Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Donoban

macrumors 65816
Sep 7, 2013
1,209
437
You do realize that the Indiana Jones movies were based on early adventure movies that aired during Lucas' and Spielberg's youth in the first place? ;)

But were said movies called Indiana jones? At least they put a new take on the genre.

You buying an apple watch?
 

c-Row

macrumors 65816
Jan 10, 2006
1,193
1
Germany
But were said movies called Indiana jones? At least they put a new take on the genre.

You criticized Hollywood running low on new ideas and then brought up a series which itself was a ripoff (or homage, depending on your point of view). Not exactly my definition of "new ideas". ;)


You buying an apple watch?

What's wrong with my pocketwatch?

r0o75kW.jpg
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,108
Really, what's new anyway? Once you get real different, it's generally for the art crowd, or for directors looking to impress their director buddies.

What could be different about the Indiana Jones and the serials it mimicked was in the technology that supported a cavalcade of thrills and chills. Few could forget the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark and it's seemingly endless encounters. As in many movies, what was special got lost in subsequent versions of what is essentially the same story.
 

jeeptwister

macrumors newbie
Mar 18, 2015
1
0
I don't know. I'd have to see it to know if a remake or prequel would be worth watching. When Lord of the Rings was announced, a lot of people who read the book were sure the movie would be a disaster....
Anyway, here's my tribute to Rutger Hauer who as I understood was improvising when he played that great ending scene. I personally like the line where says: "I want more life, ****er".

http://youtu.be/k8w6bTDZ5HE
 

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,396
26,521
The Misty Mountains
Really, what's new anyway? Once you get real different, it's generally for the art crowd, or for directors looking to impress their director buddies.

What could be different about the Indiana Jones and the serials it mimicked was in the technology that supported a cavalcade of thrills and chills. Few could forget the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark and it's seemingly endless encounters. As in many movies, what was special got lost in subsequent versions of what is essentially the same story.

I think technology makes thrills and chills a fine line, harder to achieve when the audience knows it's all CGI, to be drawn in by events, visuals and cinematography versus being numbed by artificiality. Imo, this is more of a challenge for live action than imagination, however it still applies for animation too. :)
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,108
I think technology makes thrills and chills a fine line, harder to achieve when the audience knows it's all CGI, to be drawn in by events, visuals and cinematography versus being numbed by artificiality. Imo, this is more of a challenge for live action than imagination, however it still applies for animation too. :)

Agreed. Though there was a crossover point when CGI was added a bit at a time with the majority of set pieces shooting film of live action. It was expensive to plan and create and probably cost loads of insurance premiums, but the effort was unquestionably authentic and chilling.
 

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,396
26,521
The Misty Mountains
Agreed. Though there was a crossover point when CGI was added a bit at a time with the majority of set pieces shooting film of live action. It was expensive to plan and create and probably cost loads of insurance premiums, but the effort was unquestionably authentic and chilling.

Raiders is outstanding adventure and one of my favorites! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ActionableMango

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,108
The art direction and sets were very cool. Object like cars and planes were almost like players, they were so distinctive. Subtlety raised tension, such as when the guy is fishing off the seaplane while Indiana Jones, pursued by natives, yells at him to start the engine. And the guy hesitates and is in a quandary about dropping the rod because he just snagged a catch.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
63,834
46,282
In a coffee shop.

@Huntn: The main cultural gift (apart from jazz) that the US bequeathed to the world in the twentieth century was the art of the film, or movie.

And, yes, they made some superlative movies, though not - for the most part - in recent years, where derivative plots, silly sequels, CGI enhanced, violent nonsense passes for plot, and improbably beautiful and bizarrely proportioned individuals supposedly represent the human race as it attempts to make sense of life.

So, why, oh why, must we have endless re-makes, or clones, or sequels to what were classics? Joseph Campbell - and others - notwithstanding - are there no fresh tales which could be told, or which need telling?

Recently, I watched a few episodes of the classic British TV series from the 70s, "Colditz".

As the real Colditz lay deep within what was then the Iron Curtain, in farthest East Germany, (the old communist DDR), naturally, there was no shooting on location.

Besides, as this was made for TV, budgets were tight.

There is no CGI, and very little violence, although the threat of it is clear. Actors speak English, and speak it clearly. There is little profanity, and no mumbling.

While there is no location shooting, and little by way of outdoor relief, what you have is a tight, tense TV series.

It conveys the claustrophobia (as being imprisoned there, in a medieval fortress must have been, for both captors and the POWs alike) exceptionally well, and tells its stories with an intelligent literate script, a meticulous mastery of history (most of the episodes are based on true stories), a superb cast, and some excellent - flawless - acting.

And it is utterly brilliant.

Spare me the re-makes, the sequels, the clones, the CGI, the massive budgets, the empty plots. Get good actors, give them good roles - intelligent, well--written ones - and that is all you need to tell a gripping story.
 
Last edited:

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,396
26,521
The Misty Mountains
@Huntn: The main cultural gift (apart from jazz) that the US bequeathed to the world in the twentieth century was the art of the film, or movie.

And, yes, they made some superlative movies, though not - for the most part - in recent years, where derivative plots, silly sequels, CGI enhanced, violent nonsense passes for plot, and improbably beautiful and bizarrely proportioned individuals supposedly represent the human race as it attempts to make sense of life.

So, why, oh why, must we have endless re-makes, or clones, or sequels to what were classics? Joseph Campbell - an dithers - notwithstanding - are there no fresh tales which could be told, or which need telling?

Recently, I watched a few episodes of the classic British TV series from the 70s, "Colditz".

As the real Colditz lay deep within what was then the Iron Curtain, in farthest East Germany, (the old communist DDR), naturally, there was no shooting on location.

Besides, as this was made for TV, budgets were tight.

There is no CGI, and very little violence, although the threat of it is clear. Actors speak English, and speak it clearly. There is little profanity, and no mumbling.

While there is no location shooting, and little by way of outdoor relief, what you have is a tight, tense TV series.

It conveys the claustrophobia (as being imprisoned there, in a medieval fortress must have been, for both captors and the POWs alike) exceptionally well, and tells its stories with an intelligent literate script, a meticulous mastery of history (most of the episodes are based on true stories), a superb cast, and some excellent - flawless - acting.

And it is utterly brilliant.

Spare me the re-makes, the sequels, the clones, the CGI, the massive budgets, the empty plots. Get good actors, give them good roles - intelligent, well--written ones - and that is all you need to tell a gripping story.

To answer your question "why?", the answer is revenue generation. :) It's an entertainment business that does not always fire on it's creative cylinders as it should, remakes and sequels often built on a existing foundation imo as a shortcut to reduce some of the creative burden.

I agree that in the realm of sequels unless they are part of multipart story, mostly they dissapoint. I agree that over reliance on CGI has ruined many a movie, while acknowledging that CGI is improving to such a degree that unless a person is being animated, it has reached a threshold where it's virtually impossible to tell what is real and what is generated. But none of this can substitute for brilliant vision, story telling and direction.

I'll add to your example, the original movie The Haunting (1963) as compared to its 1999 remake is night and day, the latter totally ruined by CGI while the former relies mostly on your imagination to scare you. And it's filmed in the most beautiful black and white. :)

large_the_haunting_blu-ray_06-e1442932974240.jpg

For the original Blade Runner, it's such a simple story, Deckard, a Blader Runner is given a mission to eliminate 4 rogue replicants who have the nerve to be unhappy about their existence resorting to violence. ;) He visits the replicant's maker, meets a replicant who he has empathy for, is attracted to, then one by one locates each rogue replicant and what happens, happens. In the end, he's back with arguably his love interest.

Although we don't exactly know how biological versus mechanical these artificial people are, I think what makes this movie standout is a dark future, the moral ramifications of artificial human slaves who are able to reflect on their existence, while feeling sadness and pain and might possibly be a remote examination of what it means to have a soul. As characters, I had the most empathy for Rachel and Roy. I guess that is no surprise. :) Roy is first presented as a killer, but then we get a better glimpse of his psyche.

Regarding the Blade Runner sequel- thank goodness it is a sequel and not a remake, however the bar will be so high I plan on being dissapointed. The original movie is set in 2019, this new movie 30 years later. What story choices will be made? Will Rachel have survived? Will there be more of the same, rogue replicants that need to be put down? Or will the continuation of this strory take a sharp turn and explore virgin territory?

Origin of the Blade Runner name (LINK)
An interesting tidbit, is that Phillip Dick wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheet in 1968. The Blade Runner was an unrelated story/book written in 1974 about black market medical services in a futuristic society (I think) and based on that book in 1979, a screenplay was commissioned, but no movie was made. Then in 1982 the screenplay for the Phillip Dick story was written and the screenwriter preferred the name Bladerunner, suggested this to Ridley Scott who bought the rights to the other book so he could just use it's name.
 

Melrose

Suspended
Dec 12, 2007
7,806
399
*thread revival*

I think Harrison Ford is not a very good actor.
I also think the original Blade Runner was briliant and is not asking for a remake.

Two years later this post still basically sums up the whole thing. Some films are not meant to be remade. I'll hold my opinion until it's released, but comparisons to 1982 can't be avoided, and it will inevitably fall short.

Blade Runner on a scale of 1-10: c. 5,000,000
Harrison Ford acting skills, 1-10: 3.5-4
Ruining the legacy with a remake, 1-10: Yes.

And there's no way IN HELL they'll have an ending even 0.01% of Hauer's ad-libbing.
 
Last edited:

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,488
590
Some films are not meant to be remade.
Blade Runner is not being remade. Nor is the new movie a reboot or any other "re"-word; no clue where this idea came from. It's a sequel, called Blade Runner 2049. Blade Runner took place in 2019. (Whoa, that's 2 years from now...so, where are all the replicants and off-world colonies? Not to mention flying cars.)

--Eric
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
Blade Runner is not being remade. Nor is the new movie a reboot or any other "re"-word; no clue where this idea came from. It's a sequel, called Blade Runner 2049. Blade Runner took place in 2019. (Whoa, that's 2 years from now...so, where are all the replicants and off-world colonies? Not to mention flying cars.)

--Eric
I wonder if we'll still be wondering about similar things come 2049.
 

loby

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2010
1,815
1,428
The Final Cut is spectacular. It's the "Directors Cut" (quotes by design), with the lame voiceovers removed, the tacked on ending removed, some extended scenes - but also a _beautiful_ director supervised remastering and a reshoot on a number of scenes with cleaned up FX.

As far as a sequel - the story has been told. A remake? Blasphemy.

"I've… seen things you people wouldn't believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those… moments… will be lost in time, like tears… in… rain. Time… to die…"

One of my favorite movie scenes of all time. Great acting in that scene by Rutgers Hauer.
 

Melrose

Suspended
Dec 12, 2007
7,806
399
Blade Runner is not being remade. Nor is the new movie a reboot or any other "re"-word; no clue where this idea came from. It's a sequel, called Blade Runner 2049. Blade Runner took place in 2019. (Whoa, that's 2 years from now...so, where are all the replicants and off-world colonies? Not to mention flying cars.)

No. Way. OMG really?

My point is that Hollywood is scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to come up with film ideas. There's precious little originality in cinema these days. Let's make a sequel to Gone With The Wind while we're at it, and Casablanca. Oh heck, we can follow up on Citizen Kane too.

I hope it lives up to expectations, yours and mine. :)
 

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,488
590
Yes, really. :) There's a big difference between a sequel and a remake. I would be completely opposed to a Blade Runner remake; there's really no point at all. I'm not necessarily opposed to a sequel. It doesn't seem necessary, but it's possible they have a compelling idea. Alien didn't need a sequel, but Aliens turned out very well, largely because it was a very different sort of movie. The fact that Blade Runner 2049 is set 30 years later at least suggests it won't be a retread.

--Eric
 

Melrose

Suspended
Dec 12, 2007
7,806
399
Yes, really. :) There's a big difference between a sequel and a remake. I would be completely opposed to a Blade Runner remake; there's really no point at all. I'm not necessarily opposed to a sequel. It doesn't seem necessary, but it's possible they have a compelling idea. Alien didn't need a sequel, but Aliens turned out very well, largely because it was a very different sort of movie. The fact that Blade Runner 2049 is set 30 years later at least suggests it won't be a retread.

--Eric
My skepticism (nasty word but there it is) largely results from the question: How many ways can you alter the plot and still call it "Blade Runner"? It must have replicants, or else it won't be a Blade Runner. It must have a dingy city with lots of rain and building-sized advertisements or else it won't be a Blade Runner. It must have dark, moody ambient music, or else it won't be Blade Runner. You know what I mean? Comparing it to Blade Runner is inevitable, and the trend these days is to turn major characters into cardboard cutouts, and plot subtlety in exchange for overdone special effects and cheesy wire-fu. The majority of Blade Runner was basically a futuristic version of Sam Spade, which meant it leaned heavily on audio and visual atmosphere - where it excelled. What else can they do but throw tasteless special effects, violence, and sex at it? Even the nudity in the first one was a footnote to the scene itself. It's not like Tron, where the very reliance on effects meant a sequel or a remake would by default be in a league of it's own; Blade Runner is about characters and ambience. Were it at least partially based on a P. K. Dick book I'd have much higher expectations.

The cool thing with the original was that it didn't provide answers at the end, like most do; it left us with questions - which is very hard to do well, but it did. The worry is that while we nerds accept that Deckard was a replicant, '49 will make it idiotically obvious and ruin the question we were asked at the first one. In a sense, it's answering the whole question of the first one.

"....a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (link), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos." How can that not make you cringe? What's the secret? Deckard is a replicant? Tyrell is still alive? Batty had a twin? Rachel turned evil?

And key characters from '19 will be stupidly explained away. Bryant? He's dead, Gaff killed him. Gaff? Yeah he died as well but oh get this HE was a replicant too. Rachel? She was decommissioned 20 years ago. The real surprise will be Officer K IS A REPLICANT OMG I NEVER SAW THAT COMING!!

I mean in the end, I'll follow it, maybe watch it, and I hope it's good and hope you like it too. It's just a movie, but the problem is that they're messing with something that ended so powerfully it should be left alone. The ending, the question(s) it asked, and that final realization you see from Deckard cannot be easily reproduced. You get to the credits really believing Deckard has opened his eyes, left his job, and you hope he and Rachel will live but somehow wonder if they won't have but a few weeks of tortured happiness before she dies. They have to address these things in order for a sequel to work, and that's the problem. :)

And then director says he's got plenty of ideas and Blade Runner could go on to more films. Good grief please no...
 
Last edited:

Plutonius

macrumors G3
Feb 22, 2003
9,019
8,383
New Hampshire, USA
@Huntn: The main cultural gift (apart from jazz) that the US bequeathed to the world in the twentieth century was the art of the film, or movie.

And, yes, they made some superlative movies, though not - for the most part - in recent years, where derivative plots, silly sequels, CGI enhanced, violent nonsense passes for plot, and improbably beautiful and bizarrely proportioned individuals supposedly represent the human race as it attempts to make sense of life.

So, why, oh why, must we have endless re-makes, or clones, or sequels to what were classics? Joseph Campbell - an dithers - notwithstanding - are there no fresh tales which could be told, or which need telling?

Recently, I watched a few episodes of the classic British TV series from the 70s, "Colditz".

As the real Colditz lay deep within what was then the Iron Curtain, in farthest East Germany, (the old communist DDR), naturally, there was no shooting on location.

Besides, as this was made for TV, budgets were tight.

There is no CGI, and very little violence, although the threat of it is clear. Actors speak English, and speak it clearly. There is little profanity, and no mumbling.

While there is no location shooting, and little by way of outdoor relief, what you have is a tight, tense TV series.

It conveys the claustrophobia (as being imprisoned there, in a medieval fortress must have been, for both captors and the POWs alike) exceptionally well, and tells its stories with an intelligent literate script, a meticulous mastery of history (most of the episodes are based on true stories), a superb cast, and some excellent - flawless - acting.

And it is utterly brilliant.

Spare me the re-makes, the sequels, the clones, the CGI, the massive budgets, the empty plots. Get good actors, give them good roles - intelligent, well--written ones - and that is all you need to tell a gripping story.

I agree 100%. All of the previews during the last movie I saw in the theater were either remakes or continuations of movies and all featured lots of CGI. How many times can you remake King Kong or Spider Man ?

It's about time Hollywood produces another Russell Crowe film for @twietee :).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,488
590
What else can they do but throw tasteless special effects, violence, and sex at it?
They could have a different story? It's not actually as hard as you're making it out to be. I don't really have any expectations either way, but I also don't think it has to be exactly the same or it won't be Blade Runner.

--Eric
 

rhett7660

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
14,219
4,294
Sunny, Southern California
SNIP

The cool thing with the original was that it didn't provide answers at the end, like most do; it left us with questions - which is very hard to do well, but it did. The worry is that while we nerds accept that Deckard was a replicant, '49 will make it idiotically obvious and ruin the question we were asked at the first one. In a sense, it's answering the whole question of the first one.

This was one of the reasons why I love this movie. It doesn't answer all the questions. It leaves the viewer wanting more and it leaves you thinking and asking what if questions. I am afraid of what you are saying as I don't want confirmation of the question. If they don't touch it great, but if we find out one way or the other, it most likely will change how we view the original BR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose

ActionableMango

macrumors G3
Sep 21, 2010
9,612
6,907
I used to be a sequel/remake/reboot hater, but after giving it some thought I realized that was really just a form of film bigotry. There are plenty of examples where the sequel/remake/reboot is as good, even better, or simply different enough to stand on its own.

Can you imagine if Michael Mann stopped after LA Takedown didn't film its remake, Heat? Heat is substantially better and ranks as one of my favorite heist movies of all time. The downtown bank robbery scene is to be experienced.

Casino Royale 2006 and Casino Royale 1967 are respectively my favorite and least favorite Bond movies. Even if you don't count 1967 as a real Bond movie, the point still stands because 2006 is obviously a franchise reboot.

There are several other well-loved sequels: Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2, Aliens, The Wrath of Khan.

Interestingly, Alien III was hated during its time because it WASN'T enough like Aliens, which is what everyone was expecting. Yet in the last few years since the Blu-ray remaster I've seen growing appreciation for the movie specifically because its different than the others in the series.

Sure, the repeated Spiderman reboots are ridiculous, but then we have The Dark Knight Trilogy. TDK is a bit overrated IMHO, but still it is unquestionably and substantially better than the Batman movies that came before it.

I didn't watch Mad Max Fury Road for over a year because I very badly prejudged it. It should be everything that I hate in a movie--an unnecessary reboot, paper-thin plot, nothing but action, and so little dialog that it could fit on a single sheet of paper. Yet I enjoyed it a lot. It was just... well done.

This reminds me of a similar topic, which is endlessly making different cuts to sell new editions of the movie. Yeah we all hate the cash grab (Stargate has FIVE editions???). Yeah we also all hate the endless tweaks (think Lucas and Star Wars). But aren't you glad that Blade Runner The Final Cut exists? There are always exceptions.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that every movie has to be judged for itself. Don't prejudge just because it's a sequel/remake/reboot. Yes most of them are bad, but there are still good or even great movies that fit those labels.

There is some pretty good talent working on BR2049. I don't expect it to be better than or even as good as BR, but it's entirely possible for this team to make a decent movie. If it's a bad movie, I won't defend it. But if it's a decent movie, don't trash it just because it can't reach up to the dizzying heights of the impossibly high pedestal that everyone (including myself) has put BR on.
 
Last edited:

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,396
26,521
The Misty Mountains
My skepticism (nasty word but there it is) largely results from the question: How many ways can you alter the plot and still call it "Blade Runner"? It must have replicants, or else it won't be a Blade Runner. It must have a dingy city with lots of rain and building-sized advertisements or else it won't be a Blade Runner. It must have dark, moody ambient music, or else it won't be Blade Runner. You know what I mean? Comparing it to Blade Runner is inevitable, and the trend these days is to turn major characters into cardboard cutouts, and plot subtlety in exchange for overdone special effects and cheesy wire-fu. The majority of Blade Runner was basically a futuristic version of Sam Spade, which meant it leaned heavily on audio and visual atmosphere - where it excelled. What else can they do but throw tasteless special effects, violence, and sex at it? Even the nudity in the first one was a footnote to the scene itself. It's not like Tron, where the very reliance on effects meant a sequel or a remake would by default be in a league of it's own; Blade Runner is about characters and ambience. Were it at least partially based on a P. K. Dick book I'd have much higher expectations.

The cool thing with the original was that it didn't provide answers at the end, like most do; it left us with questions - which is very hard to do well, but it did. The worry is that while we nerds accept that Deckard was a replicant, '49 will make it idiotically obvious and ruin the question we were asked at the first one. In a sense, it's answering the whole question of the first one.

"....a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (link), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos." How can that not make you cringe? What's the secret? Deckard is a replicant? Tyrell is still alive? Batty had a twin? Rachel turned evil?

And key characters from '19 will be stupidly explained away. Bryant? He's dead, Gaff killed him. Gaff? Yeah he died as well but oh get this HE was a replicant too. Rachel? She was decommissioned 20 years ago. The real surprise will be Officer K IS A REPLICANT OMG I NEVER SAW THAT COMING!!

I mean in the end, I'll follow it, maybe watch it, and I hope it's good and hope you like it too. It's just a movie, but the problem is that they're messing with something that ended so powerfully it should be left alone. The ending, the question(s) it asked, and that final realization you see from Deckard cannot be easily reproduced. You get to the credits really believing Deckard has opened his eyes, left his job, and you hope he and Rachel will live but somehow wonder if they won't have but a few weeks of tortured happiness before she dies. They have to address these things in order for a sequel to work, and that's the problem. :)

And then director says he's got plenty of ideas and Blade Runner could go on to more films. Good grief please no...

They could have a different story? It's not actually as hard as you're making it out to be. I don't really have any expectations either way, but I also don't think it has to be exactly the same or it won't be Blade Runner.

--Eric

If you guys read the original story (maybe you have , but I'll continue as if you have not ;)). The movie is primarily focused on Deckard's hunting down of the rogue replicants touching on some themes about what it means to be real vs artificial. I assume because Ford's character is in this, it will be a continuation of the original screenplay, however IMO the original book is much richer than the movie and there are many themes they could examine.

  • The Earth is dying because of a previous nuclear war.
  • Most people are immigrating to Mars or space stations.
  • People who are too damaged can't leave, and with mental damage are called chicken heads.
  • People still on Earth are so obsessed with living creatures, owning them as pets is a major preoccupation and expense. So strong is the desire, that people who can't afford real, are content with artificial animals.
  • Mood Organs are used to artificially adjust people's moods.
  • The exploration of Mercer-ism a religion followed by virtually everyone and an accusation from the most popular tv personality that it is fake, but is it?
  • A group fusion device used to experience Mercer-ism.
  • Questions regarding the replicant tests- An implication that the tests used to determine if a person is a replicant may not be full proof. An assumption all human beings have empathy for one aother, may not be true.
  • That replicants who rebel, want a better existence than being used as slaves.
  • Replicant's have something equivalent to a underground on Earth.
  • Rachel Rosen's personality is different than in the movie, she is in no real jeopardy, unlike the movie Rachel she is not the vulnerable andy who discovered she's not human. And it's not clear if she can really experience love or not.
  • In the book, what we see of the replicant's is they act primarily in self defense, which is similar to the movie except for Roy Blatty's cold blooded murder of Dr. Rosen (in the movie).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.