fantastic_four

Snoke is more beautiful than I ever imagined.

Been awful this morning. All of the same old errors. The switch to the current web host--which I assume happened when you converted to this new forum software--has been absolutely awful. As one developer to another, when I have a client experiencing as many issues with a host as CGC is experiencing with this one, it's time to consider switching hosts.

I, on the other hand, do wish that you were the only one. But you're not, it's all of us.

I'm a pretty big nerd, but the fight over box office totals over the past few pages has exceeded even my capacity for nerdiness.

My best guess was the bees were a part of someone's effort to re-vegetate the area by encouraging them to pollinate. But bees eat nectar converted from pollen, and I saw no vegetation, so I have no idea how the bees would survive out there.

Why were there a bunch of beehives in that post-nuclear city Deckard was in?

How are they different from humans? Or clones? Or genetically-engineered humans? They all seem to be in the same biological boat as far as I can tell.

That's what I thought too because I thought she looked slightly off and her voice was slightly off; I had seen the original shortly before seeing 2049 and thought she was different. And sure enough, they did hire a lookalike, but somehow altered her with CGI to look even closer. I'd like to see the lookalike to determine if what I thought was off was coming from the lookalike's differences.

Ridley Scott himself has given variable answers to that question, sometimes saying he's a replicant and sometimes not. Harrison Ford has confirmed multiple times that Scott clearly wanted it to be up to the viewer to decide and gave clues both ways; Ford himself thought he was human. My question is that if he's a replicant, is he the only one who visibly ages or did they establish others doing it? And I don't even get the "replicant" concept now that 2049 has explored it further. If they have human DNA, they're human. Maybe another species, but they're human.

I thought it was some kind of futuristic band-aid towards the middle, then you see him without it towards the end and it's just a scar.

Here's a description of what they did for Sean Young where he says making her look like Leia in Rogue One would have been a dealbreaker for him: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-blade-runner-2049-resurrected-that-character-f/1100-6453912/

They said that long before we were re-introduced to Deckard and he was named as the father, so it wasn't two replicants, it was a mix. Anybody heard how they made Sean Young look so young? More CGI I presume, like Leia in Rogue One?

Again your response contains no spoilers I can detect, so I'll keep yours visible but hide my response:

My theatre was almost completely empty on Saturday at a 3:35 showing. We did see it in IMAX so the ticket price was higher at $17, but that same IMAX theatre is regularly packed for popular films on the first weekend of release, so I knew immediately this one must not have been popular. We bought our tickets 20 minutes before the show started and the theatre lets you pick your seat, so I saw on the screen we were the first to buy tickets.

Another question about the core ideas of the film:

I'm having trouble working that out, but any discussion of that is spoilery, so here it is:

A few completely spoilery ending-related questions for those who have seen it:

Does anyone fully understand the kids' powers? The girl seems to have Sue Storm's powers, but I can't tell what the brother is doing. Is it just telekinesis like Jean Grey but without her telepathic powers?

Finally saw it today and really liked it. Definitely not as epic-feeling as the films, but it was enjoyable in almost the exact same way that "Heroes" was enjoyable the first season or so.

And also, Scott...I'd like a pony. I've contributed heavily to these forums and firmly believe I deserve one.

Profile images work fine for me in Chrome and Internet Explorer 11.

Alt + Print Screen takes a screenshot of the currently-selected window only as opposed to the entire Windows desktop.

I see what you mean, but I'd like to think that Joss Whedon wouldn't have taken it on if he didn't think it would be good. Plus there is precedent for good results from these kinds of major reshoots. The major recent example is Rogue One which had extensive reshoots and an almost entirely different ending than it originally had. Whedon being involved makes me feel much better about the potential quality of the film. Having said that, something about his interaction with Marvel went wrong on Age of Ultron, and that doesn't inspire me to believe he's necessarily a good clean-up guy. We'll see, but Whedon is better than Snyder, so it's generally a net positive. I absolutely LOVE 300 and I liked Man of Steel, but Snyder is all glitz, shaky on substance. As long as a film looks good he doesn't seem to really know if it's actually an overall enjoyable, relatable film or not.