Slashdot Mirror
A Scanner Darkly Sneak-Peek
An anonymous reader writes "Some images for the upcoming film 'A Scanner Darkly' have been posted on aintitcool.com. Looks like it's going to look alot like one of Richard Linklater's previous films, Waking Life."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Doesnt look like a rerash of a previous movie, or a sequal. Thats good since most of 2005 will be filled with remakes or sequels.
Call me and my voicemail! 914-713-6795. (wow, I have the balls to post my voip number on
Not to be a total dick, but why do we care? If I cared about random gay ass movies, I'd be at aintitcool instead of here.
Taaaaaaake oooooon meeeeeee
Take! On! Me!
Taaaaaake meeeeeee ooooooon!
Great! I'm gonna have song in my head all day now!
You can't take the sky from me...
I hate to ask, what am I missing here? What's the story, why is this something special?
I've got to say, I think this could really work. Being "non-realistic" in the first place adds scope for elegantly coping with the multiple (and extremely blurred) levels of reality in the book (which, btw, is my favourite from all the Dick I have read so far).
I love this style. I'm really glad to see a few select individuals in Hollywood, that are trying to break away from the cliche of most Hollywood crap. Movies like A Scanner Darkly and Sin City are examples of this.
It seems more like an advertisment for a movie to me. Am I missing something? Slashdot seems to get more and more commercial/capitalist, sadly mirroring the state of Linux. No wonder I've switched to BSD, in spite of it being a dying OS. At least its firmly left-wing, like slashdot used to be back in the chips-and-dips days.
I gotta tell you, this more "realistic" style of cartooning is much more interesting than the anime style of Miyazaki. For one, the 3 dimensional depth aspect is added through the use of very well thought out shading, so the characters seem more alive than most other cartoons.
With the exception of Grave of the Fireflies (Hotaru no Haka), which succeeded because of the power of the story more than anything else, Miyazaki's work pales in comparison to the screenshots shown here.
I want to see a great movie, not a great special effect.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Oh, "an Anonymous Reader writes?" You mean TIMOTHY writes, right? There's really no mystery here. We don't care about your indie flicks, Timmy. Sorry that you jack off to every film that isn't released by a major studio, but this is not nerd material - unless maybe you're a Mac nerd, but they don't count as nerds anyway. They're just fags.
if I knew what the hell you were talking about
It is two words! a. lot.
Looks like it's going to look alot like one of Richard Linklater's previous films, Waking Life.
:-(
Checking out the linked article, I agree, very similar animation.
Which I consider sad... Waking Life had an okay plot, but the jittery, near-abstract animation completely put me off it. Jeezus, even Disney can do better than that. Or if just a matter of budget, have it poorly rendered - It will still look better. Or, I hear Matt Stone has some free time, since breaking up with Trey... Cheesy stop-motion construction paper cutouts would annoy me less!
Oh, why do I bother? Movies based on books by authors I respect inevitably suck harder than a US Hoover plugged into a 220 outlet. Slashdot, please stop reviewing them and getting my hopes up - Better not to even know they exist.
Either you lack imagination or you're just lazy. Not trolling btw, just stickin' up for Miyazaki and for unrealistic animation in general. I've never once understood why people would go to the movies to see reality, or why they'd complain when they don't. Then again, I'm a boy, and I watch my niece play pretend that she's a mom/teenager all day and I don't understand that.
Anyway, back on topic, what makes Miyazaki great is that it isn't real, it's better than real. When you're being real, you're limited by what's believable. When you don't bother with reality, you're only limited by consistency (i.e. stuff shouldn't come out of nowhere, and it doesn't in a Miyazaki film). It's easier, and more fun, to suspend disbelief when reality isn't smacking you in the face every couple of minutes....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The sequel, planned for next year, is titled "And My Printer Fading"
Miyazaki's films are works of art. This film is not what I would call a work of art, it is more just a realistic cel shaded movie.
Personally I prefer the works of art because they provide such a feast for the eyes. If you really pay attention to Miyazaki's works (especially Spirited Away) you will see so much detail in many of the scenes that simply aren't captured in any other films.
I like the animation style, but animation seems to be a bit strong of a word. The technique, developed by a guy from MIT, strikes me as a cross between rotoscoping and key-frame animation. The actors are filmed and then painted over. So they have a complete reference for the shadows, etc. It's tracing, not true animation. I always pictured A Scanner Darkly the movie as looking very much like Cheech and Chong with bits of neat sci-fi tech. The book oozes its 70s setting with the cars and the guy's house and stuff. Also, the book starts off very funny, like C&C, and starts to tumble down from there. If I was filming it (thank god I'm not), Up in Smoke would have been my main visual inspiration!
I have never seen that style used in a video before. I'm assuming its drawn or do that use an ultra-special post-processor?
When I first read the title, I thought it was for a next generation of scanners...single quotes (ie. a 'scanner darkly' sneak-peak) would've done the trick.
This story using this technique, with Linklater at the helm is BOUND to be amazing. It sounds like peanut butter and chocolate to me....
To top it off, I thought I read that Steven Soderberg is producing this film. While his name is attached to a lot of crappy films, he also made Schizopolis which has to be one of the greatest films ever made (also dealing with issues of self and identity). If you haven't seen it, see it - you're only hurting yourself if you don't....
Writing "alot" makes you look "alittle" retarded, don't you think, timothy?
So someone applied a Photoshop filter to an entire film? (yes I'm kidding)
During the talk, people asked when he was going to release the program. He basic answer was he didn't want to become involed in anything that would take him away from programming -- starting a business, licensing, etc. I asked him about releasing it open source, and he said something to the effect of "I know it works, I'm just not sure how".
In any case, I just checked on the studio's website, and it appears that the program will be released in June, 2006. You can put yourself on an email list to be notified of its release.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com/scanner.pdf
I would have prefered to see this one.
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
The protagonist is a drug dealer and a narcotics agent. The IMDB summary implies this is only because he uses drugs that split his personality. The much more interesting truth, which shone through Dick's novel, is that people do switch sides all the time! Captured drug dealers really are offered immunity from punishment if they'll be DEA double-agents. And agents who realize the money to be made, and their privileged position, really do succumb to temptation and start dealing drugs. More generally, both cartels and the DEA work to preserve the current Drug War, rather than managed and taxed legalization as with alcohol since Prohibition. Hopefully the movie pushes this home, despite IMDB's summary.
Plus, he's played by Keanu Reeves. I mean, really.
On the plus side, if they left the EEG machine in the movie, this should spike interest in OpenEEG.
I wonder if they will feature the card playing smoking dogs...
I thought it was RMS as Communist that gave it away... can you really imagine him saluting at one of those big military parades?
Still, I'd rate this troll much better than average; it gives the old "Conservatives are stupid!" banality some real subtlety and bite.
Poindexter and ESR, an authoritarian and a libertarian respectively, would be excellent counter-examples.
So much of the book is consumed with dialogue between burnt-out or nearly burnt-out druggies, and they seem to have cast every indie-type star who's had a public bout with rehab. Winona Ryder as Donna? Woody Harrelson as Luckman? And you've gotta love Robert Downey, Jr. as Barris. If any
I also think that the rotoscoping should make for a really cool effect for Fred's "vague blur" suits.
(This is my favorite PKD novel-- and I did an undergraduate thesis on the guy, and so have read, at last count, 50 of the 52 extant novels. I'll probably be one of those losers who take the day off work and show up for the premiere....)
I enjoyed Waking Life, and I'm a certified Dick nut. A Scanner Darkly is one of the greatest pieces of "short" fiction of our century, and it's a shame that society regards Dick primarly as a scifi writer, when he was one of the most astute social commentators of our time. He just happened to be good at expressing his fears and thoughts through a captivating medium.
For the unitiated, A Scanner Darkly is at the front of the reality-bending/drug/psychological thriller genre. Before there was Thomas Harris or Hunter S. Thompson, there was Dick. God, I have shivers already.
...they both come together really well?
I would have walked out on it if I hadn't been on a date, who was running her fingers over my hand during the movie. When it was over, I asked her what she was doing. She told me she was spelling "I want to leave." I could have screamed. I think she did when I told her I hated it too.
I have every anime (by Miyazaki) that has been released in the US. While I can't stand My neighbor Tortoro, my kids love every one. I personally really like Princess Mononoke. I didn't know realism was important in a movie, I've seen enough hollywood slop that I can't believe anyone expects realism. I agree with you that his anime is fun and enjoyable.
Vertical
72 CD D7 52 D0 7E D8 47 44 91 D5 84 D1 59 F1 A9-This is my 128bit integer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Where everyone is sitting around playing "Perky Pat" ....in a MUD...
it was writen in 1964.
I could go on ad nauseum.
Grave of the Fireflies is a Takahata film, not a Miyazaki one :)
I'm a big follower of Linklater's career, but I'm kind of disappointed with his use of professional actors. Using famous actor might pose a trap for the animators of the movie: I'm afraid they'll try to preserve the likeness of characters at all costs, so that the unforgettable psychedelic quality of Waking Life's changing animation styles might be lost. Still, we need to see the trailer to learn whether it's the direction this movie is headed in.
I'm still waiting for 'man in the high castle' to be done as a movie.
not as sci-fi as other PKD, just alternate-future. Good story, tho. Could translate well into movie form, I think...
I would imagine that it would be extremely difficult to adapt the theme of a split personality to film.
How about "Fight Club"? Or "Me, Myself and Irene"? And those are just the first two that come to mind.... It's not as if split personalities are a new plot device where Hollywood is concerned, but it does require some uncommonly good acting and directing talent.
If I don't piss myself laughing during the bit when they're talking about putting gold in the trunk and 12 friends in the back seat of his car to stop it from fishtailing I'll be pissed (sic).
That was one of THE funniest things I've ever read book.
The second funniest thing I've ever read was when they're trying to figure out the gears on a 12 speed bike.
The rotoscoped screenshots' style is quite reminiscent of SVG images such as Lion (PNG) and Tiger (PNG). The strong, solid lines lend themselves to vector rendering. Perhaps the entire movie could be thus done in SVG?
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
The main thing to note here is that they will fuck up the movie. There is no way they can be honest to the spirit of the novel and get the movie distributed in the malls of America. Then again, the perversion of the novel will pay for a shopping trip to those malls for the heirs of PKD, who, I would assume, are happy to live in the world he predicted.
Anyways, my favorite part of the novel is this, where one of the characters has decided to commit suicide by overdose:
That, my friends, is some fine fucking literature.
I don't at all mind certain things being restricted from children - pornography, or alcohol, auto licenses, violent movies. I think most people are of the same mind.
So the question shouldn't be "why can't parents accept the responsibility," but "do video games deserve to be a restricted content?"
I hated Waking Life, too. But then the bong made it around to me, and a few minutes later, I realized why everyone liked it so much.
But then I tried to show it to someone else. There was no bong this time. I quickly apologized for ever suggesting the movie, and we both agreed to watch the Disney Channel because it's more mentally stimulating.
#5. Flat Black Films hasn't produced a movie with a plot. Waking Life was collection of random encounters; the making of which was really just a collaboration in many ways.
#4. All of the movies made from PKD's novels have been either a flop, or stripped key plot elements. If you read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and watched Blade Runner then you'll know what I'm talking about.
#3. The choice to use animation instead of live action means there's no reality to question. People don't question cartoons, they are merely entertained by them.
#2. When asked about Warner Independent (who co-financed A Scanner Darkly) the Dick Estate stated they were "... A new division of WB devoted to serious films with modest budgets." Why not give it the BIG BUDGET that a film like this should have? Are studios not willing to take the risk?
#1. Keanu Reeves -- need I say more?
Here we have one of the most interesting sci-fi writers coupled with one of the most interesting directors working today, and what do you get...
Well lets hope it's the incredible film it might be!
"I am very excited"
timothy wrote:
>
> Looks like it's going to look alot like one of
> Richard Linklater's previous films, Waking
> Life."
In other words it's going to be total pretentious wanker shit. Linklater should have pulled a Kurt Cobain after making Slacker.
--Sergey
From the link to 'Waking Life':
Certification: Argentina:13 / Australia:M / Canada:14A / Finland:K-7 / Germany:12 / Portugal:16 / Spain:13 / Sweden:11 / UK:15 / USA:R
Typical, USA rates is "restricted", 17 or over without an accompanying adult. Wouldn't want to risk starting the kids thinking before they are brainwashed into thinking the George is the best thing since sliced bread, and the War on Terror might not be a good idea, and that the War in Drugs is anything but a total failure. As Gore Vidal commented, you might as well have a War on Dandruff.
Mike
Now is the time - now that you have been warned. It'll be a miracle if this doesn't rubbish the book in some respect so just do yourself a favour and read A Scanner Darkly before it gets Keanu'd and you can never think of it without, uh, like, you know, dude.
Playaholics : Online games and scoreboards
Suttree, a weblog about casual games development
I actually read the title as "wanking life".
High time to move my ass and pay a visit to the mare.
I don't smoke, but I had a lot of stoner friends at the time. I felt that watching that movie was like listening to them philosophize. They all think it's interesting and "deep" under the influence, and all the sober people are bored out of their mind. Plus they would do this for free, and I had to pay $7 or something at the movie theater!
The worst part is that I am from Austin, where Linklater lives and filmed the movie. So everyone thought the movie was cool because they knew someone in it (I knew at least two people in the movie, which did not increase my enjoyment of it in the least). Don't even get me started on the neverending hagiography of local moviemakers by the alternative weekly paper, either. They gave it 3.5 stars, which is almost their minimum for a local film (they gave that many to Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams).
I should really end this rant and go do something.
#5 Irrelevant.
#4 I argue elsewhere that Ridley Scott stayed true to PKD*, despite, or even because of the way he transposed the emotional meaning of Decker/the androids. Pretty much all the others I've seen I'd agree with you. *(I'm refering to the director's cut. The studio version was an abortion.)
Furthermore, stripping elements is pretty much a given when adapting any novel to the screen. The key to a good adaptation seems to be knowing which elements are essential and which aren't. So, yes, there are huge amounts of material missing from Bladerunner, and I'm sure we all have our favorite bits that were left out (I especially missed the Penfield Mood Organ), but that's pretty much the way it goes, unless you're talking Elmore Leonard.
Anyway, by this criteria, all adaptions must fail it.
#3. This is a failing of your imagination, not mine.
#2. A big budget movie will suffer from exactly the problems that Paycheck, Total Recall, Minority Report, etc., etc. suffer from. A big budget scanner darkly will be burdened by flashy special effects and the twisted story itself will be jettisoned in favor of some formulaic doppelganger abortion because with so much money on the line, the studio will be nervous. In the big budget version, Bob Arctor kicks his substance D addiction by the end of second act, kills the Islamic terrorist drug manufacturers that killed his best friend Jerry with invisible bio-engineered aphids in the first act and finally marries Donna, and they all live happily ever after. The only chance this project stands of succeeding on our terms is if it's a low budget prestige project that stays mostly under the radar of the execs, lawyers, and bean counters.
#1. You've got me there. I'm pretty worried about this aspect. I can think of a hundred name actors they might have gotten. Why not Ed Norton? Why Keanu? As far as I am concerned, the three actors that would stand the best chance of totally wrecking this movie are Keanu, Matt Damon, and Ben Afleck. Shit! I think I'd rather see Jean Claude Van Damme in the role.
Still, the rest of the cast sounds incredibly impressive, so I still hope for the best.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Maybe they could do a film, within a film sort fo thing.
Ciao
It's 'A Scanner Darkly', not a 'Scanner Darkly'.
4: Interresting? That's it! The moderation system is broken.
I gotta tell you, this more "realistic" style of cartooning is much more interesting than the anime style of Miyazaki. For one, the 3 dimensional depth aspect is added through the use of very well thought out shading, so the characters seem more alive than most other cartoons.
Miyazaki's work pales in comparison to the screenshots shown here.
It's ROTOSCOPY! Those "drawings" are traced over filmed images. And from the looks of it, it's vector based, making it very easy to automate the in-betweening.
Why would you even bring up Miyazaki? Why not bring up Disney's Snow White? That also used a lot of rotoscopy for Snow White herself, but blended in with traditional animation.
You can't take the sky from me...
GAH!!! NO! no, no NO!
No! When a story you are interrested in is coming up soon on the big screen and you have not yet read the book, do NOT read it now. The book is always better than the movie. So the only logical thing to do is to watch the movie first, enjoy it, and THEN read the book and enjoy it MORE.
That way you get
- Movie, good.
- Book: Better!
. If you do it the other way, you getWhy would you willingly subject yourself to not liking the movie? The book will still be there, as good as ever, after you've had a chance to enjoy the movie. If you rush out and read the book before, you ruin your chances of liking the movie.
My way makes you happy twice, your way makes you happy once, sad/mad once. Think about it, isn't the world bad enough as it is? Don't make it harder for yourself.
You can't take the sky from me...
BARRIS: (_Standing in the middle of the living room with a great big new shiny bike, very pleased_) Look what I got for twenty dollars. .
FRECK: What is it?
BARRIS: A bike, a ten-speed racing bike, virtually brand new. I saw it in the neighbor's yard and asked about it and they had four of them so I made an offer of twenty dollars cash and they sold it to me. Colored people. They even hoisted it over the fence for me.
LUCKMAN: I didn't know you could get a ten-speed nearly new for twenty dollars. It's amazing what you can get for twenty dollars.
DONNA: It resembles the one the chick across the street from me had that got ripped off about a month ago. They probably ripped it off, those black guys.
ARCTOR: Sure they did, if they've got four. And selling it that cheap.
DONNA: You ought to give it back to the chick across the street from me, if it's hers. Anyhow you should let her look at it to see if it's hers.
BARRIS: It's a man's bike. So it can't be.
FRECK: Why do you say it's ten speeds when it's only got seven gears?
BARRIS: (_Astonished_) What?
FRECK: (_Going over to bike and pointing_) Look, five gears here, two gears here at the other end of the chain. Five and two . .
. . . makes seven. So it's only a seven-speed bike.
LUCKMAN: Yeah, but even a seven-speed racing bike is worth twenty dollars. He still got a good buy.
BARRIS: (_Nettled_) Those colored people told me it was ten speeds. It's a rip-off.
(_Everyone gathers to examine bike. They count the gears again and again_.)
FRECK: Now I count eight. Six in front, two in back. That makes eight.
ARCTOR: (_Logically_) But it should be ten. There are no seven- on eight-speed bikes. Not that I ever heard of. What do you suppose happened to the missing gears?
BARRIS: Those colored guys must have been working on it, taking it apart with improper tools and no technical knowledge, and when they reassembled it they left three gears lying on the floor of their garage. They're probably still lying there.
LUCKMAN: Then we should go ask for the missing gears back.
BARRIS: (_Pondering angrily_) But that's where the rip-off is: they'll probably offer to sell them to me, not give them to me as they should. I wonder what else they've damaged. (_Inspects entire bike_)
LUCKMAN: If we all go together they'll give them to us; you can bet on it, man. We'll all go, right? (_Looks around for agreement_)
DONNA: Are you positive thene're only seven gears?
FRECK: Eight.
DONNA: Seven, eight. Anyhow, I mean, before you go over there, ask somebody. I mean, it doesn't look to me like they've done anything to it like taking it apart. Before you go over there and lay heavy shit on them, find out. Can you dig it?
ARCTOR: She's right.
LUCKMAN: Who should we ask? Who do we know that's an authority on racing bikes?
FRECK: Let's ask the first person we see. Let's wheel it out the door and when some freak comes along we'll ask him. That way we'll get a disheartened viewpoint.
(_They collectively wheel bike out front, right off encounter young black man parking his car. They point to the seven-- eight?--gears questioningly and ask how many there are, although they can see--except for Charles Freck--that there are only seven: five at one end of the chain, two at the other. Five and two add up to seven. They can ascertain it with their own eyes. What's going on?_)
YOUNG BLACK MAN: (_Calmly_) What you have to do is multiply the number of gears in front by the number in the near. It is not an adding but a multiplying, because, you see, the chain leaps across from gear to gear, and in terms of gear ratios you obtain five (_He indicates the five gears_.) times one of the two in front (_He points to that_.), which give you one times five, which is five, and then when you shift with this lever on the handle-bar (_He demonstrates_.) the chain jumps to the other one of the two
In my opinion, it's really important to read the book first. That way, you create your own interpretation of the characters, settings, etc. Once you've seen the movie, regardless of how good or bad it is, there's no way to completely forget the actors' faces and voices, and your imagination is no longer completely your own. So I prefer to read a book with just me and the words, and not think things like, "Oh, this is the scene where Julia Roberts gets mauled by that badger".