even after his deal to make the Halo movie with Neill Blomkamp fell apart. I saw the trailer before The Dark Knight, and was floored. However, upon reading into the details of the movie, I started to lose hope. The same reasons that everyone was going batshit for it were the reasons that I was not.

The faux-documentary has been done to death, and I really felt like enough was enough. There was no way this film was going to compete in my mind with Cloverfield, so why was it trying? The CGI did look cool, but come on. Do we have to have completely immersive CGI in every film in order for it to be validated? What ever happened to stunning costume work? And Peter Jackson? Great.

Those who have known me long enough know that I’ve always been a huge fan of Tolkien. So, it would stand to reason that I’d not only love the movies, but as a result, love Jackson. However, that’s completely not the case. I may be the only fanboy out there that didn’t love the Rings trilogy, but it just didn’t do it for me. They were too long, and I found myself getting bored early on in the process, which left me questioning my status as fanboy.

This lead me to start thinking more and more about my actual love of Tolkien. As I thought about it, I thought that I MUST love Tolkien, in that I was always into all things fantasy, be it Tolkien, or Dungeons and Dragons, or Elder Scrolls. But, then I started thinking deeper into it, and I realized that Tolkien and fantasy as a whole were just stepping stones into my true nerd calling: CyberPunk.

The Lord of the Rings was great; Ender’s Game was better. Dungeons and Dragons was great; Battletech and Shadowrun were both better. Oblivion was great; Fallout 3 was better. Willow was great; Bladerunner was better.

So, fine. I just came to grips with it. I’m a fantasy nerd no longer. I am a Sci/Fi nerd. And, I’m proud of it. Gone were the days of leveling up a Half-Orc Barbarian to Legendary Status. Gone were the days of reading about Drizzdt Do Urden, Gone were the days of The Simulacrum. Here to stay were giant robots, cyborg love affairs, and distant futures ruled by shadowy corporations.

So, it’s Jackson with whom I attribute my loss of love for a genre that helped define who I am. And now, after having seen this film, I feel at one with the nerd culture as a whole as I lovingly welcome him back into my warm embrace.

This film took the ideals behind good science fiction and made them all wonderful. The documentary feel has been done to death, but never like this. The closest comparison on this aspect would be to Cloverfield, which I loved but which had nothing on District 9. The thing that made the documentary feel so powerful was the seamless use of CGI within the format. The overexposure and grainy security cameras all unapologetically blasted you with the perfectly created alien race. There was no warning, and unlike Cloverfield, they were not hidden from view, and didn’t wait half way through the film to emerge. From the outset, you are rocked not so much by the aliens as by the entire culture of the aliens and their intermittance with the human race.

The plot, while having a couple of major sized holes, is still wonderfully written. It really kept me not only wondering what was next, but hoping it would end well throughout the entire film. The performance of Sharlto Copley was outstanding. His transformation from doofus to sacrificial hero was smooth and believable, not to mention heartbreaking. And, just to round it all out, they threw in a fucking BattleMech armored fight scene.

This movie was done so lovingly and so well, it has made me want to go back and re-watch The Lord of the Rings trilogy. If Peter Jackson was this loving to the genre I know that I now love, couldn’t it be true that he was just as loving to the one that I let go? I guess it’s time to give it another chance.

…is the holiday.  Oh my god – so near and yet so far.  I just have to hang on until the first week of September – then I’m off.  Leaving all this behind to laze around on beaches in Antibes. Can hardly wait.

But, to business.  Everything very busy at the moment – hence the posting hiatus.  Trying to launch the new website at work and there appears to be some unspoken conspiracy to make it as difficult for me as possible.  Not sure what that is all about but you know, you can’t halt progress, and one must bash on regardless.

Things that distracted me from the horror of the website project today: Video ads in print media: http://bit.ly/1H2nav.  Amazing yet true – really reminds me of advertising in futuristic films, Bladerunner, Minority Report, Total Recall.  We’re just a hop, step and a jump away from ads tying to entice us to the off-world colonies! Maybe.

And then there was this: Patrick Moore discusses space rock http://bit.ly/GwmER.  Truly brilliant – perhaps someone could show Bowie how to sing…?

More bulletins when I have got a few seconds to spare, including the August hotlist…

This from tourism futurologist Ian Yeoman, from Victoria University in New Zealand, speaking at a conference on tourism:

“Robotics will become important, because you’re going to have labour shortages in the future,” he said. “You’ll have some sort of interaction in terms of robots doing certain types of mundane activities.”

Even robot “prostitutes” that would not pass on diseases such as HIV could make an appearance, he said.

You’ll have to wait a few years though, for a bit of robot rumpity—2050 at the earliest, apparently. Jeez, that’s a little disappointing, really; back in 1982, Bladerunner promised us a world with pleasure replicants by 2017.

Replicant Pleasure Machine

Couple more questions for this so-called “tourism futurologist” before we go:

Will the robot hookers come with a mute button?

Will they have coin or credit card slots in the tops of their heads?

Further reading at Notes: Tinpot Gods: The Tyranny of Robots

Herr Sathom weiß, er ist um eine Vielzahl an Jahren zu spät dran damit, aber er muß es doch einmal loswerden (zumal es zu jener Zeit, da das Thema aktuell gewesen wäre, die von den „Qualitätsjournalisten“ mit Fluch und Bann belegte, frivole Unzucht des Bloggens noch nicht gab, vermittels derer auch Herr Sathom nunmehr geschwätzig aller Welt jede noch so belanglose Meinung kundtun kann). Herr Sathom hat nämlich den Fehler begangen, Donnerstag nacht in der ARD „Bladerunner – Der Final Cut“ (gewissermaßen den Director’s Cut des Director’s Cut) einzuschalten im Bestreben, sich das Produkt des Director’s Cut-Hypes zu guter Letzt doch endlich schönzugucken – allein vergeblich, aller guter Wille nutzte ihm nichts.

Als jener Hype vor Äonen hierzulande unter Anderem gerade mit dem „Bladerunner“ losgetreten ward (wiewohl der Begriff des Director’s Cut älter ist und nicht notwendigerweise meint, was landläufig unter ihm verstanden wird, weshalb wohl auch der deutsche Wikipedia-Eintrag zum Begriff entsprechend unpräzise den hiesigen Vorstellungen entspricht), war (und blieb seitdem bis heute) Herr Sathom der einzige ihm bekannte Mensch, der dem Machwerk gegenüber Vorbehalte hatte, und nicht einstimmen wollte in den allenthalben erschallenden Jubel. Und dies, Herr Sathom gesteht’s, allein aus Verstocktheit: denn der Bladerunner war bis dato einer seiner absoluten Lieblingsfilme gewesen, und er wollte sich das, was ihn daran begeisterte, nicht nehmen lassen vom geschwätzigen Mob, der sofort in Lobgesänge ausbrach ob der Verbesserung, welche das Werk angeblich dadurch erfahren habe, daß es nun den Ambitionen des Herrn Ridley Scott getreulich entspreche. Verschnupft notierte Herr Sathom, daß plötzlich alle Welt, die sich zuvor an den eingesprochenen Kommentaren Deckards – die dem Film eine rechte „Schwarze Serie“-Stimmung und Düsternis überhaupt erst verliehen – nie gestört hatte, plötzlich unisono sang, diese hätte man schon immer für doof befunden, und den Film nun für viel besser ohne sie (daß das bizarre Kauderwelsch der Stadtbewohner den Zuschauer nur irritieren würde, wäre nicht irgendwann in der Urfassung durch diese Kommentare erklärt worden, was Cityspeak sei, fiel dabei auch niemandem auf). Auch daß alle fanden, es sei viel schicker, daß einem die Botschaft, Deckard selbst sei ein Replikant, nun auch für den letzten Dummkopf offensichtlich vor den Latz geknallt werde, wiewohl der leise Zweifel, die heimtückische Andeutung in der ursprünglichen Fassung viel wirkungsvoller, nagender die Atmosphäre des Werkes prägte (das damit der Paranoia eines Philip K. Dick auch weitaus näher kam als die jetzige Fassung), verärgerte Herrn Sathom damals zutiefst (manche, schien ihm, hatten nicht einmal bemerkt, daß ein Dialog zwischen Deckard und Tyrells Sekretärin derlei andeutet, und Deckard irritierter ob der Infragestellung seiner Menschlichkeit schien, als vielleicht normal). Nebenbei bemerkt: gerade dadurch, daß des Bladerunners Replikantennatur offen zutage liegt, verliert der Charakter des Rick Deckard an Tiefe und Widersprüchlichkeit; denn aus ihm, in Buch wie Kinourfassung ein rückgratloser Befehlsempfänger, Prototyp des ausführungswilligen Konformisten, der zugleich den harten Mann mimt, jedoch letztlich tatsächlich dem Wollen seiner Meister zuwiderhandelt und die Dame rettet, was ihn im Film zu einem Menschen höchst zwiespältiger Persönlichkeit machte (während er im Buche trotz Zweifeln der funktionierende Spießbürger, der seine dort vorhandene Familie eben als Killer ernährt, bleibt), wird nun ein Replikant – des Charaktereigenschaften künstlich sind, durch Erinnerungsimplantate beeinflußt, so daß der Figur der moralische Stachel gezogen und sie zu einem allein positiv besetzten, weil anfänglich nicht verantwortlichen, später sich emanzipierenden Kunstmenschen wird.

Dennoch, Herr Sathom war bereit, sich noch einmal eines Besseren belehren zu lassen, aber ach: der gute Wille war vergebens. Herr Sathom kann sich auch mit der erneut als Krönung der Kette vorheriger Versionen (inklusive workprint version und abzüglich diverser Länderversionen – die hier ursprünglich im Kino gelaufene Version ist der international cut - deren sieben an der Zahl) abgefeierten Finalbearbeitung nicht anfreunden. Denn was für ihn dereinst des Werkes Gesamtwirkung ausmachte als Verbund von visueller Kraft, Story und Cross-Over-Verbindung zwischen Science Fiction und – dank voiceover – Chandlerschem Hardboiled-Krimi, verloren ist’s; allein auf die immer noch fulminante Bildwirkung reduziert vermag das Werk ihn nicht zu packen noch zu überzeugen, ist nur noch langweilige Bilderflut.

Herr Sathom findet jedenfalls, des Werkes Umgestaltung habe es weniger interessant, gegenüber der ersten Kinofassung enttäuschend werden lassen auch deswegen, weil vergleichbare Mammutszenerien, die damals noch den Atem stocken ließen, heutzutage keinerlei Besonderheit mehr sind, sogar längst übertroffen wurden, dem Film jedoch seine atmosphärische Dichte und erzählerische Qualität immer noch einen Vorsprung vor nachahmerischen Machwerken gäbe, der kaum aufzuholen wäre – wäre genau dieser Vorzug nicht bei den späteren Versionen aufgegeben worden, die lediglich noch kitschig die zum Klischee gewordenen Szenerien auswalzen, die allein im Erinnerungsstübchen des Publikums den Film noch ausmachen. Herr Sathom  erklärte daher nach einiger Zeit den Final Cut mittels Ausschaltknopf zum skinjob, mögen ihn dafür auch alle Möchtegerncineasten schmähen.

Wie Herr Sathom so ist, kann er’s natürlich nicht lassen, einige grundsätzliche Überlegungen zum Thema verschlimmbesserter Versionen anzufügen, allein schon darum, seine Aversion gegen des Bladerunners Direktorenschnitt erklärlicher werden zu lassen.

Zunächst, gewiß: daß üble Hollywoodbonzen die künstlerische Freiheit beschneiden, ist eine schlimme Sache, daß ein Regisseur diese dann doch noch walten lassen kann, prinzipiell zunächst eine gute, für die Herr Sathom ja an sich sehr eingenommen ist. Doch sollte der Regisseur auch wissen, was er tut; und viele wissen’s nicht und nutzen die Gelegenheit, sich endlos zu verbreiten, und auch das nicht auf den Müll zu tun, was der Integrität des Werkes schadet. So auch Herr Cameron einst, dessen Director’s Cut von „Aliens“ den Effekt des Auftauchens von Newt in der ursprünglichen Fassung einfach dadurch zerstörte, daß er vorab noch überlang der Kolonisten Schicksal ausbreitete, so daß der Zuschauer nicht nur mit Newt bereits rechnen kann, sondern überhaupt des Elements des Suspense beraubt wird, dieweil er nicht mehr wie zuvor – obschon auch da wissend, daß es um die Aliens geht – qua Identifikation mit den Marines an deren Ahnungslosigkeit teilhaben und somit, sein Publikumswissen verdrängend, gespannter sein kann. In des Bladerunners Fall wiederum ward mit den voiceovers umgekehrt gerade das, was den Film so noire machte, auf den Müll getan, zusammen mit dem paranoiden Zweifel an des Herrn Deckard Menschlichkeit, welcher einen weiteren Reiz des Leinwandwerkes darstellte, der nun ersetzt wurde durch plumpe Offensichtlichkeit.

Aber dieses Moment der Verflachung, der Unspannung, das Entfernen der Brüche, Ecken und Kanten ist’s ja vielleicht, was den Director’s Cut, wiewohl künstlerisch nicht immer wertvoller als der ursprüngliche Schnitt, unter Anderem beim Volke so beliebt macht. Alles schön platt und offensichtlich ausgewalzt, da läßt es sich gut Popcorn schmatzen (nebenbei bemerkt, entfernte Ecken und Kanten betreffend: ist’s nicht eine Szene in der Episode IV von Star Wars, in welcher Herr Han Solo ursprünglich einen Kopfgeldjäger kaltblütig unterm Tisch durch abknallte, welche in der digitalen Verschlimmbesserung durch Hineinkopieren eines vom Schußwinkel her völlig absurden Laserstrahls, der nun plötzlich aus des Kautionsjägers Knarre zischt, zu einer Art Duell umstilisiert wurde, bei welchem Herr Solo einfach der Schnellere ist? Natürlich liegt hier kein Director’s Cut im eigentlichen Sinne vor, aber das Prinzip des Aufgusses ist dasselbe, durch das der Disneysierung noch ergänzt: der Charakter des Herrn Solo nämlich wird solcherart seiner Ambivalenz beraubt. Die völlig überflüssige neue Szene, die Herrn Solo danach in einer Diskussion mit einer schlecht gemachten dicken Made zeigt, die den jungen Herrn Jabba darstellen soll, folgt bereits benannten Mustern – sie schmiert es noch einmal auch dem Allerletzten aufs Tablett, daß Herr Solo wohl beim Herrn Jabba Schulden hat, was der Zuschauer bisher ohnehin schon wußte, beraubt jedoch dabei zudem die Figur von Solos Nemesis auch gleich noch des Geheimnisses, das diese ursprünglich bis Episode VI umgab – nämlich welch Ungeheuer hinter jenem eklen Namen sich verberge).

Herr Sathom war schon immer mißtrauisch, so eine Sache schlichtweg jedermann und –frau gefällt, ohne daß auch nur eine einzige Stimme zu mäkeln anhebt – denn dies heißt zumeist, daß diese Sache keinen Biß mehr hat. Daß wie im Fall des armen Bladerunner jedweder noch sich brüsten kann, genau die Dinge, die später geändert wurden, in der alten Fassung schon immer nicht gut gefunden zu haben, hilft natürlich auch (auch das nur angedeutete, darum aber nur noch beunruhigendere mögliche Replikantentum des Helden, so wußten nach Erscheinen des Director’s Cut alle – obwohl sie diese angebliche Wahrnehmung ihrerseits vorher nie erwähnt hatten – war ihnen zuvor doch immer schon als „Fehler“ aufgefallen, der jetzt Scott sei Dank repariert war).

Wie gesagt – künstlerische Freiheit ist ein fein’s Ding, und oft genug ist die Studio- oder Verleihschnittfassung eine Verstümmelung, das Werk im kompletten Zustand besser, kohärenter (so etwa der geniale Western „The Good, The Bad And The Ugly“, dessen deutsches Publikum erst spät erfuhr, weshalb zum Teufel der eine Hillbilly da den im Badezuber planschenden Tuco eigentlich umlegen will); im Fall des „Bladerunner“ etwa mag das vom Regisseur gewollte Ende wahrlich dem Vorherigen vorzuziehen sein (dieweil andere Eingriffe, etwa die Aufhellung des Films, wahrhaftig Verbesserungen darstellen, Details viel besser sichtbar machen, allein hier von Final „Cut“ zu sprechen geht, findet Herr Sathom, an der Sache wohl vorbei). Doch oft genug ist des Regisseurs eigener Schnitt eben nur selbstgefällige Unfähigkeit, das eigene Werk zu formen, der Drang, unbedingt jeden Einfall vorm Publikum ausbreiten zu müssen, egal was er tauge; und des sollte der kritische Zuschauer gewahr sein, zumal die üblen Bosse, denen er den Mittelfinger zu zeigen meint, indem er die Neufassung goutiert, ihn doch nur dabei verarschen – indem sie ihm nämlich einen Neuaufguß ein zweites Mal verhökern, und daran noch einmal tüchtig sich gesundstoßen. Es kommt auf den Einzelfall an, findet Herr Sathom – doch auf den Hype reinzufallen ist natürlich einfacher, ermöglicht es doch, auf Parties qua Zustimmung zur Meinung aller als schlau zu gelten, so wie jene, die im Märchen des Kaisers neue Kleider loben, welche ja auch nur kluge Leute sehen können.

Zum Glück wird mittlerweile sehr viel stärker gewürdigt, welche Verdienste dem/der professionellen Cutter/in zukommen, des oder deren Tun oft mehr zum Gelingen des Werkes beiträgt als das des Regisseurs, so jedenfalls die wachsende Einsicht – aber siehe, da wartet schon der nächste Hype, diesmal der des Cuttertums, hinter dem plötzlich Drehbuch, schauspielerische Leistung und Kunst des Regisseurs als irrelevant verblassen. So kann die Diktatur des Schneidetischs durch die Hintertür wieder eintreten, und es ist ja auch diesmal viel einfacher so, als müßte man bei jedem Filmwerk mitdenken und –fühlen, und im Einzelfall bewerten, was taugt, und was nicht. Was aber ein Film wahrhaftig ist, ist dies: das Ergebnis von Teamwork; eine Erkenntnis, die jedoch der Genieverehrung ebenso im Wege stünde wie der Vermarktung („Quentin Tarantino“ irgendwo draufstehen zu haben, und sei’s als Produzenten, macht sich eben besser als „von Jack Whatshisname, Cutter der Blockbuster x, y, usw.“).

Damit man den Herrn Sathom da nicht falsch verstehe: des Herrn Ridley Scott Können will er, wiewohl er dessen Neigung zu schwülstigem Kitsch bisweilen lästig findet, gar nicht leugnen, des Regisseurs eindeutigen Verdienst nicht schmälern – den „Gladiator“ etwa hat Herr Sathom sehr genossen; doch sollte man vielleicht gelegentlich, meint Herr Sathom, den Teamworkcharakter eines Films besser zu würdigen wissen (Edward James Olmos (Gaff) etwa half bei der Entwicklung des fiktiven Cityspeak). Spricht man etwa von künstlerischer Freiheit, wirft empört sich in die Brust, daß diese dem Herrn Scott damals beschnitten, bejubelt später, daß der Film nun endlich sei, wie vom Regisseur gewollt, so ignoriert man: daß sowohl Drehbuchautor wie auch Hauptdarsteller Deckard als Menschen konzipierten, der Regisseur sich also seinerseits zumindest über des Ersteren künstlerisches Bestimmrecht über das, was er geschrieben, hinwegsetzt (umgekehrt muß man zugestehen, daß Harrison Ford die voiceover narration auch nicht mochte: “I went kicking and screaming to the studio to record it.” (siehe hier). Seine Meinung zum Director’s Cut fand Herr Sathom allerdings wiederum wohltuend nüchtern angesichts des Bohei, der damals darum gemacht ward). Daß es so oft geschieht, daß der Regisseur allein als Künstler, die anderen Beteiligten rein gar nichts gelten, hat, so glaubt Herr Sathom, vor allem den Hintergrund, den oben per Vergleich mit des Kaisers neuen Kleidern er anzudeuten wünschte: indem man einen zum Genie hochstilisiert, kann qua Identifikation mit ihm an dessen Genius man teilhaben, indem man allem, was das Genie tut, zustimmt; zumal wenn man sich so geriert, als habe man, was vordem keinem auffiel, selbst schon stets als störend empfunden, so wie der Hochbegabte selbst. Andere Beteiligte auszublenden, Drehbuchautoren etwa, ist hierzu allerdings notwendig – nichts darf stehen zwischen dem Genie und einem selbst, nichts beflecken den Eindruck, mit einer lichten Ikone es zu tun zu haben, der durch Zustimmung man sich angleicht. Ego und Narzißmus, so meint Herr Sathom, zudem der Drang, stets auf der Höh’ der Zeit insofern zu sein, daß man mit- und nachplappern kann, was gerade aktuell als Inbegriff der Weisheit gilt, das ist der Nährboden des Hype, drauf derselbe übel wuchert.

Herrn Sathom (den einst zu Beginn der CD-Ära die Veränderungen, welche The Alan Parsons Project an der CD-Fassung ihrer Tales of Mystery and Imagination vorgenommen hatten, entsetzt den Kauf verweigern ließen) aber beschäftigt nur noch Eines: er hat ja nichts dagegen, wenn die kreativen Schöpfer nachträglich ihr Werk verändern, das ist ihr gutes Recht – und wer weiß, vielleicht würde auch der Herr Leonardo heutzutage seine Mona Lisa retuschieren; es störte Herrn Sathom nicht, bliebe auch die frühere Fassung für den Liebhaber erhalten und zugänglich, auf daß der geneigte Konsument selbst auswählen und entscheiden könne, welche Version er oder sie bevorzuge, was oft nicht der Fall ist. So sinnt er denn, ob man heute überhaupt noch die alte Fassung des „Bladerunner“ irgendwo bekommen könnte – mit ohne Einhorntraum (der Herrn Sathom zudem an Herrn Scott’s „Legend“ erinnert, einen weichgezeichneten Filmalptraum, der jedem ernsthaften Fantasyfan Schweißperlen auf die Stirn und Tränen in die Augen treiben muß (auch wenn das Sumpfmonster zugegebenermaßen ein genialer visueller Einfall ist)), mit eingesprochenen hardboiled-Kommentaren à la Phil Marlowe, kurzum, das echte Original, rough, raw and tough.

Und stellt beruhigt fest: es existiert eine 5-Disc-Release mit allen Versionen (siehe zweite Hälfte des zweiten Absatzes zum Thema „Final Cut“; vorsicht wer’s kaufen will, nicht mit anderen Mehrfachdisc-Releases verwechseln); interessant fand Herr Sathom, daß – wie er bei der Suche herausfand – der legendäre Director’s Cut von 1992, der hierzulande alle begeisterte, im eigentlichen Sinne wohl gar keiner war, da einerseits hastig ausgeführt und zum anderen auch nicht der direkten Kontrolle Ridley Scotts unterliegend, sondern nur auf Notizen und Beratung seinerseits beruhend und von ihm “approved”. So much for the hype. Insgesamt ist Herr Sathom jedenfalls erleichtert.

So schließt Herr Sathom denn mit einem Schmankerl zur Versöhnung für alle Freunde des Films, in welcher Version auch immer: es liegt ein Fluch auf dem „Bladerunner“. So richtig wie auf Macbeth. Doch, ehrlich. Schaun’se mal.