Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/16 18:23:06


Post by: Thargrim


OP updated with new trailers:





Trailer 2:




Trailer 3:




Trailer 4: (August 22)







http://www.themovienetwork.com/article/blade-runner-2049-debut-trailer-coming-soon

All sorts of news articles about a trailer release for the new Blade Runner, any time between now and probably later next week. I'm pretty surprised, the movie is set to release next October which is a ways off. But still very excited, i'm probably more excited to see this trailer itself than I am SW rogue one or any new movie. BR, my favorite movie of all time gets a sequel, for better or for worse! out of all the movies that don't need a sequel Blade Runner is definitely up there. And its set many years later...whether its set in the same Los Angeles who knows. I am cautiously optimistic, my greatest fears are about the soundtrack, bad CGI, a lack of grittiness and realness. The thing about Blade Runner is it was made using physical things, models, sets, actual real rain. Everythng felt physical and textured, like you could touch it and it was fully there. With CGI all of that is not the same. I hope Denis Villeneuve captured the neo noir elements as well, I guess we'll have a glimpse real soon.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/16 19:55:03


Post by: BigWaaagh


BR is absolutely my favorite movie. Phenomenal cast, great story, gritty sets...cryogenically frozen eyeballs on James Hong's shoulder, what's not to like!? I'm going to be all over this movie like Chaos on Horus!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/16 23:14:10


Post by: welshhoppo


I'm curious to see which of the endings they go with.

Spoiler:
He is really a robot or is he not?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/16 23:21:01


Post by: Thargrim


 welshhoppo wrote:
I'm curious to see which of the endings they go with.

Spoiler:
He is really a robot or is he not?


The director said he left this ambiguous, probably a smart move.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/16 23:37:59


Post by: welshhoppo


Only originally, I do believe he picked a side a few years ago.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/16 23:51:08


Post by: Thargrim


 welshhoppo wrote:
Only originally, I do believe he picked a side a few years ago.


http://screencrush.com/blade-runner-2049-is-deckard-a-replicant/

If you believe this articles legitimacy, then it looks like they won't be revealing it. Ridley scott isn't directing it, which i'm kind of glad. Prometheus was a mess, and the cast of Alien Covenant looks just as dreadful with james franco in it, Scott has recently shown he can't figure out how to get a good script and cast characters properly, I mean come on look at the ship crew in Prometheus. Those people were clowns,...there is only so much suspension of disbelief I can spare. RS can certainly make a good looking movie, but Alien Covenant is his last chance for me....i'm willing to give him that, one more chance to make a good sci fi movie.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/17 02:46:37


Post by: Tannhauser42


As for which ending they would use. Hmm, the ending with the hints of Deckard being a replicant makes no mention of the 4-year lifespan exception, IIRC, so he would be dead. On the other hand, who is to say that the Deckard in this new movie isn't a replicant? Maybe the real Deckard (from the first movie) died a few years back, but because they "need his magic", they create a replicant of him?

There really are a crazy number of ways they can go with this.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/18 03:03:00


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


They will go with the worst way.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/19 18:02:50


Post by: Thargrim


Updated the op with the trailer. I'm pretty happy with how it looks so far, it is as much a teaser as it is a trailer though.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/19 18:23:53


Post by: Kanluwen





Just so that people can watch it without having to copy/paste.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/19 23:16:05


Post by: squidhills


*shrugs*

Might not suck. Not really enough in that trailer to judge by, but thanks all the same for posting it.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/20 00:15:08


Post by: Tannhauser42


Yeah, I was really excited to see it, and then was all "that's it?" Not much to see, really. Apart from the gun, there wasn't much else to make me go "squeee!"


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/20 00:15:19


Post by: Wyrmalla


Ooh, I can see they're playing up the world's environment being as screwed as the advertisements said it would be in the first movie. Deckard was in a post-apocalyptic version of his apartment right?

Re: the replicant thing. Aye, best to leave it ambiguous. Its been flipped flopped on repeatedly. The unicorn ending heavily implies it (i.e. his partner knows he's been having unicorn dreams because its a programmed trait, but lets him go in the end), but whatever. The age thing could be hand waved easily, but meh, there's other plot points to dwell on.

I wonder if that was the original gun (held in a private collection), or a replica. If it is a replica then I'd like to know who made it. Adam Savage made his own a while back, which is about the closest copy I've seen, so if they were re-making it I wonder if he had a hand in that at all (he tends to be pulled into this sort of thing, but keep mum about it for years...). Ideally their prop designers will be using the original techniques rather than 3D printing, and well if they are those are some hellish parts to source.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/20 00:34:28


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Wyrmalla wrote:

I wonder if that was the original gun (held in a private collection), or a replica. If it is a replica then I'd like to know who made it. Adam Savage made his own a while back, which is about the closest copy I've seen, so if they were re-making it I wonder if he had a hand in that at all (he tends to be pulled into this sort of thing, but keep mum about it for years...). Ideally their prop designers will be using the original techniques rather than 3D printing, and well if they are those are some hellish parts to source.


If we're lucky, though, the attention this brings may lead to some affordable replicas of That Gun.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/20 04:16:42


Post by: Breotan


Not convinced that Ryan Gosling is the right choice for a project like this.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/20 06:20:22


Post by: Manchu


There's not a ton to talk about regarding the trailer specifically. But it does give us an excuse to note the difference between being excited because a movie looks (a) groundbreaking or (b) authentic. Nothing about this looks groundbreaking, which is exactly what made the first one worthwhile. But it does look pretty authentic. It could be kind of neat if that's the point: the movie itself is a replicant. Did Tyrell intend to just copy humans or to create something more? What is meant by that motto, more human than human? Rephrase the same question on the level of the film itself: is this just a cash grab or are they really aiming for something more? If all the movie needs to do is "look like Bladerunner" then who cares.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/20 07:26:03


Post by: BigWaaagh


I'm sorry, but, *schwing*!

Almost a year out, I wouldn't expect more from a trailer and that's the whole point. It's the amuse bouche portion of the meal. Not quite the full appetizer, just something to jump start the palate and stir the imagination.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/20 19:13:32


Post by: Alpharius


Well, it certainly looks interesting - from what little we can see/tell so far!

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Almost a year out, I wouldn't expect more from a trailer and that's the whole point. It's the amuse bouche portion of the meal. Not quite the full appetizer, just something to jump start the palate and stir the imagination.


I feel like you should be punished for that.

But...not yet, I suppose.

You've definitely made The List though...



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/21 02:33:42


Post by: Thargrim


Breotan wrote:Not convinced that Ryan Gosling is the right choice for a project like this.



I think he'll do fine, I liked him in Drive, Only God Forgives, Place Beyond the Pines, Fracture,

Drive and Only God Forgives were basically neon lit neo noir movies anyway...

Manchu wrote:There's not a ton to talk about regarding the trailer specifically. But it does give us an excuse to note the difference between being excited because a movie looks (a) groundbreaking or (b) authentic. Nothing about this looks groundbreaking, which is exactly what made the first one worthwhile. But it does look pretty authentic. It could be kind of neat if that's the point: the movie itself is a replicant. Did Tyrell intend to just copy humans or to create something more? What is meant by that motto, more human than human? Rephrase the same question on the level of the film itself: is this just a cash grab or are they really aiming for something more? If all the movie needs to do is "look like Bladerunner" then who cares.


Well honestly I haven't seen many groundmaking movies in the past 10 years, movies don't blow my mind like they used to. I think it's getting to the point where everything has been done before, and to do something new you're gonna have to take incredible experimental risks, and embrace weirdness in movies. The only director I can think of right now who could have made a crazy looking BR is Nicolas Winding Refn. Every time he makes another movie it gets more experimental and odd, plus he has a sense of aesthetics. Villeneuve however has his films done in a very minimalist way, and it shows in the trailer. The problem is that BR isn't minimalist, its rich and highly detailed. Like people were saying Harrison is wearing an ordinary T shirt in the teaser...and there is a lot of empty space throughout. I think it will work for the type of movie that this is going to be. Because Blade Runner of the 80s reflected that time period, BR 2049 will reflect the minimalist aesthetic of modern times.

Tannhauser42 wrote:Yeah, I was really excited to see it, and then was all "that's it?" Not much to see, really. Apart from the gun, there wasn't much else to make me go "squeee!"


Yeah I wouldn't call it a trailer, this was a teaser no doubt. Until they release an actual real trailer I wouldn't expect much. I don't think we will see more footage for another 3-5 months.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/21 06:54:40


Post by: Jehan-reznor


My expectations are very low, don't know what they can add to the story


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/21 18:51:05


Post by: Thargrim


Heres a few pictures from an entertainment weekly magazine:







Its nice to see ana de armas though, I was wondering how the other cast would look. The trailer didn't really show anyone but harrison and gosling.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/21 19:12:58


Post by: Breotan


Is that snow? Or ash or sand?



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/22 14:12:13


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Breotan wrote:
Is that snow? Or ash or sand?



Considering one of the themes in the original short story was the ecological destruction of earth in a nuclear war resulting in mass extinction of most of the worlds wildlife (hence peoples desire to get off Earth and go to the colonies and the prestige attached to having an actual animal rather than an electric one), I would go with sand or ash. And it appears that the wasteland is encroaching on human civilisation.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/22 15:35:45


Post by: Wyrmalla


That car. Its... its a regular 80s style car with some sci fi junk slapped onto it. Perfect!

(Especially considering they probably built the whole thing from scratch and its just meant to look like a car they bolted crap onto)


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/22 15:40:56


Post by: agnosto


Interestingly, the words on the building, in the trailer, where he meets Harrison Ford is "luck" in Korean.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/22 15:45:52


Post by: Thraxas Of Turai


Damn you American date format, I thought this was going to be a summer release. Like most here I am very interested to see where they go with this, but there is more than a sneaking suspicion that it can only pale in comparison to the original.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/22 15:53:21


Post by: BigWaaagh


 Breotan wrote:
Is that snow? Or ash or sand?



I think it's GW's 'Armageddon Dunes' texture paint.!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/22 17:18:49


Post by: Thargrim


Breotan wrote:Is that snow? Or ash or sand?



A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
Is that snow? Or ash or sand?



Considering one of the themes in the original short story was the ecological destruction of earth in a nuclear war resulting in mass extinction of most of the worlds wildlife (hence peoples desire to get off Earth and go to the colonies and the prestige attached to having an actual animal rather than an electric one), I would go with sand or ash. And it appears that the wasteland is encroaching on human civilisation.


I believe its snow, those car machines in the trailer are designed to melt the snow, the director joked that it was a canadians wet dream. It might not rain in LA anymore, now it just snows (toxic snow). And the original movie diverged from the book to the point where i'd say they are loosely related. The new movie will likely go farther into a different direction. I've heard some people say that the desert could be mars though, which is an interesting idea but not too likely.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/22 21:06:42


Post by: Trondheim


I suppose it will be okay but not much more than that for me at least. But will see it when it comes along


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/23 00:51:32


Post by: Graphite


All those memories will be gone. Like... tears, in snow


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/30 12:35:05


Post by: Pacific


 Thargrim wrote:
Breotan wrote:Not convinced that Ryan Gosling is the right choice for a project like this.



I think he'll do fine, I liked him in Drive, Only God Forgives, Place Beyond the Pines, Fracture,

Drive and Only God Forgives were basically neon lit neo noir movies anyway...



Agreed, think he's a good actor. Like the fact that he acts well without doing a lot (he's kind of like an American Mark Rylance), think he will suit the future dystopia of the setting well.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2016/12/30 19:21:56


Post by: Breotan


 Pacific wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
Breotan wrote:Not convinced that Ryan Gosling is the right choice for a project like this.

I think he'll do fine, I liked him in Drive, Only God Forgives, Place Beyond the Pines, Fracture,

Drive and Only God Forgives were basically neon lit neo noir movies anyway...

Agreed, think he's a good actor. Like the fact that he acts well without doing a lot (he's kind of like an American Mark Rylance), think he will suit the future dystopia of the setting well.

He's too... pretty. He just doesn't look gritty enough or worn down enough, like he's got the weight of the world on his shoulders, like Ford did/does. He comes across as the rookie in a buddy cop movie.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/01/01 04:04:31


Post by: Alpharius


You guys sure are getting/taking a lot from a trailer!

And Happy New Year!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/01/10 23:59:39


Post by: Pacific


 Breotan wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
Breotan wrote:Not convinced that Ryan Gosling is the right choice for a project like this.

I think he'll do fine, I liked him in Drive, Only God Forgives, Place Beyond the Pines, Fracture,

Drive and Only God Forgives were basically neon lit neo noir movies anyway...

Agreed, think he's a good actor. Like the fact that he acts well without doing a lot (he's kind of like an American Mark Rylance), think he will suit the future dystopia of the setting well.

He's too... pretty. He just doesn't look gritty enough or worn down enough, like he's got the weight of the world on his shoulders, like Ford did/does. He comes across as the rookie in a buddy cop movie.



Completely disagree! Have you seen Drive or Fractured? I think he will be able to do beaten down-upon pretty well.

I certainly wouldn't class him in the "pretty but can't act category", I'm glad they've actually gone for someone with some acting chops.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/01/19 06:09:25


Post by: Thargrim


 Breotan wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
Breotan wrote:Not convinced that Ryan Gosling is the right choice for a project like this.

I think he'll do fine, I liked him in Drive, Only God Forgives, Place Beyond the Pines, Fracture,

Drive and Only God Forgives were basically neon lit neo noir movies anyway...

Agreed, think he's a good actor. Like the fact that he acts well without doing a lot (he's kind of like an American Mark Rylance), think he will suit the future dystopia of the setting well.

He's too... pretty. He just doesn't look gritty enough or worn down enough, like he's got the weight of the world on his shoulders, like Ford did/does. He comes across as the rookie in a buddy cop movie.



He certainly looked pretty worn down after he got his butt kicked(head beaten) in Only God Forgives. But generally speaking yeah, he doesn't look as rugged as Harrison Ford...he just doesn't have the deep lines in his face. He definitely leans more into the handsome side I guess. Ford has kind of phoned it in the last few roles he's had, some say hes on a roll trying to kill off all of his iconic characters, indy might be next after Deckard lol. As i've said before, the biggest complaint I keep seeing is about Fords grey t shirt which is apparently not sci fi enough. I personally don't mind it, I never figured Deckard to be a particularly fashion conscious guy.

Regardless, if anyone hopes this will top the original you might want to double check your expectations. The best I am hoping for is a movie that is a good sequel to the first. And something that doesn't ruin the first movie, but still remains a good movie in its own right.

Plus, not even Ridley Scott could pull of the same aesthetics his movies had back in the day. The clean sterile sleekness of Prometheus And A;C prove it. Neither of those movies look like they belong as prequels to the industrial CRT low fi Alien. Looking at the gun designs in Alien Covenant it's clear he has become lazy in the art design department. Without HR Gigers influence, the Alien designs and universe simply won't be the same. Sometimes you just need to know when to take a look at what you're doing and just stop.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/01/19 09:54:15


Post by: -Loki-


Ryan Gosling gets a bit typcast by the fact that he's in rom coms and is a bit of a pretty boy, but he can do action very well do. He's become a pretty versatile actor.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/13 17:51:19


Post by: Thargrim


Edward James Olmos has confirmed he has a small role in the film. I'm guessing Goslings character officer K bumps into him on his quest to find Deckard. Rumor is another trailer will debut within the next month or two.

NECA was supposed to give out news about their upcoming line of BR 2049 collectibles and figures. But nothing was shown at the NY toy fair. Seems a bit odd they said we would get more info during the fair..but I searched and found nothing.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/13 20:41:39


Post by: chromedog


*Edward James Olmos


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/13 22:58:01


Post by: Thargrim


 chromedog wrote:
*Edward James Olmos


Oops, I knew something didn't look right..fixed.

http://www.eastercon2017.uk/livemusic

Johannsson will be performing music from the new movie mid next month. It's going to be hard to top Vangelis, but hopefully we get a good recording of this. The soundtrack is one of the things that will help make or break the movie IMO.

The Blade Runner 2049 news facebook page is pretty on top of all the new information, anyone with a high interest in the film should follow it!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/29 01:15:06


Post by: Thargrim


http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/28/15087834/blade-runner-2049-preview-ryan-gosling-cinemacon

Apparently new footage has been shown at cinemacon, with a possibility of a new and more substantial trailer by wednesday. I can't confirm how legit all the twitter rumors about the trailer being released are...but I will post it here if it turns out.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/29 12:02:35


Post by: Medium of Death


Why not just cast Gosling as Deckard?

Old man Ford is an utter embarrassment.

This is going to be pants. Pants I say!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/29 12:25:01


Post by: kronk


 Medium of Death wrote:

Old man Ford is an utter embarrassment.


Oh yeah? Well Sean Connery is over-rated and Benedict Cumberbatch plays the same character, over and over!

Where is your god, now?!

Spoiler:


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/29 14:18:13


Post by: AndrewGPaul


 Medium of Death wrote:
Why not just cast Gosling as Deckard?

Old man Ford is an utter embarrassment.

This is going to be pants. Pants I say!


If we assume that Rick Deckard was 39 in 2029 (same age as Harrison Ford was when he made the film), then he'll be 59 in the sequel; 15 years younger than Harrison Ford is now, and 23 years older than Ryan Gosling. Out of the two of them, I'd choose Harrison Ford to play the role, especially as he looks like Harrison Ford.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/29 15:27:03


Post by: Medium of Death


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
Why not just cast Gosling as Deckard?

Old man Ford is an utter embarrassment.

This is going to be pants. Pants I say!


If we assume that Rick Deckard was 39 in 2029 (same age as Harrison Ford was when he made the film), then he'll be 59 in the sequel; 15 years younger than Harrison Ford is now, and 23 years older than Ryan Gosling. Out of the two of them, I'd choose Harrison Ford to play the role, especially as he looks like Harrison Ford.


Well that's just a case of the script being gak.

The entire idea of a Blade Runner sequel is pretty stupid anyway.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/29 15:42:09


Post by: Alpharius


It's all either "1" or "10", eh?!?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/30 01:30:33


Post by: Thargrim


Well no sign of a trailer, definitely looking like IMDB was full of gak. Got about five and half hours left in the day, if there is no trailer then IMDB is going to get crapped on by all sorts of people on twitter.

More footage was also shown in the past hour as WB had a panel going, leto, villeneuve and ana de armas were present to show off some behind the scenes stuff.

Getting tired of refreshing pages...

edit: actually IMDB didn't mention a trailer per say, just footage. Thus it looks like people got carried away and twisted it into oh look we're gonna get a trailer! there was never a trailer due out this week!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/03/30 12:08:08


Post by: Alpharius


Ladies and Gentlemen - The Internet!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/04/04 18:19:03


Post by: jmurph


 Medium of Death wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
Why not just cast Gosling as Deckard?

Old man Ford is an utter embarrassment.

This is going to be pants. Pants I say!


If we assume that Rick Deckard was 39 in 2029 (same age as Harrison Ford was when he made the film), then he'll be 59 in the sequel; 15 years younger than Harrison Ford is now, and 23 years older than Ryan Gosling. Out of the two of them, I'd choose Harrison Ford to play the role, especially as he looks like Harrison Ford.


Well that's just a case of the script being gak.

The entire idea of a Blade Runner sequel is pretty stupid anyway.


Why? It's not like Blade Runner was universally praised on its release. Its strong points (noir style, classical dramatic themes, etc.) are not unique, and can be embraced in a sequel.

I agree that I would have liked to see less of a pure sequel and more of a shared universe film, but you have to fill seats. Presumably, it will also address the Deckard replicant question. I wonder if they will get back to the importance of animals as status symbols from the original story....


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/04/04 22:19:01


Post by: Thargrim


 jmurph wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
Why not just cast Gosling as Deckard?

Old man Ford is an utter embarrassment.

This is going to be pants. Pants I say!


If we assume that Rick Deckard was 39 in 2029 (same age as Harrison Ford was when he made the film), then he'll be 59 in the sequel; 15 years younger than Harrison Ford is now, and 23 years older than Ryan Gosling. Out of the two of them, I'd choose Harrison Ford to play the role, especially as he looks like Harrison Ford.


Well that's just a case of the script being gak.

The entire idea of a Blade Runner sequel is pretty stupid anyway.


Why? It's not like Blade Runner was universally praised on its release. Its strong points (noir style, classical dramatic themes, etc.) are not unique, and can be embraced in a sequel.

I agree that I would have liked to see less of a pure sequel and more of a shared universe film, but you have to fill seats. Presumably, it will also address the Deckard replicant question. I wonder if they will get back to the importance of animals as status symbols from the original story....


If you look close at this image you can see a dog to the right of Gosling, I assume it belongs to Deckard.



I believe a dog would be fairly rare at that point in time, wonder if its artificial/cloned or something.

Still no word on a new trailer, the movie is 6 months or so away from release. My personal guess is that we will see a more substantial trailer before June. The announcement trailer was cool to get early but it isn't much to go on. Can't really get a good feel for the movie when it only shows 2 characters and half the trailer was blackness detailing director/producer names and production companies etc. Also the Star Wars trailer is due out in the second half of this month, so the question is will warner bros put out a trailer before Star Wars gets all the hype, or wait until things have died down...


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/04/09 13:06:24


Post by: BigWaaagh


Just this last weekend, I took my wife and son to the 'Music Box' Theatre to 'Blade Runner: The Final Cut' on the big screen. It's one of the few remaining grand, old movie palace theatres from the 20's still standing and one of my favorite places to go for movies. Let's put it this way, we came in and grabbed our concession goodies...I had two fingers of Bourbon, thank you...and then grabbed our seats while the organist at the front of the theatre played on the original, still functional organ while we waited for the curtain to go up. Yeah, it's that cool! Anyway, my son hadn't seen the movie in it's entirety yet...yes, it's been one of my parental failings...but now he's a mad fiend for 'Blade Runner' and can't wait for the release later this year. The Final Cut version had some new footage I'd not seen before, but any reason to see one of my favorite films at a great venue, well, sign me up.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/04/16 21:06:49


Post by: Thargrim


Music from the movie was played live in the UK today, a song titled "K's Horse"

Probably in reference to the small wooden toy horse he is mentioned having at some point in the movie.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/04/26 19:23:22


Post by: Thargrim


New trailer is apparently gonna come with the release of Alien Covenant, if we are to take Scotts word.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/with-alien-blade-runner-sequels-scott-looks-forward/2017/04/26/8f57ef34-2a87-11e7-9081-f5405f56d3e4_story.html?utm_term=.3d3fbf2a64fb

New image of officer K and Joi; presumably in costume due to the plastic rain coat.










Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/03 19:46:32


Post by: Thargrim


https://m.facebook.com/BladeRunnerMovie/

Live Q&A monday 9am pacific time. I read that a trailer has been rated and usually that means its dropping real soon. I'm hoping we get a much better look at it this time...see you guys when the trailer is up.

New posters:
Spoiler:






Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/05 16:16:13


Post by: Thargrim








Teaser for the teaser trailer...looks like its gonna be awesome though.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/09 15:19:49


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


IMO, this looks and feels and sounds like a Blade Runner film.

Jared Leto's character looks like a proper villain. Gosling looks like a Blade Runner who may have seen too much, too soon. the atmospherics to me look amazing.


Like, I don't want to get my hopes up too much, but this looks like it will be a properly good sequel.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/09 16:48:16


Post by: Ratius


I have no idea what the plot is for this having watched that latest trailer.....
Still looking forward to it as the original is in my top 10 of all time. But.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/11 18:19:04


Post by: Thargrim


 Ratius wrote:
I have no idea what the plot is for this having watched that latest trailer.....
Still looking forward to it as the original is in my top 10 of all time. But.


I'm glad they managed to show so much without spoiling the hell out of it. I mean the opening scene of the movie is more or less confirmed now. Ridley scott talked about the opening scene, with the tree..lone cottage in a wasteland etc. Bautista plays that character Ridley was talking about.

I've seen a lot of people nitpicking the hell out of it. Stuff like it's not gritty enough, is everybody white in 2049? Everybody is too good looking etc etc. To me the movie looks like a dream come true.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/11 20:25:18


Post by: Orlanth


Ridley Scott has some oversight on the film, so I have hopes for it.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/12 03:04:11


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Orlanth wrote:
Ridley Scott has some oversight on the film, so I have hopes for it.


Didn't he have oversight on Prometheus?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/12 06:46:48


Post by: Chillreaper


This is looking and sounding better than I'd ever hoped that it would.

Please don't ruin Bladerunner, please don't ruin Bladerunner!

I'm not having this thing sour my favourite film of all time.

Please... Just tell me what sacrifices I have to make and to which god.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/12 14:11:56


Post by: Alpharius


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
Ridley Scott has some oversight on the film, so I have hopes for it.


Didn't he have oversight on Prometheus?


Sure, he was the director on both!

You worry too much...


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/12 16:30:36


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Alpharius wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
Ridley Scott has some oversight on the film, so I have hopes for it.


Didn't he have oversight on Prometheus?


Sure, he was the director on both!

You worry too much...


Sometimes I worry that he's the kind of director who just keeps moving forward, even when the only way to dodge a rolling spaceship is sideways.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/12 16:51:26


Post by: BigWaaagh


 Thargrim wrote:
Spoiler:



Yes, please.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/12 17:42:07


Post by: Alpharius


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
Ridley Scott has some oversight on the film, so I have hopes for it.


Didn't he have oversight on Prometheus?


Sure, he was the director on both!

You worry too much...


Sometimes I worry that he's the kind of director who just keeps moving forward, even when the only way to dodge a rolling spaceship is sideways.


Touché!

And well played!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/16 10:03:54


Post by: KingCracker


So does this prove Deckard isnt a Replicant then? They only live so long and in that trailer hes obviously an old man. Am I missing something


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/16 10:42:45


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 KingCracker wrote:
So does this prove Deckard isnt a Replicant then? They only live so long and in that trailer hes obviously an old man. Am I missing something


Not necessarily. If I recall correctly the limited lifespan was introduced after replicants had already been developed and used around the place but had shown to start to develop their own emotional responses. In order to prevent that their lifetime was limited so they wouldn't have time to develop these responses. So Deckard could be an early development replicant without the time limit or indeed be a later model which was developed in order to dodge it, illegally.

Of course I could also be completely misremembering it


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/16 12:41:18


Post by: Alpharius


You're not!

After all, the Sean Young (!) character was a replicant that did NOT have the 'time limit'...limitation.

It's always been strongly implied that Decker was a replicant, but, who knows?

Actually:

Spoiler:
Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant.

Scott:It was, actually. That’s the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn’t like Deckard, and we don’t really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let’s say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it’s a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard’s daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn’t normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it’s Gaff’s message to say, “I’ve read your file, mate.” That relates to Deckard’s first speech to Rachael when he says, “That’s not your imagination, that’s Tyrell’s niece’s daydream.” And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head.

Wired: You shot the unicorn dream sequence as part of the original production. Why didn’t you include it in either the work print or the initial release?

Scott:As I said, there was too much discussion in the room. I wanted it. They didn’t want it. I said, “Well, it’s a fundamental part of the story.” And they said, “Well, isn’t it obvious that he’s a replicant?” And I said, “No more obvious than that he’s not a replicant at the end.” So, it’s a matter of choice, isn’t it?

Wired: When Deckard picks up the origami unicorn at the end of the movie, the look on his face says to me, “Oh, so Gaff was here, and he let Rachael live.” It doesn’t say, “Oh my God! Am I a replicant, too?”

Scott:No? Why is he nodding when he looks at this silver unicorn? I’m not going to send up a balloon. Doing the job he does, reading the files he reads on other replicants, Deckard may have wondered at one point, “Am I human or am I a replicant?” That’s in his innermost thoughts. I’m just giving you the fully fleshed-out possibility to justify that look at the end, where he kind of glints and looks angry. To me, it’s an affirmation. He nods, he agrees. “Ah hah! Gaff was here. I’ve been told.”

Wired: Harrison Ford is on record saying Deckard is not a replicant.

Scott:Yeah, but that was, like, 20 years ago. He’s given up now. He said, “OK, mate. You win! Anything! Just put it to rest.”


And:

Spoiler:
Hampton Francher (original screenwriter)- During a discussion panel with Ridley Scott for Blade Runner: The Final Cut he cuts Scott off during the replicant talk saying "Ridley's off, he's totally wrong!" and that "[Scott's] idea is too complex" and prefers the film to remain ambiguous saying "So the question [is Deckard a replicant] has to be an eternal question. It doesn't have an answer, and what I always say about that is what Pound says: 'Art that remains news is art in which the question 'what does it mean'' has no correct answer. I like asking the question [about Deckard] and I like it to be asked but I think it's nonsense to answer it...that's not interesting to me."
http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2...

Harrison Ford- considers Deckard to be human, saying "that was the main area of contention between Ridley and myself at the time. I thought the audience deserved one human being on the screen that they could establish an emotional relationship with. I thought I had won ' agreement to that, but in fact I think he had a little reservation about that. I think he really wanted to have it both ways." http://media.bladezone.com/conte... (end of clip)

Philip K. Dick (author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the book the film is based on)- he wrote the original role of Deckard as a human. "The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"


I'm with PKD and Harrison on this one, and that's how I've always thought about him in this film.

I wonder what they'll do in the 2049 movie though, set 30 years after the original?

(I think we already know!)


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/16 13:13:23


Post by: jmurph


Yeah, I always got that Scott *wanted* Deckard to be a replicant, but it didn't really work the way the film was put together. I do like that it was somewhat ambiguous, which plays into the whole motif of the film questioning what makes us human. I think Dick's approach is the strongest as it shows the contrast between a human losing what makes him human and replicants showing common fundamental elements of humanity and being purged for largely superficial reasons (IE obscure tests on eye reactions).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/16 14:30:26


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 KingCracker wrote:
So does this prove Deckard isnt a Replicant then? They only live so long and in that trailer hes obviously an old man. Am I missing something



He still could be. The opening scroll said that Nexus 6 models had the lifespan thing added in. My guess, though it could be wrong, would be that Deckard was a sort of "advanced prototype" of some sort, and not a Nexus 6. Too many people in the film recognized him, and he'd made a name for himself as a Blade Runner, so he'd been around a while.


However, I am with Alph on this one. Having read the book, Deckard is quite different from the film. Which means that I kind of hope that he is actually human in 2049, just so we don't get a "book world" vs. "film world" paradox going on.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/16 22:16:54


Post by: KingCracker


I actually watched some videos on youtube before posting and honestly......it was split. So I thought about this massive collection of nerds we affectionately call DAKKA.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/16 22:29:31


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 KingCracker wrote:
I actually watched some videos on youtube before posting and honestly......it was split. So I thought about this massive collection of nerds we affectionately call DAKKA.


That's the beauty of the different mediums. . . the book is VERY clear on Deckard: he's a natural born, Grade-A hoo-man being.

The direction of the film left the director thinking it'd be cool to make that change, especially since other elements of the book were already written out (like Deckard's wife). In the case of BR, I do think it kinda cool to see the little details that were changed between book and film, I know others are not so keen on that sort of thing.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/17 01:50:03


Post by: Thargrim


Funny enough Hampton is one of the two writers of BR 2049. If he feels the need to keep Deckards nature ambiguous then we'll have to wait and see. The other writer though i'm unsure about. Hopefully neither of them pull a Lindelhof with each others work on the script/screenplay.

On another note I always kind of felt BR was loosely based on PKDs story. Enough for it to sort of be it's own seperate thing. In the same way you might see a movie that says its based on true events, but you know that's a line of gak and some liberties were taken to change it so it works as a movie/entertainment piece.

And the only thing in the trailer that irked me was the seemingly large amount of action. If the action is handled in a good way, not too drawn out and repetitive. Then maybe it could work. But I still hope the movie has its slower moments, world building, noir elements etc. The first half of the trailer had the atmosphere nailed down. Then when the blah trailer music started it kind of unraveled.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/05/17 08:37:11


Post by: Chillreaper


I've had that view of BR vs. DADOES, too.

There are so many differences between the two that I have a hard time putting them both together. I read books 2 and 3 (by K W Jeter) and they were based on BR, not DADOES, so I've got this weird blend of versions of the story in my head.

This is even before I start thinking about which of the 47 cuts of the movie I prefer...


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/02 03:37:23


Post by: Thargrim


Well i've decided it's time to get a couple of these:



Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/02 04:12:12


Post by: -Loki-


 Thargrim wrote:
And the only thing in the trailer that irked me was the seemingly large amount of action. If the action is handled in a good way, not too drawn out and repetitive. Then maybe it could work. But I still hope the movie has its slower moments, world building, noir elements etc. The first half of the trailer had the atmosphere nailed down. Then when the blah trailer music started it kind of unraveled.


Trailers these days are cut like that for any more. Even films like Passengers had fairly actiony trailers, because it appeals more to the general audience and puts butts in seats before word of mouth spreads. So it's a bit hard to judge the pace of the film by trailers these days.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/04 15:10:18


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Thargrim wrote:

Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.


I think you're safe as long as you're not storing your booze in the glass. So, chug away.
Anyway, I'm just hoping this movie will create some affordable prop replicas of the gun.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/06 01:17:52


Post by: Thargrim


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:

Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.


I think you're safe as long as you're not storing your booze in the glass. So, chug away.
Anyway, I'm just hoping this movie will create some affordable prop replicas of the gun.


Thats what I figured, i'd probably drink whatever is in it before any lead leaches into it. I also hope we get more props/replicas. I personally want a smaller scale model of the new spinner, and a decent model of the original one would be nice as well. Preferably good quality and painted though....I have enough 40k and other models on my hands to devote time into building a close replica of a spinner...the original spinner has a lot more details than say a SM rhino...lots more decals and stuff.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/07 07:08:17


Post by: Pacific


 Thargrim wrote:
Well i've decided it's time to get a couple of these:
Spoiler:



Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.


Have been toying with getting one of these for ages!

But they aren't cheap.. every time I get close to getting one, I stop as it just feels like too much of an extravagance


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/07 23:25:54


Post by: Thargrim


 Pacific wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
Well i've decided it's time to get a couple of these:
Spoiler:



Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.


Have been toying with getting one of these for ages!

But they aren't cheap.. every time I get close to getting one, I stop as it just feels like too much of an extravagance


I'm honestly selling off a couple painted models to raise money for it, I figure Blade Runner is more important to me than a rhino and some half built stuff. But yeah imagine dropping/breaking one, that would be quite tragic.






Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/15 17:25:51


Post by: Thargrim




Maybe after deckard kicks goslings butt they'll sit down and talk things through.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/16 11:05:36


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


Caption:

I'd give you a slap but I took a Millenium Falcon door to the ankle


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/16 12:47:34


Post by: jmurph


It's all fun and games until Gosling whips out a red lightsaber and goes emo on his dad.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/21 18:07:41


Post by: Thargrim





New behind the scenes footage, some great looking stuff. They even used some large scale miniatures for city shots. Lots of new stuff in here.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/29 04:03:00


Post by: Thargrim


http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/06/22/blade-runner-turns-35-ridley-scott-discusses-the-films-legacy-deckards-true-nature-and-the-future-of-the-series

Interesting interview with ridley scott. In contrast to what BR2049s director said some months ago...ridley is now saying the movie will answer whether Deckard is or is not a replicant. Plus later next month one of the shorts/prologues by luke scott (ridleys son) is expected to release. These will likely be similar to those done for Alien Covenant...like the last supper thing and the one with shaw. I'm quite excited to see these...

The plot implication certainly seems to me like Letos character is trying to find a way to create replicants who can reproduce because perhaps humanity is going to die out on earth. The concept art mentions those hanging out in a certain slum are those who failed to make it off world. There is a chance those left on earth missed their chance to leave...and probably never will. Leto (Wallace) says the key to the future has been unearthed..bring it to me, this key is likely related to deckard or maybe rachel. You can see Wallace's henchwoman follows Gosling to Deckard, and successfully captures him. Not sure i'm buying into the whole Gosling is deckard/rachels son and the first human/replicant hybrid theory though..

Nexus 8...





This is a post apocalyptic city made using miniatures for the movie, very glad they didn't use CGI for this. Don't ask me where in the BR universe this is...but it does look like a nuclear bomb hit it or something.



The aerial city shots are going to be stunning.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/29 05:15:49


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Thargrim wrote:
The concept art mentions those hanging out in a certain slum are those who failed to make it off world. There is a chance those left on earth missed their chance to leave...and probably never will.



In the original book story, this was at the very least, heavily implied to begin with. . . Like, the majority of the actual elites, governmental structures and the important/wealthy people already got out of dodge, and everyone left did not meet those criteria. . . Plus, you have some characters who were deliberately left behind (the Sebastian/toy maker character from the movie) due to genetic defects, or even though they were wealthy enough, they couldn't be arsed to due to age (Tyrell himself). So yeah. . . I can definitely see them fleshing out this idea that humanity on earth is being left to rot intentionally. Afterall, why would a government care about people are are not physically where they are?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/29 07:37:01


Post by: chromedog


 Thargrim wrote:


Nexus 8...




That 8 has Dave Bautista's face - which crosses one question off my list.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/06/29 19:51:49


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 chromedog wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:


Nexus 8...

Spoiler:



That 8 has Dave Bautista's face - which crosses one question off my list.


Drax is replicant confirmed.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/07 04:28:25


Post by: Thargrim




First two figures from NECA

Also BR 2049 will have an area set up at SD comic con..

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170706006266/en/Blade-Runner-2049-Experience-Transforms-San-Diego


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/11 00:47:41


Post by: Thargrim


New image of deckard and officer k by the ocean.




Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/11 02:33:03


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Wait. This film takes place in the Pacific Rim universe after they built that wall?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/13 18:04:04


Post by: Thargrim


Some new and on my end rather large images:













At a certain point this thread may delve into minor spoiler territory, but I won't be posting anything they don't officially reveal themselves. I had the entirety of Alien Covenant spoiled for me by the time I got to seeing it and I can't let myself get carried away and do that again. Tbh though I spoiled that one for myself because I lost all confidence it in turning out good and I was hoping knowing some plot points would reinvigorate some interest in seeing it. Luckily I have more confidence in Blade Runner...


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/17 17:05:39


Post by: Thargrim





brand new trailer!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/17 17:10:41


Post by: Ratius


Bit more of a plot reveal than the previous ones.
Looking great visually but dosent seem like the deepest possible plot. TBC of course.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/18 12:31:40


Post by: jmurph


Saw the trailer before War For The Planet of the Apes. Wife is interested in seeing it (Although I think it may be from the Ford/Gosling/Leto trifecta)


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/22 22:18:28


Post by: Thargrim


Not much new from comic con today as they chose to reveal the trailer earlier in the week. But there is a new website that has a timeline detailing the interesting happenings between the original film and the year 2049.

http://roadto2049.bladerunnermovie.com/

interesting bits;

In 2019 deckard and rachel escape los angeles. In 2022 an EMP blackout wipes electronic data and the unites states spirals downhill, people blamed the replicant nexus 8s made by the tyrell corp shortly after tyrells death. A year later all replicants are banned and are hunted down..some go into hiding. The Wallace Corp rises up by introducing a new type of genetically modified food that allows the company to expand and he basically buys out the bankrupt Tyrell corp, inherits the two buildings in LA. In 2036 a new line of Nexus 9 replicants are released after the prohibition of replicants ends...these ones are considered a perfected model. Earlier models of replicants remain illegal and are still being hunted by 2040.

Climate change had the sea rise up and a wall erected around the LA coast to keep the ocean from overtaking the city. Inside the city is full of sick poor inhabitants that were left behind...no fresh food and everybody lives off the Wallace Corps kind of weird artificial food.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/23 04:08:22


Post by: squidhills


 Thargrim wrote:

Climate change had the sea rise up and a wall erected around the LA coast to keep the ocean from overtaking the city. Inside the city is full of sick poor inhabitants that were left behind...no fresh food and everybody lives off the Wallace Corps kind of weird artificial food.


Soylent Green?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/24 06:15:07


Post by: Thargrim


Got to see a bunch of the props/costumes and a couple vehicles from the movie at the BR thing next to comic con today...pretty impressive setup.














Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/07/30 21:30:50


Post by: Thargrim


https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/30/16065872/hans-zimmer-blade-runner-2049-compose-score-denis-villeneuve

Hans Zimmer and Wallfisch brought in to help compose the score...they did Dunkirk as well. Not too sure about this...he is kind of the mainstream conventional composer. So hopefully he stays true to the Blade Runner sound instead of phoning it in. The other problem that could arise is if there are multiple composers.. styles and stuff clashing, it could end up having a disjointed or messed up feel. I do find it kind of amusing its now taking 3 composers to get a grip on following up what Vangelis did though. The article pretty much says they are joining in to assist and help Johannsson and Denis nail down the score...hopefully since they are all collaborating it will turn out good. Does anyone think this is a sign of studio interference?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/12 19:20:44


Post by: Thargrim


VFX work on the movie has apparently wrapped up, 55 days to go. Plus the movie now has a 100% confirmed R rating for "For violence, some sexuality, nudity and language."


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/14 05:01:17


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Thargrim wrote:
Plus the movie now has a 100% confirmed R rating for "For violence, some sexuality, nudity and language."



Good.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/14 06:31:40


Post by: chromedog


That translates as an "M" for Aus ( Deadpool was a US "R" - it was just an "M" for us, and we got the same cut - we're just cooler with f*bombs and norks. ).

Robocop (original) theatrical release was an "R" for us, though - and that's mostly because of the OTT gun violence and gore.
(it was made intentionally that way, though - with excessively OTT violence so that the various censor mobs would cut the more egregious bits and let the rest slide.)

Blade runner got an M here when it was released back then, even with the "thumbs in the eyes" scene.
I can see it being closer to its predecessor than robocop, though - unless they play tug of war with entrails whilst singing.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/22 07:34:27


Post by: Thargrim





First international tv spot/trailer up, some great visuals and this one certainly seems like it's gonna be a lot more intense than the first. If you want to avoid spoilers, obviously avoid watching.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/22 23:04:50


Post by: Tannhauser42


One small problem with that trailer. By opening with Frank Sinatra's "One For My Baby", I couldn't really focus on anything else. Ah well, that's what happens when my favorite Sinatra song is used in a trailer.
It took another couple of viewings to see the rest of the trailer, and, I have to admit, it still doesn't really spoil much.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/22 23:27:20


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
One small problem with that trailer. By opening with Frank Sinatra's "One For My Baby", I couldn't really focus on anything else. Ah well, that's what happens when my favorite Sinatra song is used in a trailer.
It took another couple of viewings to see the rest of the trailer, and, I have to admit, it still doesn't really spoil much.


Always been a bit partial to Sammy Davis Jr.'s renditions. But then again, that would sometimes include Frank anyway!

Film is looking good, pretty excited


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/22 23:47:58


Post by: Formosa


If this movie is a action film and not a film noir (in color like the original) then I will sadly be giving it a miss, the original was a story with some action, these days all we seem to get is action and some story... sad panda


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/23 03:36:37


Post by: Thargrim


I'm thinking it's how this footage is edited together, 1-3 second shots edited together in a fast sequence with loud music will make anything look action packed. I'm sure there will be a sense of urgency and suspense in the movie, and fighting...but I think these trailers are just bs to be honest...if the runtime indeed ends up being 2 and a half hours any worries of it being too actiony can be alleviated a bit.

Between this trailer and the last two I already have a pretty good idea of what happens, in what order and who kills who already. I have a tendency to analyze every frame of these trailers though.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/28 18:23:31


Post by: Thargrim


Two new TV spots, not too much new footage but some interesting dialogue.







And the US theatrical poster:



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/08/29 17:40:14


Post by: Thargrim


First of apparently 3 short films for the movie. Gives some insight on how the prohibition of replicants was repealed. Sort of like a prequel, so no spoilers here.




Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/09 01:18:59


Post by: Thargrim





New tv spot, 28 days to go. The second short film was leaked earlier but was taken down...it is for Bautistas character named Sapper Morton though.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/10 01:32:39


Post by: Thargrim





Yet another scene from the movie, nothing too spoilery thankfully. I hope they don't go too insane with releasing and revealing everything about this movie before oct 6th...


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/17 18:04:42


Post by: Thargrim





second short film is now released.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/19 17:42:38


Post by: Breotan


Okay, Gosling is starting to grow on me and the tone and mood in the trailers seems pretty faithful to the original without being a Abramsesque recycling job.

Thargrim wrote:A year later all replicants are banned and are hunted down..some go into hiding.

I hope that article has the setup wrong. Here is a problem. Replicants were already banned and hunted down in the original movie. That's why Blade Runners existed in the first place, to "retire" any/all replicants found on Earth. Aside from Rachael, there shouldn't be any replicants left wandering around, barring a secret stash of them set up somewhere by Tyrel before he died.

So, if the article has it right, are replicants more banned? Banned-banned? Double dutch banned? Banned²? Instead of being retired, are they now being permanently retired?

I hope the movie explains this better, otherwise it just looks sloppy.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/19 18:10:54


Post by: Kanluwen


I think the idea is that while Replicants were banned from Earth in the original film(and the book), they were considered a fact of life on the colonies.

In the book, Replicants were even given to settlers/colonists as part of the incentives to get them to move off Earth.
It might be that they were then banned from even the colonies/off-world.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/19 19:15:00


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Kanluwen wrote:
I think the idea is that while Replicants were banned from Earth in the original film(and the book), they were considered a fact of life on the colonies.

In the book, Replicants were even given to settlers/colonists as part of the incentives to get them to move off Earth.
It might be that they were then banned from even the colonies/off-world.


I dont remember them actually being given to colonists off-world, but I do remember that their uses lined up pretty well from the book to the movie: ie, they were used for "dangerous" work.

One of the huge elements from the book that wasn't in the movie, was the market for pets, and how lonely people were. Huge market for real, live pets over replicant animals. Makes me wonder, if things had stayed more true to the book, in the 2049 scenario, are replicated animals also illegal?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/19 20:59:36


Post by: Thargrim


 Breotan wrote:
Okay, Gosling is starting to grow on me and the tone and mood in the trailers seems pretty faithful to the original without being a Abramsesque recycling job.

Thargrim wrote:A year later all replicants are banned and are hunted down..some go into hiding.

I hope that article has the setup wrong. Here is a problem. Replicants were already banned and hunted down in the original movie. That's why Blade Runners existed in the first place, to "retire" any/all replicants found on Earth. Aside from Rachael, there shouldn't be any replicants left wandering around, barring a secret stash of them set up somewhere by Tyrel before he died.

So, if the article has it right, are replicants more banned? Banned-banned? Double dutch banned? Banned²? Instead of being retired, are they now being permanently retired?

I hope the movie explains this better, otherwise it just looks sloppy.



I might have just explained it poorly, at the time Deckard and Rachel met all replicants were illegal on earth. And when Tyrell died they rushed out the nexus 8s for use off world (these ones have open ended lifespans and eye implants for easy identification. (I also think Wallace the villain is a nexus 8, and he purposely blinded himself so he couldn't be detected, and he's building an army of replicants etc). So now the most powerful man on earth is actually a replicant hiding in plain sight. But those nexus 8s were still not intended for use on earth. The blackout that occurred may have allowed some to escape, get loose etc. (I think Wallace may have been to blame for that too).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/23 21:33:52


Post by: Thargrim


New behind the scenes video:




Only 13 days to go, and critics/journalists are getting to see it this weekend and coming week. They are under an NDA until an embargo or whatever lifts so don't expect any early reactions until a bit later.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/23 22:54:52


Post by: chromedog


 Breotan wrote:
Okay, Gosling is starting to grow on me and the tone and mood in the trailers seems pretty faithful to the original without being a Abramsesque recycling job.

Thargrim wrote:A year later all replicants are banned and are hunted down..some go into hiding.

I hope that article has the setup wrong. Here is a problem. Replicants were already banned and hunted down in the original movie. That's why Blade Runners existed in the first place, to "retire" any/all replicants found on Earth. Aside from Rachael, there shouldn't be any replicants left wandering around, barring a secret stash of them set up somewhere by Tyrel before he died.

So, if the article has it right, are replicants more banned? Banned-banned? Double dutch banned? Banned²? Instead of being retired, are they now being permanently retired?

I hope the movie explains this better, otherwise it just looks sloppy.



In the original film, humanoid replicants were ONLY illegal on EARTH (NOT the outer colonies). If you go to the Road to 2049 site, there's a chronology from 2019 to 2049 that shows the relative history. Also, there are three short films to expand this background (2036 Nexus Dawn, 2048 Nowhere to Run - and a third to be released in the next few days)

2020 - Tyrell corp (after the death of Eldon Tyrell) rushed out nexus 8s to the offworld colonies - open lifespan and ocular implants for easier tracking.
2022 - the blackout. Datakrash. Food situation becomes dire.
2023 - ban on replicants extended to ALL off-world colonies as well as earth.
2025 - Wallace corp releases new foodstuff to ease global starvation using gm tech. Expands his reach to outer colonies.
2028 - Wallace acquires the bankrupt Tyrell corporation
2030s - Wallace creates a new line of replicants, more compliant and obedient than their predecessors.
2036 - the prohibition on replicants is repealed (colonies) - Wallace releases the new, perfected nexus 9 model.
2040s - LAPD re-establishes the blade runner unit (this would presuppose that the prohibition on reps still stands - in some form - for Earth).



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/25 00:38:14


Post by: Voss


Wouldn't all the 8s be dead anyway? Wasn't that one of the central plot points of the original?

It's going to take more than prequel videos and the plot revolving around 'no, they're really safe THIS time, honest' to really make this convincing.

I have a feeling this going to be one of those films where the actual film is a mess, but people are going to claim that detractors are wrong for not doing the required background investigation first.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/25 23:46:39


Post by: Thargrim


The original move only dealt with Nexus 6 models, Nexus 8s were not introduced until later.

The social media embargo lifts tomorrow, so we will start getting peoples initial reactions. I'm not sure how spoilery the initial reviews may be but I would be wary from here on out.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/26 04:11:13


Post by: sebster


Jared Leto in the previews going on about building an army and Ryan Gosling saying how they have to be stopped is making this look like a fairly traditional action film that's been dropped in to the Bladerunner IP. I hope I'm wrong.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/27 00:38:28


Post by: Thargrim


Early word on the film is pretty positive:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/09/26/blade-runner-2049-first-reactions-hail-film-breathtaking-and-masterpiece/704987001/

Full reviews including spoilers aren't allowed until early next week though.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/27 19:55:44


Post by: Pacific


Some very, very positive stuff on Twitter going around from movie journos at the moment.

Dare I allow myself to start becoming hopeful?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/27 22:06:17


Post by: Thargrim


It's a good sign it's getting good early buzz, but there's no way this movie is going to be universally praised. I'd expect more negative stuff to circulate when the real embargo lifts on friday and people do spoiler filled reviews.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/28 02:24:56


Post by: Xenomancers


I think that ford is a replicant - as was his BR compatriot with the cane.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/29 19:45:03


Post by: Thargrim


Well reviews are out today and this is currently sitting at 97% on rotten tomatoes. Wasn't really expecting this enthusiastic of a release.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/09/29 20:43:52


Post by: Pacific


5 stars in the UK Guardian newspaper as well!

The first time this has ever been awarded to a film that wasn't French avant-garde, filmed in black and white and featuring a woman in stockings smoking.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/02 07:41:41


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Denofgeek gave it five stars too.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/03 04:00:19


Post by: BigWaaagh


One star, five stars, whatever...I got IMAX tickets for Thursday night and I'm counting the minutes!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/04 01:01:23


Post by: Thargrim


I'm seeing it in dolby 2d on friday, pre ordered the soundtrack too. Gonna be very tempting to listen to it before I see the movie but not sure if I should. It's gonna be a slow couple days ahead.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/06 16:59:36


Post by: Ratius


Hopefully seeing it tomorrow. Really excited at this stage.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/07 11:27:11


Post by: RiTides


Saw it, but now I need to re-watch the original to make sense of everything!

One plot spoiler question I had after seeing it:

Spoiler:
Earlier in the movie, they track the main character's movements - in fact they do it twice! Once by the police chief when he's outside the building with the single girl inside, and once by the replicant from the police chief's office (after he destroyed the small antenna on his emanater, so presumably this was now the only way to track him).

But at the end of the movie, he brazenly goes back to the building with the single girl inside, bringing Harrison Ford. Is there any explanation at all on how he didn't just lead everyone to her? I guess mostly just that the replicant's master thinks he's dead?

Again major spoilers, only click that after you've seen the movie!



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/07 16:53:54


Post by: AegisFate


I liked it, and it certainly had a lot of good scenery porn to go with the rest of it.

Spoiler:
I think the reason that they don't track him at the end is because Love was the only one who knew what was going on. Wallace felt like more of a big picture guy and didn't micro manage, and with Love dead, he has no idea who she was actually using in her goals


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/07 19:42:18


Post by: Thargrim


I was pretty impressed with it, some solid performances by Gosling and pretty much everybody. I feel like some things may have been left out or the pacing was too fast during a couple moments. But overall this was leagues ahead of alien covenant. It should be making way more money than it is right now, which is a depressing thing.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/07 20:54:08


Post by: BigWaaagh


fething awesome! Went Thursday night and loved it, now going again tomorrow evening.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/08 03:28:58


Post by: RiTides


 AegisFate wrote:
I liked it, and it certainly had a lot of good scenery porn to go with the rest of it.

Spoiler:
I think the reason that they don't track him at the end is because Love was the only one who knew what was going on. Wallace felt like more of a big picture guy and didn't micro manage, and with Love dead, he has no idea who she was actually using in her goals

Interesting theory! Thanks


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/08 14:31:12


Post by: trexmeyer


I saw it opening night.

It's a good film. Gosling and Ana de Armas both turn in strong performances. The plot falls off for me in the third act and there are a few scenes that could have stood to be removed or altered.

However, it is being massively overrated right now IMO. The original is better. Much more atmospheric, ground breaking in terms of visuals, and the replicants were more diverse and interesting. The first film felt alive. Sure it was about robots, but it felt human. So much of 2049 feels robotic.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/08 19:51:08


Post by: Galef


One symbolic thing I noticed was:
Spoiler:
"Love", who is cruel and unforgiving, literally crushes Joe's "Joi" who he can see and hear, but never touch


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/08 23:06:21


Post by: Chiashi_Zane


Another thing I noticed with the symbology there,
Spoiler:
Joe was starting to treat his Joi like a real person, down to getting her an anniversary gift. The whole movie was robotic and kind of focused on him and Joi, until she 'died' and he ran into the Advertising daemonette, at which point everything went more fluid all of a sudden, like the loss of his technological crutch brought him back into the Real world. At that point, he toughened up and became more heroic himself, in his single-minded pursuit to give Decker what he never could have, rather than being a robot for the police force to use as they needed.


And the artwork was just magnificent, especially how they did the transparency of the holograms over other objects.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 01:33:49


Post by: sebster


I loved it. Forget my concern above that it might be a generic action film shoved in to the Bladerunner IP, that was just another case of really misleading trailers.

I think the biggest achievement of the film is the way they managed to give us a new, standalone film that works without needing any knowledge of the first film, without rehashing the first film, but instead expanding and enhancing the original plots and themes. It is both a great standalone film, and a great sequel. That's a very rare thing.

The story has a couple of minor issues* but overall works wonderfully as a mystery and as a commentary on the movie's themes. The performances are all excellent. The visuals are wonderful, there are lot of really jaw dropping sequences - I could watch police cars just flying about LA 2049 for 2 hours and wouldn't complain. Perhaps the music is the only thing that I have any issue at all - it's good, but all its best bits are when it is directly copying the original, nothing they added really improved anything or made it its own great work.



Spoiler:
*They really should have done something to address why Luv was able to come and go as she pleased from the police station. It isn't hard to fanwank an explanation that Wallace's power had compromised the police force, but if that was the reason then it would have been an interesting and important setting element that should have been on the screen. Even just a scene of having the chief (Robin Wright's character) summoned to Wallace's hq, where Luv meets with her and the scene then plays out much like it did would have been so much better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RiTides wrote:
Spoiler:
Earlier in the movie, they track the main character's movements - in fact they do it twice! Once by the police chief when he's outside the building with the single girl inside, and once by the replicant from the police chief's office (after he destroyed the small antenna on his emanater, so presumably this was now the only way to track him).

But at the end of the movie, he brazenly goes back to the building with the single girl inside, bringing Harrison Ford. Is there any explanation at all on how he didn't just lead everyone to her? I guess mostly just that the replicant's master thinks he's dead?


Spoiler:
I guess it's because with the police chief and Luv dead the only people who might still be actively looking for them at that moment are the replicant resistance guys, and they would have been told Deckard is dead, as they had ordered. Which handwaves the issue away well enough, I guess, but it still seems a really big and unnecessary risk. I guess that meeting would normally show precautions being taken, but at the end of the movie there's something to be said for keeping things simple.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 04:32:32


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I thought it was good but not great. Great acting, great directing, amazing visual design, interesting thematic hooks, all let down by the story and weak payoff. The tone, scene development and visual lexicon were better than the movie deserved. The movie felt important while watching it, but there were no "tears in the rain" moments for the audience to think about for weeks.


I have to add that Jared Leto's Wallace was by far the worst thing I've seen in theaters since Jessie Eisenberg's Lex Luther. Every scene with him sucked the air out of the room. The music veered into self-parody a few times, too,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I would not say it succeeds as a stand alone at all. My wife hasn't seen the first one recently, and she was lost through half the movie. It didn't help that some characters pronounce names so differently. Deckard was either "Decker" or "duh-Card" depending on who is speaking, for example.

Credit where it's due, the film delivered what the audience wanted most: people punching Ryan Gosling's smug face again and again.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 13:32:58


Post by: Manchu


My very strong impression is, this is a better film than the original. The only aspect of the original film that is unquestionably better is the soundtrack. And 2049 unquestionably has a better plot. Everything else - characters, dialog, performances, visual effects, even world building - is debatable but I think 2049 has a solid claim to do this stuff even better than Sir Ridley's movie.

As to scenes I could think about for weeks - holy gak yes the movie has scenes I could think about for weeks and I reckon I will be thinking about them for years. Luv is at least as complicated and nuanced as Roy, without ever getting dreamily philosophical. What about the idea that the Nexus 9s are obedient? (a.k.a, the "reverse BioShock" moment) The "reality" of Joii's love for K will be a constant question for me. My God, this was the most romantic movie I have seen in years. There is not a shred of noir in 2049; it's a romance film and it is agonizingly beautiful.

Be warned - there is a price to pay for seeing 2049. Everything else you're watching will look like gak by comparison.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 14:02:45


Post by: BigWaaagh


Went again last night...yep, still fantastic and worth the re-viewing.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 14:07:34


Post by: Necroagogo


^^ What Manchu said.

The original's my favourite film of all time and this was easily a worthy successor. Gosling and Ford gave (to me, anyway) surprisingly nuanced performances and the whole thing looked amazing. Beautifully languidly paced. Will see it again ASAP.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 15:55:29


Post by: Galef


I don't own the original on dvd/Blu-ray, so I cannot wait until they release a double feature with both. This movie is definitely worth owning


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 18:09:44


Post by: Breotan


 Chiashi_Zane wrote:
Another thing I noticed with the symbology there,
Spoiler:
Joe was starting to treat his Joi like a real person, down to getting her an anniversary gift. The whole movie was robotic and kind of focused on him and Joi, until she 'died' and he ran into the Advertising daemonette, at which point everything went more fluid all of a sudden, like the loss of his technological crutch brought him back into the Real world. At that point, he toughened up and became more heroic himself, in his single-minded pursuit to give Decker what he never could have, rather than being a robot for the police force to use as they needed.

And the artwork was just magnificent, especially how they did the transparency of the holograms over other objects.

Spoiler:
The overrlays of Joi and the prostitute and faux Rachael were amazing. I love how they avoided the uncanny valley that so many criticized Rogue One for.


But...

While the music was thematically appropriate and the ambience connected to the original film, there were problems. Unlike the original, nothing on the soundtrack stood out. Everyone remembers the love theme and the end music from the original. There was nothing in this movie that stood out like that, at least it seemed that way to me. Overuse of booming bass foghorns got irritating, too.

The other thing I didn't like was the move toward anime style visuals. The large buildings were way too tall and too massive to be buildable in the real world. The seawall was comically huge compared to the sprawl of 30-story buildings that made up the carpet of the cityscape. The police station was too clean, too. Remember the original where everything was retro-old fashioned styling with ceiling fans and stuff? None of that here. Most of the 30s art deco stuff is gone in favor of a style found in the original Ghost in the Shell.

But those are actually minor nit-picks. I loved the movie and can't wait to see an expanded cut on blu-ray. Too bad it isn't doing better at the box office, it really deserves better numbers.




Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 18:19:54


Post by: Manchu


Regarding the station house, keep in mind that the setting of 2049 is recovering. Wallace saved the world. By contrast, the worst was yet to come in 2019. That world was on a steep downward slope. This world laboring up a modest incline. This is also apparent in Lt Joshi's idealism; pretty stark contrast to Cpt Bryant's attitude in 2019.

As to Art Deco - I think the issue there is, BR2049 isn't film noir. It's a sci fi romance. Villeneuve did a genre shift, which is a big reason why the movie works despite 1982 BR hanging over it. In fact, Villeneuve has to kind of step up the Deckard/Rachel romance for the sake of his film. In the original, I'm not sure that they were in love so much as just two people caught up in bigger things. That's classic film noir. Here, love is real - or, in the spirit of the film, as real as anything can be. When Deckard is crying about Rachel in BR2049, in my head I was like - nah, you didn't love her, really, nor did she love you - not like that, at least.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 19:25:01


Post by: Galef


 Manchu wrote:
In fact, Villeneuve has to kind of step up the Deckard/Rachel romance for the sake of his film. In the original, I'm not sure that they were in love so much as just two people caught up in bigger things. That's classic film noir. Here, love is real - or, in the spirit of the film, as real as anything can be. When Deckard is crying about Rachel in BR2049, in my head I was like - nah, you didn't love her, really, nor did she love you - not like that, at least.

While I agree with your assessment of how the original portrayed their relationship, I can't help think that they would have eventually developed a romance that warranted his reaction in 2049.
The leap of logic is too easy, thus doesn't need any screen time to be believable...for me anyway

-


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 19:33:01


Post by: Formosa


this film is gonna be a sleeper hit, just wait, it may not break the box office yet but when word gets around how good it is, it will break the bank.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 19:43:21


Post by: Manchu


It's an interesting point. There are thirty years yawning between BR and BR2049. But Rachel died in 2021. And, according to Deckard, he was "long gone" by the time his child was given up to the orphanage. It isn't clear whether Deckard was present during his child's birth; it seems unlikely. Deckard and Rachel therefore probably only spent about a year together after the events of the first movie. And that would have been the sum total of their relationship.

Perhaps Deckard just remembers it as something more. TBF both movies ask us to think critically about memory and emotion.

Hey and so what about Rachel's eyes? Two things ... Sean Young has brown eyes. When Deckard said she had green eyes, I was like ... uh nope. Then I remembered the Voight-Kampff reading from earlier in the film, which shows Rachel's eye being green. So how did Luv feth that up so badly? Or was it a test? A trap?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/09 20:08:34


Post by: Galef


 Manchu wrote:

Perhaps Deckard just remembers it as something more. TBF both movies ask us to think critically about memory and emotion.

Hey and so what about Rachel's eyes? Two things ... Sean Young has brown eyes. When Deckard said she had green eyes, I was like ... uh nope. Then I remembered the Voight-Kampff reading from earlier in the film, which shows Rachel's eye being green. So how did Luv feth that up so badly? Or was it a test? A trap?

Deckard remembering it differently could have something to do with it. After all, it looks like he has been alone for quite some time. Enough time to really think about (and thus distort the memory of) the events of his life.
And side-note, 1 year is more than enough time to really love someone. I asked my wife to marry me about 6 months into dating. We are still going strong

Regarding the eye color, several things could be going on. Greenish brown eyes are possible. The footage of her eye could be discolored/filtered. Deckard's memory is getting old (see above)
Or my favorite: Deckard knew her eyes were brown, but spat out the "Her eyes were green" line as a way to tell Wallace that nothing could replace the original Rachel.
This would be a further way for him to be uncooperative, which is clearly what he is doing.

-


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 03:49:41


Post by: sebster


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I thought it was good but not great. Great acting, great directing, amazing visual design, interesting thematic hooks, all let down by the story and weak payoff. The tone, scene development and visual lexicon were better than the movie deserved. The movie felt important while watching it, but there were no "tears in the rain" moments for the audience to think about for weeks.


Yeah, the Tears in the Rain moment was great. But it's telling that it was an improvised line by Hauer, nothing else in the original script comes close to that line. I mean, don't get me wrong the original has great moments, but they're not on the dialogue, nor in the script.

The stuff to think about in both Blade Runners aren't in the dialogue really. They're not talk heavy movies. Throwing out lots of talking would break the mood. Instead what matters in both movies happens between and around the dialogue.

I have to add that Jared Leto's Wallace was by far the worst thing I've seen in theaters since Jessie Eisenberg's Lex Luther.


If you're gonna talk about Jared Leto and compare to terrible performances as DC villains, why not Leto's own Joker?

But I'm not sure what to think about Leto's part in the film. Like in SS, the biggest issue seemed to be that it seemed so disconnected from the rest of the movie. They're setting up a sequel, obviously,

Oh, and I would not say it succeeds as a stand alone at all. My wife hasn't seen the first one recently, and she was lost through half the movie. It didn't help that some characters pronounce names so differently. Deckard was either "Decker" or "duh-Card" depending on who is speaking, for example.


One person I saw the film with had never seen the original, and the other hadn't seen the original for twenty years. Neither of them struggled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
It's an interesting point. There are thirty years yawning between BR and BR2049. But Rachel died in 2021. And, according to Deckard, he was "long gone" by the time his child was given up to the orphanage. It isn't clear whether Deckard was present during his child's birth; it seems unlikely. Deckard and Rachel therefore probably only spent about a year together after the events of the first movie. And that would have been the sum total of their relationship.


I think Rachel died in childbirth, Deckard was with her until just before then. The original film was November 2019, the child was born October 2021, so that's close to two years together. Still not a really long time, but when the relationship ended because you have to leave so that your love and the child you share can be safe, it isn't too hard to think how that love could sustain itself for decades afterwards.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 04:59:58


Post by: Voss


Yeah, the Tears in the Rain moment was great. But it's telling that it was an improvised line by Hauer, nothing else in the original script comes close to that line. I mean, don't get me wrong the original has great moments, but they're not on the dialogue, nor in the script.

The stuff to think about in both Blade Runners aren't in the dialogue really. They're not talk heavy movies. Throwing out lots of talking would break the mood. Instead what matters in both movies happens between and around the dialogue.

Yeah, the good stuff was in Deckard's monologues, which they savagely hacked out of the later versions.

The original was a very talk heavy film, and it suited the mood just fine.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 06:10:04


Post by: sebster


Voss wrote:
Yeah, the good stuff was in Deckard's monologues, which they savagely hacked out of the later versions.


The voiceovers? Huh, most people hated those. Did you know that Ford and Scott fought against their inclusion, but the financiers forced them in to the film after early test audiences said the film was confusing and needed more explanation?

The original was a very talk heavy film, and it suited the mood just fine.


It's really not though. Conversations are short, characters are guarded and say little. It is left to the audience to discern real motivations. It's you know, film noir.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 07:52:13


Post by: nels1031


I read that this movie underpreformed at the box office, which is pretty shocking. Felt like a hit.

Thats the second return to a James Cameron franchise that seemed to fizzle, as Alien Covenant also fell below expectations.

Did they wait to long to return to the respective franchises and miss a generation, or is Netflix and chill dominating?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 13:15:35


Post by: Manchu


 Galef wrote:
Regarding the eye color, several things could be going on. Greenish brown eyes are possible. The footage of her eye could be discolored/filtered. Deckard's memory is getting old (see above)
Or my favorite: Deckard knew her eyes were brown, but spat out the "Her eyes were green" line as a way to tell Wallace that nothing could replace the original Rachel.
Sean Young the actress has brown eyes and so far as I can tell she wasn't wearing contacts to change her eye color in BR. But when Rachel takes the VK, there is an extreme close up of her eye on the monitor. The eye on the monitor is clearly bright green. We see this same eye in the Wallace records; Luv shows it to K. Deckard is right about Rachel's eye color. So yeah the issue is, how did Luv (who also saw the VK recording of the eye) fail that hard, since presumably making Rachel 2.0 was one of her many tasks. Did she not think it was important? Did she do it on purpose?
 sebster wrote:
I think Rachel died in childbirth, Deckard was with her until just before then.
Rachel died in Freysa's arms, which means its unlikely Deckard was present. Given the nature of the plan, I doubt he had been around for some time by that point. The questions are, how long after she conceived did she learn she was pregnant, make contact with the radicals, and develop the plan that ultimately separated her and Deckard? But don't assume that order. Perhaps Rachel knew she could become pregnant. Perhaps they were in contact with Freysa's group from the beginning of their flight.
 sebster wrote:
the child was born October 2021
Keep in mind, these are Americans; 6.10.21 means June 10, 2021 over here. Counting back nine months, we're at October 2020. The child was conceived then (but we don't know if it was the first pregnancy, either) which gives us a minimum time Rachel and Rick spent together of just a month shy of one year. Even if he only left a week or so before the birth, that gives them less than a year and a half together.

Long enough to fall in love, sure. But it is possible that K and Joi have been a "couple" for longer than Rick and Rachel ever were. Just some perspective. I stand by the point that Villeneuve retconned the nature of their relationship to fit better with his romantic movie, as opposed to the deeply jaded film noir Sir Ridley made.
 sebster wrote:
Did you know that Ford and Scott fought against their inclusion, but the financiers forced them in to the film after early test audiences said the film was confusing and needed more explanation?
And not just that but also Harrison Ford was so opposed to the voiceovers that he willfully screwed up his performance hoping the narration would sound so dumb that the producers would be too embarrassed to use it. They didn't seem to notice/care.
 nels1031 wrote:
Thats the second return to a James Cameron franchise that seemed to fizzle, as Alien Covenant also fell below expectations.
Ahem, Ridley Scott. Although Terminator Genesys was also a flop (but deserved to be).

I think the main issue is, the marketing is selling the movie to people who already know what Blade Runner is. BR was a flop in 1982 and developed a cult following. It's an important movie but it isn't an important brand. So leaning hard on the name value isn't going to drive big numbers. BR2049 will have its own cult following pretty much immediately but not soon enough to be a box office hit, I'd guess. But word of mouth can help. Maybe we'll see a rare second week reverse.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 14:18:10


Post by: AndrewGPaul


One small thing that occurred to me is that it looks like Rachel's serial number implies she was a Nexus 7 (perhaps the only one? Or one of a pair, if you prefer James Cameron Ridley Scott’s reading).

Someone mentioned that they'd have like to have seen the memory artist creating a unicorn memory; to me, her first appearance was just that - the first shot of the forest, before the closeup on the beetle, was surely supposed to look like the same forest Deckard's unicorn ran through?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 14:21:20


Post by: Manchu


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
if you prefer James Cameron's reading
Are you guys doing some kinda in-joke?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 16:55:11


Post by: AndrewGPaul


No, just getting it wrong.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 17:10:35


Post by: nels1031


 Manchu wrote:
Ahem, Ridley Scott. Although Terminator Genesys was also a flop (but deserved to be).

I think the main issue is, the marketing is selling the movie to people who already know what Blade Runner is. BR was a flop in 1982 and developed a cult following. It's an important movie but it isn't an important brand. So leaning hard on the name value isn't going to drive big numbers. BR2049 will have its own cult following pretty much immediately but not soon enough to be a box office hit, I'd guess. But word of mouth can help. Maybe we'll see a rare second week reverse.


Ah, whoops!

I got my iconic directors and their franchises jumbled up!


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 17:35:58


Post by: Xenomancers


Goslings proved himself in this movie to be an incredible actor and he really got into this character. Overall - outside of Goslings performance and the amazing cinematography this movie was nothing to write home about. Not what I expected. Sadly - they are going the sequel route which I'm sure makes them more money. It doesn't make the films better though.

Honorable mention to the music which had a great nostalgic feeling but also felt new at the same time.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/10 20:26:54


Post by: Turnip Jedi


saw it today, still pondering if I liked it, but you'd be missing a treat if you don't see it on a cinema screen (although not understanding why Leto still gets hired
)


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/11 02:55:48


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
Rachel died in Freysa's arms, which means its unlikely Deckard was present. Given the nature of the plan, I doubt he had been around for some time by that point. The questions are, how long after she conceived did she learn she was pregnant, make contact with the radicals, and develop the plan that ultimately separated her and Deckard? But don't assume that order. Perhaps Rachel knew she could become pregnant. Perhaps they were in contact with Freysa's group from the beginning of their flight.


It is reasonable to assume Deckard was absent from the birth. It is unreasonable to assume Deckard was gone from the scene a long time before then. It is possible, but there's no reason to assume it.

Keep in mind, these are Americans; 6.10.21 means June 10, 2021 over here. Counting back nine months, we're at October 2020. The child was conceived then (but we don't know if it was the first pregnancy, either) which gives us a minimum time Rachel and Rick spent together of just a month shy of one year. Even if he only left a week or so before the birth, that gives them less than a year and a half together.

Long enough to fall in love, sure.


Ah yes, crazy American dates. Good pick up. But with June 2021 as the birth date, and assuming Deckard left say a month before, that means from November 2019 to May 2021 is 19 months, or just over a year and a half. But that's nitpicking, we agree that's if he was there for almost all of the pregnancy (which is possible, if not certain) then they were together for around 18 months.

Thing is, I know people who've pined for years afterwards about relationships that were shorter than that, and they just ended in messy break ups or one party being dumped, not with one party leaving their partner and unborn child to keep them safe from people who would murder them. I don't find it unbelievable at all that decades later Rachel would still be Deckard's one real passion and love.

But it is possible that K and Joi have been a "couple" for longer than Rick and Rachel ever were. Just some perspective. I stand by the point that Villeneuve retconned the nature of their relationship to fit better with his romantic movie, as opposed to the deeply jaded film noir Sir Ridley made.


I think the possibility that K and Joi might have been together a similar length of time is a very telling piece of perspective, that says a lot about how 2049 understands relationships. And yes, it does mark a very different, more humanist view from Scott's very jaded vision in the first movie.

I think the main issue is, the marketing is selling the movie to people who already know what Blade Runner is. BR was a flop in 1982 and developed a cult following. It's an important movie but it isn't an important brand. So leaning hard on the name value isn't going to drive big numbers. BR2049 will have its own cult following pretty much immediately but not soon enough to be a box office hit, I'd guess. But word of mouth can help. Maybe we'll see a rare second week reverse.


The session I saw was pretty full for a Sunday afternoon. But just about the entire audience was middle aged men, and that's not a demographic you can rely on if you need to bank $200 million plus to recover your investment.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/11 03:43:14


Post by: Manchu


It is possible, but there's no reason to assume it.
Sure there is a reason: the one explained in the movie. The thing to keep in mind is, it's not just the birth that was astounding. The first shock would have been the pregnancy. As soon as Rachel understood that she was pregnant, her and Rick and whoever else they were in contact with would have realized the huge significance and danger - hence the plan. It seems like Rachel was in the care of Freysa and Sapper when she delivered ... it's completely reasonable that the same arrangement, including Deckard's absence, had been in place for a significant amount of time before the birth. Both of them are on the lamb - splitting up the fugitives makes them both harder to find.
I know people who've pined for years afterwards about relationships that were shorter than that
Sure but does Rick Deckard seem like that kind of person? I've known people like that, too, and at least IME they aren't like Rick. So while anything could have happened in those missing years, to me it is more about a gap between the tones of the two films, the different visions and goals of each director.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/11 04:02:37


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
Sure there is a reason: the one explained in the movie. The thing to keep in mind is, it's not just the birth that was astounding. The first shock would have been the pregnancy. As soon as Rachel understood that she was pregnant, her and Rick and whoever else they were in contact with would have realized the huge significance and danger - hence the plan. It seems like Rachel was in the care of Freysa and Sapper when she delivered ... it's completely reasonable that the same arrangement, including Deckard's absence, had been in place for a significant amount of time before the birth. Both of them are on the lamb - splitting up the fugitives makes them both harder to find.


Freysa and Sapper were also replicants living on Earth. They were all on the lamb. Deckard leaving soon after the pregnancy makes sense, but Deckard remaining for the duration of the pregnancy with this replicant underground, and then leaving before the birth and the plan to place the baby in society was to begin also makes sense.

So if the latter is needed to extend Rachel and Deckard's time together and justify his feelings decades later, then so be it.

Sure but does Rick Deckard seem like that kind of person? I've known people like that, too, and at least IME they aren't like Rick. So while anything could have happened in those missing years, to me it is more about a gap between the tones of the two films, the different visions and goals of each director.


Deckard never seemed like much of a person, to be honest, as much as the archetypal film noir grizzled leading man, and with that character having a long, lost love underneath the grizzled exterior underneath the rough exterior fits so well its almost a cliche.

I mean, I get what you're saying about the tone shift between the two films and I agree. I just don't see Deckard's feelings towards Rachel as an example of that.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/11 07:28:01


Post by: chromedog


BTW - The phrase is "On the lam" and has nothing to do with ovine offspring, and never has.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/11 09:26:16


Post by: Turnip Jedi



Deckard never seemed like much of a person, to be honest, as much as the archetypal film noir grizzled leading man, and with that character having a long, lost love underneath the grizzled exterior underneath the rough exterior fits so well its almost a cliche..


Maybe he was literally made that way, as was Rachel, as noir anti-hero and femme fatale respectively (admittedly she goes a bit Damsel once she knows shes a replicant)


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/11 11:30:22


Post by: RiTides


I just re-watched the original, which I'd forgotten much of (I chose The "Final Cut" version). Man, I like 2049 so much better! It's slow, but just has way more to it, imo.

One thing that bugged me the more I've thought about it:

Spoiler:
In the end, did they imply his hologram chick wasn't true A.I.? The way she used preprogrammed phrases like "What a day" and named him Jo? Her character seemed needlessly shallow given all the amazing technology they have in making Replicants - they should have easily been able to program thousands of variants, so that even if it wasn't true A.I., it'd seem more like it. What am I missing here / what do you think?



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/11 12:04:48


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Regarding Joi, I just saw her as the 2049 version of Siri et al, her 'shallowness' could be a reflection on K, likely cheap limited AI intended for mass market so not complex, and of course extra skins / vocabulary / etc is most likely DLC ! (or Loot boxs)


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/11 14:34:52


Post by: Manchu


 sebster wrote:
Freysa and Sapper were also replicants living on Earth. They were all on the lamb.
Hard to say. Prohibition started after the Black Out in 2022, the year after the child was born.
 sebster wrote:
I mean, I get what you're saying about the tone shift between the two films and I agree. I just don't see Deckard's feelings towards Rachel as an example of that.
To me, the incredibly deeply meaningful relationship Rick is remembering had not developed by the end of the first movie. Therefore, we are talking about what happened off-screen in the years between the films. This is a magical space where basically anything is possible. But what does happen in that space is a function of the goals of the director of the second film, rather than the first. If someone else had directed BR2049 and wanted to do another film noir, that director would probably have imagined something more consistent with the first movie happening between it and the new one. But Villeneuve wanted to make a sci fi romance so he imagines a more radical development of the relationship off-screen. That's why I characterize this as a kind of "retcon."
 RiTides wrote:
One thing that bugged me the more I've thought about it:
Spoiler:
In the end, did they imply his hologram chick wasn't true A.I.? The way she used preprogrammed phrases like "What a day" and named him Jo? Her character seemed needlessly shallow given all the amazing technology they have in making Replicants - they should have easily been able to program thousands of variants, so that even if it wasn't true A.I., it'd seem more like it. What am I missing here / what do you think?
So this is a parallel between the two films. They are both dealing with what is "real." In the first one, the question is mostly about memory. In BR2049, it's mostly about feelings - specifically love. Both films create ambiguity. With the '82 film, we wonder about Deckard's memories. With BR2049, we wonder about the characters' feelings. With Joi, it's really complex: does she even qualify as a character? Is she a part of K's character, inasmuch as she is just a reflection of what he desires? Is she a manifestation of his inner emotional life, given that he is so stoic himself? Or, rather than being an extension or projection of K, is she an independent being? The scene you mention is specifically meant to challenge us, especially at that point in the film where we might have thought the question was settled. At that point in the movie, K has lost so much and he is wondering about why he should go on. Like Roy, K realizes that having too little (life for Roy, love for K) doesn't mean what little you do have is worth nothing.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/12 08:14:28


Post by: sebster


 chromedog wrote:
BTW - The phrase is "On the lam" and has nothing to do with ovine offspring, and never has.


You know just last week I was in a meeting with a bunch of sheep & cattle industry people, and I was so pleased with myself when 'ovine' was used and I knew what it meant and how it was different to bovine. And then I go and make that mistake.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Maybe he was literally made that way, as was Rachel, as noir anti-hero and femme fatale respectively (admittedly she goes a bit Damsel once she knows shes a replicant)


That's an awesome idea.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/12 08:22:29


Post by: Blackie


I saw it yesterday and I liked it a lot. Blade runner has always been one of my favorite movies so I was sceptictal around the sequel, but I also love Villeneuve's movies and I really wanted to see it.

IMHO it's a great film mostly because of the presence of the canadian director, with another one it would probably have been mediocre. Its strenght is certainly the visual impact (which doesn't mean special effects) and the soundtrack, key elements of both Villeneuve's fimography and the original Blade Runner. Plot and actings were average IMHO, but I never considered amazing even Blade runner's plot, while Gosling can't really bear an entire movie alone, he's a good actor but he desperately needs a strong co-star. Harrison Ford could be the only notable character in the movie instead, and despite I like Gosling I think another actor like C.Bale, J.Gordon-Levitt, T.Hardy and maybe C.Pine would have been better candidates for that role IMHO.

Something that I didn't like at all was the sex scene between Gosling and Ana De Armas, which is a huge plagiarism from the movie "Her".

Overall a great movie, I was certainly satisfied.

I really can't understand why a movie like this one is not going to gross much, it's actually considered a commercial flop. When I was a teen movies like Terminator, Pulp Fiction, Total Recall, Aliens, Blade Runner were my favorite ones, adult movies, not the average 10th episode of a high grossing PG-13 franchise. What does the youngsters find in movies like Star Wars VII, Transformers or DC/Marvel new episodes?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/12 08:34:10


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
Hard to say. Prohibition started after the Black Out in 2022, the year after the child was born.


Through the first movie and so presumably in to the second replicants were prohibited from being on Earth. The replicants on Earth at that time would have been hiding from Blade Runners, except perhaps those being used by Tyrell corp in their secret projects.

To me, the incredibly deeply meaningful relationship Rick is remembering had not developed by the end of the first movie. Therefore, we are talking about what happened off-screen in the years between the films. This is a magical space where basically anything is possible. But what does happen in that space is a function of the goals of the director of the second film, rather than the first. If someone else had directed BR2049 and wanted to do another film noir, that director would probably have imagined something more consistent with the first movie happening between it and the new one. But Villeneuve wanted to make a sci fi romance so he imagines a more radical development of the relationship off-screen. That's why I characterize this as a kind of "retcon."


Oh sure, I see what you're saying and I agree. My apologies. I got caught up on an idea that the timeline wasn't long enough to develop that romance, and missed the overall point about inventing events after the first movie to set up the tonal change for the second film.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RiTides wrote:
I just re-watched the original, which I'd forgotten much of (I chose The "Final Cut" version). Man, I like 2049 so much better! It's slow, but just has way more to it, imo.

One thing that bugged me the more I've thought about it:

Spoiler:
In the end, did they imply his hologram chick wasn't true A.I.? The way she used preprogrammed phrases like "What a day" and named him Jo? Her character seemed needlessly shallow given all the amazing technology they have in making Replicants - they should have easily been able to program thousands of variants, so that even if it wasn't true A.I., it'd seem more like it. What am I missing here / what do you think?


Spoiler:
That was a really interesting part of the film because of how they took a fairly ordinary story and then structured it differently and completely changed the impact. We are used to stories where a generic, limited AI with strong learning capacity begins as a generic product, but then learns from experiences eventually becomes its own unique creation. They showed the same story here, with Joi evolving due to her interactions with K. What's interesting though is that we met Joi when that growth had already happened, when she was a unique entity capable of making her own decisions like thinking of having her home AI erased and going with K on the mobile device. Stuff happens, and then we next see Joi in an ad, in her original state, as a limited AI for gratification.

This turned the normal story on its head, it worked to show K's confusion - he is hit with simultaneous emotions, grief for his loss and doubt if what they had was 'real'.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/12 17:24:56


Post by: Manchu


 sebster wrote:
Through the first movie and so presumably in to the second replicants were prohibited from being on Earth.
Good point, I had forgotten that from the opening text of the '82 film. Well, now I kind of wonder why Deckard had to leave at all in this case.

More on Joi. Joi is a literal projection - a holographic projection. But she could also be a metaphorical one.

A friend recently explained to me that in Jungian psychology, we project the contents of our own unconscious onto others. Initially, interacting with other people is therefore a journey of self-discovery. To the extent that we figure out who we ourselves are, we have the ability to stop projecting and see other people for who they really are, as opposed to reflections of our own psyche.

This seems pretty on-point for BR2049. At the beginning of the movie, K believes he has no choice but to obey. This allows him to do his work, which he finds distasteful, without skewing his baseline. K's reliability is a result of his stoicism, which in turn is founded on his belief (self-delusion) that he is not free. His repressed yearning to be real (which, for him, is the same thing as being loved) is projected onto the product called Joi.

This product is designed to validate the consumer. And the product is capable of learning how to validate the consumer and adapting itself to do so. (Notice how Joi is not jealous of "real" women giving K attention until K seems to want Joi to exhibit that jealousy.) The capacity of the Joi program to "learn" allows it to cooperate with and enhance K's Jungian self-projection.

When K begins to believe he may be the "real boy," he realizes that he does have free will. However, this also encourages him to project even more intensely onto Joi.
Spoiler:
This is because, as we find out, he is not in fact the "real boy" at all. His hope that it was him is the ultimate projection.

It is only after Luv smashes the Joi Immanator and Freysa reveals that K is not Rachel's son that K has to face the non-reality of Joi (per Mariette, "not as much there as you think").
This would be the scene where K interacts with the advertisement version of Joi and she casually uses expressions he thought were unique to his own hologram.

It's also worth noting that names are important in BR2049. K notes, when talking to Luv, that Luv must be special to Wallace because Wallace named her. And of course Joi names K. But K never names Joi.

Any way, once K is no longer able to use Joi as a psychological crutch to deal with his repressed desire to be loved, he has the choice to shut down (nihilistic crisis; suicide) or take responsibility for the reality of his being (Camusian rebellion). At this point, K is able to shift from desiring to be loved to a capacity to act out of self-sacrificial love, for the benefit of others,
Spoiler:
namely, Deckard and Ana Stelline.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/12 17:33:10


Post by: RiTides


Saw it again, after having gone and rewatched the original, and liked it much more having that context fresh in my mind!

Thanks for the thoughts on the AI guys, makes sense

Overall, I liked this film much more than the original, which I thought did not age all that well. Still an absolute classic with some amazing ideas and scenes, but as a whole movie I enjoyed 2049 a lot more.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/12 17:39:36


Post by: Manchu


Yeah, already in the theater near the end of the movie, I had this blasphemous thought: "wait is this ... is this better than Blade Runner? How could that be possible in 2017?"

I think it is very debatable - but that there are some solid arguments in favor of BR2049 being the better film.

Somewhat related, I think BR2049 suffers from Force Awakens syndrom a little: everything that didn't quite work was an obligatory references to the previous film. I don't think we would have lost anything if it didn't incorporate the specific characters from the first film.
Spoiler:
The fertile replicant could have as easily been someone we never meet/met. The only question here is, if you had to invent a new father for the replicant, there is a key issue: is the dad a replicant or not? With Deckard, BR2049 sort of "resolves" this question by pretty much stating it is definitely up in the air, as opposed to Sir Ridley arguing that he is definitely a replicant.

The only problem there is, I guess K or somebody could have just scanned Deckard's right eye. But no one does, at least not on-screen.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/12 19:10:46


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Manchu wrote:
My very strong impression is, this is a better film than the original. The only aspect of the original film that is unquestionably better is the soundtrack. And 2049 unquestionably has a better plot. Everything else - characters, dialog, performances, visual effects, even world building - is debatable but I think 2049 has a solid claim to do this stuff even better than Sir Ridley's movie.

As to scenes I could think about for weeks - holy gak yes the movie has scenes I could think about for weeks and I reckon I will be thinking about them for years. Luv is at least as complicated and nuanced as Roy, without ever getting dreamily philosophical. What about the idea that the Nexus 9s are obedient? (a.k.a, the "reverse BioShock" moment) The "reality" of Joii's love for K will be a constant question for me. My God, this was the most romantic movie I have seen in years. There is not a shred of noir in 2049; it's a romance film and it is agonizingly beautiful.

Be warned - there is a price to pay for seeing 2049. Everything else you're watching will look like gak by comparison.



I'll agree that 2049 is better than the original, but it's faint praise coming from me.

I really enjoyed Luv for the first half or two thirds of the film, but by the time she waltzed out of the LAPD after a second killing, I felt she's been "Fassbindered" into a plot device rather than an actual character. Her resolution and "I'm the best" did nothing for me. Also, how competent can she be when she failed to background check the contractor responsible for writing all the implanted memories that help keep the products obedient? "I'm going to have to see a doctor's note about the bubble." There's a ton of fridge logic embedded in that character's arc.

The Joi scenes were integral to the film and Joe's arc, but I can't pretend it gave me anything new to think about that wasn't already introduced by the first film or even lesser films like AI and Cherry2000. The change in subgenre and the actually likeable characters really set 2049 apart from the original, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
[

I have to add that Jared Leto's Wallace was by far the worst thing I've seen in theaters since Jessie Eisenberg's Lex Luther.


If you're gonna talk about Jared Leto and compare to terrible performances as DC villains, why not Leto's own Joker?
But I'm not sure what to think about Leto's part in the film. Like in SS, the biggest issue seemed to be that it seemed so disconnected from the rest of the movie. They're setting up a sequel, obviously,


I didn't make the comparison because I have never seen Suicide Squad and never plan to, in part because of the discussions I've heard about Leto's Joker.

I don't really care to find out where any of those dangling threads lead if it means spending more time with Leto. While I would love for Hollywood to make more films like BR2049, I really don't want a sequel to BR2049.


Oh, and I would not say it succeeds as a stand alone at all. My wife hasn't seen the first one recently, and she was lost through half the movie. It didn't help that some characters pronounce names so differently. Deckard was either "Decker" or "duh-Card" depending on who is speaking, for example.


One person I saw the film with had never seen the original, and the other hadn't seen the original for twenty years. Neither of them struggled.


I'm happy for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
I know people who've pined for years afterwards about relationships that were shorter than that
Sure but does Rick Deckard seem like that kind of person? I've known people like that, too, and at least IME they aren't like Rick. So while anything could have happened in those missing years, to me it is more about a gap between the tones of the two films, the different visions and goals of each director.


Oxytocin is a hell of a hormone?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/12 20:24:39


Post by: Manchu


I guess someone seeing Blade Runner in 1982 could have said, "hey there's nothing in this movie I ain't already thought about." I doubt he got a medal for it. Meantime, the picture left many other people pondering both at that time and for decades after. BR2049 will probably go the same way. I think a big part of that will be, and already is, this instantly iconic "character" Joi.

Luv isn't a plot device; she's an antagonist. She has complex motives. She has deep, perilous insecurities. She is a dark (or painfully bright) reflection of our protagonist, K. Like K, she is repressed and stoic. Like K, she craves love - and believes that if she is somehow "special" then she will merit it, maybe even somehow get it.

Nothing in the movie indicates she was incompetent vis-a-vis Stelline. The only possible implication of incompetence is that she got the color of Rachel's eyes wrong or it was someone else's mistake that she failed to correct (assuming it wasn't intentional in the first place).



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/13 01:53:28


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
Good point, I had forgotten that from the opening text of the '82 film. Well, now I kind of wonder why Deckard had to leave at all in this case.


I guess because Deckard was a more well known replicant than the others. The film doesn't really explain the plan, and what snippets we get don't really make much sense. As we know the reason the plan needed Deckard to leave was so K could reunite them at the end of the movie

More on Joi. Joi is a literal projection - a holographic projection. But she could also be a metaphorical one.


That all makes a lot of sense, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Joi scenes were integral to the film and Joe's arc, but I can't pretend it gave me anything new to think about that wasn't already introduced by the first film or even lesser films like AI and Cherry2000.


The requirement to have something totally new and unlike anything ever seen before is a common request, but not actually needed. Doing something well is far more important than doing it first, and this is doubly true of a subplot.

I don't really care to find out where any of those dangling threads lead if it means spending more time with Leto. While I would love for Hollywood to make more films like BR2049, I really don't want a sequel to BR2049.


Yeah, I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand there's plenty of scope to take another film to some interesting places, but I'm not that keen on this becoming yet another franchise. One of the best things about movies is that unlike life they end with things resolved.

I'm happy for them.


Yeah, I don't want it to feel like I'm having a go or anything, just saying that your wife struggling isn't necessarily the universal experience, that other people might have been able to fill in the gaps without knowing the original that well. Honestly I think I probably struggled more because I kept thinking back to the original and how everything fit in, rather than just letting 2049 be its own movie.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/13 03:29:10


Post by: Manchu


I do agree with Bob on not wanting a sequel, especially a movie about the replicant uprising. It reminds me of people wanting a Future War movie for the Terminator franchise ... and getting Terminator Salvation. If anything, another BR movie set well after the success or failure of such a movement, where the setting is a factor of whatever consequences result, might be okay. But it would need to be another genre shift. Perhaps a genuine mystery plot? The issue is, are there more BR stories to tell? I dunno. Before BR 2049, I would have said no. Even having seen and been amazed by BR 2049, I still tend to think, no.

I'd rather have Villeneuve work on Dune.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/13 04:53:39


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
I do agree with Bob on not wanting a sequel, especially a movie about the replicant uprising. It reminds me of people wanting a Future War movie for the Terminator franchise ... and getting Terminator Salvation. If anything, another BR movie set well after the success or failure of such a movement, where the setting is a factor of whatever consequences result, might be okay. But it would need to be another genre shift. Perhaps a genuine mystery plot? The issue is, are there more BR stories to tell? I dunno. Before BR 2049, I would have said no. Even having seen and been amazed by BR 2049, I still tend to think, no.


The trailers I saw made it look like 2049 was going to be the Replicant war movie, it's why I was originally pretty uninterested in this film. The reason I'm open to a sequel is because they did such a good job with this movie, so there's a bit of trust there.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/13 05:11:20


Post by: Thargrim


It's nothing short of a miracle this movie was as good as it is, to expect the same magic a third time is maybe not a risk that's worth it. One reason this was good is cause it was made by passionate people who are experienced at their craft. The ending of this movie was no less open ended than the final cut either. I could live with BR being a duo. I'm not even sure this has made over 100 million yet, which doesn't bode well for another installment.

Fancher is a great ideas guy though, and Harrison won't live forever. So on the other hand if there is going to be another then who knows. I'm not all that interested in a replicant war rebellion movie. To me Blade Runner is a noir, slow paced etc. And could it really be called Blade Runner if it's not about a Blade Runner?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/13 06:52:42


Post by: Blackie


 Manchu wrote:
I do agree with Bob on not wanting a sequel, especially a movie about the replicant uprising. It reminds me of people wanting a Future War movie for the Terminator franchise ... and getting Terminator Salvation.


I'm a huge fan of terminator and actually liked Terminator Salvation a lot, probably more than the amazing but overrated second film of the franchise.

But I definitely agree about Blade Runner, I don't want a sequel either. That's because IMHO the ending was perfect and not really open, the story is over and after 35 years of sci-movies Blade Runner's environment is not interesting enough and fresh to justify a new franchise about it. The fact that Deckard's real nature is not revelaed, if he's a human or replicant, is a positive thing, I hate when everything must be explained. I've always considered him as a replicant but the mystery about his nature is one the key points of the two movies, it shouldn't be explicitly reavealed. It would destroy some magic about these two masterpieces.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/13 08:44:37


Post by: sebster


 Thargrim wrote:
It's nothing short of a miracle this movie was as good as it is, to expect the same magic a third time is maybe not a risk that's worth it. One reason this was good is cause it was made by passionate people who are experienced at their craft. The ending of this movie was no less open ended than the final cut either. I could live with BR being a duo. I'm not even sure this has made over 100 million yet, which doesn't bode well for another installment.


Yeah, but that's the thing - was it a miracle that 2049 was good, or was it the result of getting the right people together and putting together a great and worthy sequel to the original. Some films come together in spite of themselves, but this seemed more like the product of people who loved the original and wanted to do it justice with a worthy successor film. So if those same people think there's scope for another film, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Fancher is a great ideas guy though, and Harrison won't live forever. So on the other hand if there is going to be another then who knows. I'm not all that interested in a replicant war rebellion movie. To me Blade Runner is a noir, slow paced etc. And could it really be called Blade Runner if it's not about a Blade Runner?


The trailers I saw made it look like we were getting a move about some kind of war with the replicants. I was uninterested in this movie as a result, until it was released and reviews I read made it clear it wasn't that at all.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/13 15:02:39


Post by: Chillreaper


Just got back from my first viewing and I think it's the best film that I've seen in years.

Okay, as a stand alone movie it's good, but off the back of having watched all the different cuts of Bladerunner over the past 30 years, I thought that it was brilliant.

Spoiler:
On the subject of Rachel and Dekard having long enough together to fall in love forever and ever, Wallace does postulate that maybe they were programmed that way. Was the N7 series a super limited edition for the purpose of breeding? Is Dekard N7? He seemed pretty tough for an old geezer and I'm having a hard time thinking that bog standard human haploid DNA matches up with replicant DNA.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/13 15:54:40


Post by: Manchu


We only know of a single N7, for sure.

As for replicant DNA ... my feeling is, Tyrell built replicants on human DNA.

The dark possibility is, replicants are really just humans genetically speaking. The real difference is in how they are made. That syncs pretty well with certain lines in BR2049.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/14 09:40:18


Post by: MarkNorfolk


 Chillreaper wrote:
Just got back from my first viewing and I think it's the best film that I've seen in years.

Okay, as a stand alone movie it's good, but off the back of having watched all the different cuts of Bladerunner over the past 30 years, I thought that it was brilliant.

Spoiler:
On the subject of Rachel and Dekard having long enough together to fall in love forever and ever, Wallace does postulate that maybe they were programmed that way. Was the N7 series a super limited edition for the purpose of breeding? Is Dekard N7? He seemed pretty tough for an old geezer and I'm having a hard time thinking that bog standard human haploid DNA matches up with replicant DNA.


Thoroughly enjoyed the movie, although the 'music' just seemed to be 'mood tones' reminiscent of the original's music core. Too loud sometimes too.

Spoiler:
Well, it is Harrison Ford. And the replicants he fights with are just rolling with the punches because they've got orders to take him alive or think he's their dad! Deckard didn't hold up too well against Roy Batty either.
.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/14 10:50:32


Post by: AndrewGPaul


 Manchu wrote:
We only know of a single N7, for sure.

As for replicant DNA ... my feeling is, Tyrell built replicants on human DNA.

The dark possibility is, replicants are really just humans genetically speaking. The real difference is in how they are made. That syncs pretty well with certain lines in BR2049.


I'd always assumed that - otherwise, why would they need to bother with the Voigt-Kampf tests to detect them?

It goes back to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep; the only real difference is that replicants have no empathy for others - but then, it seems that some of them are learning it, and the horrendous living conditions on Earth are making "real" humans less and less empathic towards each other. The lines are blurring, if they ever really existed at all. Blade Runner moved away from that somewhat to think about memory and identity and a desire for freedom, but BR2049 looks like it's coming back to this idea. What if "better than human" is more than just Tyrell's advertising blurb? And what exactly is Wallace up to? He clearly wants his replicants to be able to breed, but to what end? Because his production lines are running at capacity already? or does he have something else in mind? It's obvious that his Nexus 8s aren't as totally obedient as he claimed. Is that a flaw ("life finds a way", as Dr Malcolm might say) or was that just a line he spun to the authorities to allow him to sell replicants on Earth?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/14 13:31:30


Post by: Chillreaper


It's been a while since I read DADOES, can't remember if the andys had wires and gubbins inside them.

Obviously, the replicants from BR were based on organic tech, but putting holes in the andys always seemed like a viable way to work out whether they were human or not to me.

Maybe I'm just getting BR, DADOES, original BSG and new BSG mixed up in my head.

I blame Edward James Olmos...


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/14 17:18:06


Post by: AndrewGPaul


I think DADOES might have featured mechanical androids and animals (everyone owning an artificial pet was a big theme of the book; Deckard had a sheep on the roof ohis apartment block, IIRC), but in the film they were certainly organic, and they definitely bled pretty convincingly. The only oddity was Pris going into those weird spasms when she was shot.

Oh, if anyone's got a spare hour, have a watch of Mark Kermode's On The Edge of Blade Runner documentary from 2000 (after the Director's Cut was released, but before the Final Cut).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/15 03:40:15


Post by: Frazzled


Wow that was...boring. the wife fell asleep three times. How do you make a 50 foot tall hit naked chick boring? That movie thats how.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/15 03:50:47


Post by: Thargrim


 Frazzled wrote:
Wow that was...boring. the wife fell asleep three times. How do you make a 50 foot tall hit naked chick boring? That movie thats how.


Shouldn't go to the movies tired, i've seen some pretty lousy movies in the theaters and i've never fallen asleep.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/15 04:04:41


Post by: Frazzled


 Thargrim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Wow that was...boring. the wife fell asleep three times. How do you make a 50 foot tall hit naked chick boring? That movie thats how.


Shouldn't go to the movies tired, i've seen some pretty lousy movies in the theaters and i've never fallen asleep.




She wasn't tired when she went in.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/15 04:14:33


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Was it the spa music?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/15 04:15:51


Post by: Thargrim


 Frazzled wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Wow that was...boring. the wife fell asleep three times. How do you make a 50 foot tall hit naked chick boring? That movie thats how.


Shouldn't go to the movies tired, i've seen some pretty lousy movies in the theaters and i've never fallen asleep.




She wasn't tired when she went in.


The moment when K encounters the giant hologram is when he decided to take control of his own life.
Spoiler:
He basically sacrifices himself to reunite Deckard with his daughter, thus making his apparently meaningless and very normal existence mean something


This isn't a marvel or DC movie, it's not a space opera either. It has a lot more in common with noir/neo noirs than it does Star Wars/Star Trek etc. It's not for everyone and requires more thought and reflection from the viewer. All I know is I couldn't sleep until 2 AM after seeing this, I had a lot of things floating around in my head.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/15 04:16:21


Post by: Frazzled


She thought it was loud. As she's partially deaf...

It was just really really slow. About 45 minutes too long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Thargrim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Wow that was...boring. the wife fell asleep three times. How do you make a 50 foot tall hit naked chick boring? That movie thats how.


Shouldn't go to the movies tired, i've seen some pretty lousy movies in the theaters and i've never fallen asleep.




She wasn't tired when she went in.


The moment when K encounters the giant hologram is when he decided to take control of his own life.
Spoiler:
He basically sacrifices himself to reunite Deckard with his daughter, thus making his apparently meaningless and very normal existence mean something


This isn't a marvel or DC movie, it's not a space opera either. It has a lot more in common with noir/neo noirs than it does Star Wars/Star Trek etc. It's not for everyone and requires more thought and reflection from the viewer. All I know is I couldn't sleep until 2 AM after seeing this, I had a lot of things floating around in my head.


I am familiar with film noir. You liked it, great. I thought it was dull as dishwater.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/15 04:22:36


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I don't find dishwater dull, but rather nauseating and sometimes horrifying, like a Saw movie. I should probably wash the dishes more promptly...


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/16 12:29:37


Post by: Ahtman


Enjoyed it quite a bit but the sense that some things were left unanswered specifically for a sequel I found distasteful.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/16 14:42:04


Post by: Manchu


 Thargrim wrote:
It's not for everyone and requires more thought and reflection from the viewer.
Many (most?) people are used to and expecting a passive experience in the theater. One of my favorite movies is Barry Lyndon, a visually sumptuous film that punishes inattentive viewers. If you watch with an active, critical mindset, the film is moving almost beyond comparison. But if you just want the film beamed into your eyes while your mind drowses, it is interminable and opaque. BR2049 is nowhere near as demanding as Barry Lyndon, but it is a movie that will richly reward viewers willing to "think along" while those just looking for entertainment will get a beautiful, tedious slideshow.

Talking about the film, Mark Kermode referenced a film school exercise where students are asked to clap every time there is an edit. Most contemporary films have so many cuts per scene that you end up with irregular "applause" while older films produce much slower rhythms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
It's obvious that his Nexus 8s aren't as totally obedient as he claimed. Is that a flaw ("life finds a way", as Dr Malcolm might say) or was that just a line he spun to the authorities to allow him to sell replicants on Earth?
Just FYI, the 9s are the obedient ones. And I think they truly are obedient but it is a matter of conditioning. It is a reality that only becomes an illusion once your step outside of it, like most things.
Spoiler:
K has free will the whole time. But he actively participates in the belief that he doesn't. It's a useful belief. It allows him to do his job. It allows him to ignore the slurs. It allows him to deal with what he thinks he is. It's only when he starts to doubt what he thinks he is that he realizes that he has a choice. And it is a painful realization; hence the scream (whereas he has been on an emotional flatline, outwardly, up to that point). In that moment, he realizes that he has moral responsibility. Everything he has ever done is on his own hands. That's a crushing moment.
I think this hints at Wallace's deeper motives. If a replicant is just a person that was made instead of being born, then a replicant that is born is a person. Wallace came to prominence by saving the Earth from ecological extinction. I think he aims to save humanity from extinction, too.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/16 21:13:35


Post by: Breotan


 Frazzled wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Wow that was...boring. the wife fell asleep three times. How do you make a 50 foot tall hit naked chick boring? That movie thats how.

Shouldn't go to the movies tired, i've seen some pretty lousy movies in the theaters and i've never fallen asleep.

She wasn't tired when she went in.

To be fair, the movie is over two and a half hours long and is very leisurely paced. I've been in shorter movies that felt far longer and made me stop caring where this one didn't. I think people will be more receptive to this on Blu-ray/4k at home when they're not in uncomfortable theater seats.




Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/16 21:43:00


Post by: AndrewGPaul


 Manchu wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
It's obvious that his Nexus 8s aren't as totally obedient as he claimed. Is that a flaw ("life finds a way", as Dr Malcolm might say) or was that just a line he spun to the authorities to allow him to sell replicants on Earth?
Just FYI, the 9s are the obedient ones.


Yes, of course. Batty was a six, Rachel (and Deckard, if you think that way*) are sevens, Bautista was an eight? and K and Luv are nines.

As for your comment about Wallace's motives, that's very interesting. I think I was struggling towards something like that, but I couldn't quite get there on my own. I did think that his killing of the female replicant was out of disappointment - another flawed product because he simply can't fix that one bug. I wonder how his apparent lack of empathy to anyone ties into a motive to "save the human race"? Is he deliberately playing the psychopath because he thinks it's what's needed, or does he intend to save the human race and be the one to lead it?

* Empire FIlm podcast #283; Ridley Scott appears to have changed his mind. Or at least, he seems to think that in the context of BR2049, Deckard needs to be human. Which leads to theidea that you can simultaneously see Deckard as a replicant if you only consider BR, but a human if you consider the extended story of BR + BR2049.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/16 22:58:24


Post by: Manchu


The script speaks to this very question:

Deckard: You don't have any children, do you?

Wallace: I have millions.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/17 10:17:32


Post by: MarkNorfolk


 Manchu wrote:
The script speaks to this very question:

Deckard: You don't have any children, do you?

Wallace: I have millions.


Self aggrandizing statement from a psychopath and the bad guy as he tries to 'play' Deckard (and fail). His relationship with his replicants is the same as James Dyson and his vacuum cleaners. He may have designed them but he pays a workforce to manufacture them in vast numbers for him.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/21 22:15:48


Post by: GoatboyBeta


Just got back from seeing this movie(first film I've seen at the cinema since Rogue one). Really good overall and definitely worth seeing on the big screen, although the music was a bit much at times.

I'm also now a little bit infatuated with Ana de Armas


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/23 05:45:50


Post by: sebster


 Frazzled wrote:
She thought it was loud. As she's partially deaf...

It was just really really slow. About 45 minutes too long.


I agree that it was loud. Well, not loud all the time, it was pretty quiet but then those massive, distorted trumpets start up randomly and scare everyone out of their seats. Hans Zimmer needs a new trick.

You're absolutely wrong that the movie was too long. It wasn't a perfect movie by any means, but the story it told needed 3 hours. With the number of elements in the plot and the evolution of K's character, cutting the film to a shorter length would have resulted in something being shortchanged.

Now, if you were bored by the movie well that's what you experienced. Everyone is different. But don't confuse 'I wasn't engaged' with 'this was too long'.

Manchu wrote:
It's obvious that his Nexus 8s aren't as totally obedient as he claimed. Is that a flaw ("life finds a way", as Dr Malcolm might say) or was that just a line he spun to the authorities to allow him to sell replicants on Earth?
Just FYI, the 9s are the obedient ones. And I think they truly are obedient but it is a matter of conditioning. It is a reality that only becomes an illusion once your step outside of it, like most things.
Spoiler:
K has free will the whole time. But he actively participates in the belief that he doesn't. It's a useful belief. It allows him to do his job. It allows him to ignore the slurs. It allows him to deal with what he thinks he is. It's only when he starts to doubt what he thinks he is that he realizes that he has a choice. And it is a painful realization; hence the scream (whereas he has been on an emotional flatline, outwardly, up to that point). In that moment, he realizes that he has moral responsibility. Everything he has ever done is on his own hands. That's a crushing moment.
I think he was realising that it was possible to advance beyond the limits of your creation.

Spoiler:
He had been chasing the false dream that he was special because he wasn't just another replicant, he was born. That idea was dashed when he learned the baby was a girl. This led him to a low point, he'd lost his love and was told he was just another replicant. The cleverness of that scene is that he confronted both things at once and resolved them with a single answer - Joi had evolved beyond her programming to be a unique entity that loved him and that it why he grieved for her, and it's why he too was and had evolved beyond his original limitations.


I think this hints at Wallace's deeper motives. If a replicant is just a person that was made instead of being born, then a replicant that is born is a person. Wallace came to prominence by saving the Earth from ecological extinction. I think he aims to save humanity from extinction, too.


I think he wants what almost every parent wants, for his children to have children.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/23 16:08:20


Post by: Scott


I saw the film this weekend past, and will again the next.

The comments that have been made since the film was released - I've avoided this thread until now - have been very good and help embellish my interpretation of the film, which I found to be beautiful, sad, epic, enigmatic. Thanks for your perspectives, folks.

I had no issue with the length of the film, and TBH wanted to watch more - such a gorgeous feast for the eyes! IMO the pace of the film was good and I was in the proper mind for it: 1145 matinee after a cup of coffee.

One item I noticed - or think that I noticed - that has not been discussed:
Spoiler:
Dr. Stelline: she is presented to us as suffering from a debilitating disease which requires her to live in a controlled environment. She has no physical contact with either K or Deckard. During K's visit, her hair is blonde; when Deckard visits, her hair is brown. Now, cosmetic augmentation was revealed once earlier in the film when Luv is having her nails done... but she poses as a hyper-efficient executive for Wallace when she isn't murdering, so such decoration seems appropriate for that role. But why would Stelline color her hair at all? Does Stelline physically exist, or is she another brilliant SFX... created by the devices that create the "visuals" for the replicants' dreams that she herself "records"?

Was it an intentional device to lead us the audience to continue to question the "reality" of what we just witnessed in the film, to put us into a dilemma similar to that suffered by K regarding his relation with Joi, and that of the original film's audience with regard to Deckard's humanity or not?

I'm trying to understand what this supposed misdirection (if I haven't imagined it) means... I'm not certain who would "benefit". I don't see how it could be a ploy by Wallace, for whom she works as an independent contractor - she's the treasure he seeks, hidden right before him, as it were.

Did anyone else notice that?

{edit - Wallace not Wallis}


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/23 17:01:30


Post by: Ratius


Saw it last Friday and thoroughly enjoyed it. Visually by far one of the best films I've ever seen, kudos to the production director and cinematographer.
The plot was good albeit drawn out in places, I think it could have shaved easily 20 minutes from it.
Thought the female leads were really brilliant, infact they stole the film for me - Gosling "did his job" thats about it Im afraid and Deckard and Wallace simply didnt get enough film time although I thought Wallace had real potential.
Soundtrack was good but not on par with the original which was disappointing.

Its not perfect however, the love scene with K was self indulgent and unwarranted tbh, some scenes were too drawn out (intro, wasteland factory) and it did leave a huge "oh we could make another one".

But very darn good nonetheless and looking forward to a rewatch


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/23 17:52:40


Post by: Manchu


I concede this is a point where reasonable minds can disagree but I do indeed strongly disagree:
 sebster wrote:
Spoiler:
Joi had evolved beyond her programming to be a unique entity that loved him
I think the film works hard to make you hope
Spoiler:
that she is "real" - but the film works just as hard to allow you to realize that she was not.
We've talked about the "what a day" and "you look like a nice joe" lines but there is a much more fundamental issue staring us in the face: K is "Constant K" - he is stoic, an emotional flatliner. He needs to believe that he feels nothing or, at least, that whatever he does feel is incidental, meaningless. We see three stages of K's emotional life. First, at the beginning of the film, where he treats his emotions as a joke. His emotions are just a meaningless byproduct of the mecahnical function of his body, sort of like how we (in contemporary science) conceive of dreams: just meaningless sensations that the brain sloppily attempts to arrange in a coherent way. We see this in the ironic "honey I'm home scene" which ends with the absurd "incoming call" punctuation to an abortive romance scene. Next, we see K start to take his emotional life more seriously. It's at this point where he decides to take a leap of faith about Joi's existence. This stage is epitomized by the beautiful love scene where Joi is super-imposed over Mariette. Finally, we see K
Spoiler:
have to deal with the fact that his leap of faith resulted in smacking hard into concrete reality. This is the scene where he encounters the Joi advertisement. I believe this scene is about him realizing that Joi was not real; like his irrational hope that he was the special child, K had merely allowed himself to childishly believe that Joi was more than a projection of his own desires, his own warmth.
This is when K "grows up" emotionally, and decides to feel this for himself rather sublimate it onto an object.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/24 23:23:49


Post by: Pacific


Wow.. what a film.

It's rare I think that a project comes together like this and seems to fit together so well. Gosling was just so well cast as K, he really is the master of minimalist acting (under-acting?) - I don't know of anyone, other than perhaps Mark Rylance, that can hold your attention by just being impassive.

The imagery and music was excellent as well, yes the music did get very loud at certain moments, I wonder if that was a deliberate thing to pull you into the immediacy of the moment?
The pacing was remarkably slow for a modern film, and actually one of the things I liked most about it. It was thought provoking, beautiful, and let you get absorbed into it without everything flying through the air, exploding and shooting laser-beams out of donkey-caves, which has been the trend of most modern things featuring robots and guns.

Realise it won't have been everyone's cup of tea (I know for a fact not to bother taking my partner to see it, as she'll fall asleep) but for me this was probably as good a sequel to the original as I could have hoped for.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/24 23:48:36


Post by: yakface



Yeah, I thought it was a truly transcendent movie. At least as good as the original, if not better.

Its a shame that it didn't do better at the box office, but I'm not surprised. Audiences today just don't want big budget movies that force them to sit and think about what they're seeing onscreen.

But I have no doubt over time this will be looked at as an absolute classic.

For me personally, this would be an easy vote for best picture, best director and best cinematography (at least), and I don't even need to worry about what other movies are coming out the rest of the year, cause none will top it.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/24 23:49:15


Post by: Howard A Treesong


 Manchu wrote:
The script speaks to this very question:

Deckard: You don't have any children, do you?

Wallace: I have millions.


I wasn't so clear on Wallace's motivation for wanting live born replicants when he's no problem churning them out in millions. Did I miss something?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/24 23:51:41


Post by: yakface


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I wasn't so clear on Wallace's motivation for wanting live born replicants when he's no problem churning them out in millions. Did I miss something?

He wants replicants to fundamentally change humanity by taking it beyond the solar system, and for that he seemed to indicate he needed a LOT more than he can produce one by one.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 00:16:55


Post by: Manchu


Yeah, he explained how in all this time settling a mere nine systems was pathetic. In one of the shorts, he explains how he believes the current capacity of the colonies is gravely inadequate if humanity is to survive.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 09:49:30


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
Spoiler:
have to deal with the fact that his leap of faith resulted in smacking hard into concrete reality. This is the scene where he encounters the Joi advertisement. I believe this scene is about him realizing that Joi was not real; like his irrational hope that he was the special child, K had merely allowed himself to childishly believe that Joi was more than a projection of his own desires, his own warmth.
This is when K "grows up" emotionally, and decides to feel this for himself rather sublimate it onto an object.


Whether or not Joi is 'real' is perhaps an open question, whether K saw her as such not so much. That scene, and K's choice afterwards make sense only in his understanding that he saw Joi as real. Whether or not she is 'real', he understood her as such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 yakface wrote:
Yeah, I thought it was a truly transcendent movie. At least as good as the original, if not better.

Its a shame that it didn't do better at the box office, but I'm not surprised. Audiences today just don't want big budget movies that force them to sit and think about what they're seeing onscreen.


It isn't just audiences today. The original tanked as well, far worse than BR49.

It's just an unfortunate reality that really huge productions need to be kept broad. Every so often a studio pours a pile of money in to a challenging film, and it rarely works out well.

But I have no doubt over time this will be looked at as an absolute classic.

For me personally, this would be an easy vote for best picture, best director and best cinematography (at least), and I don't even need to worry about what other movies are coming out the rest of the year, cause none will top it.


I definitely agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I wasn't so clear on Wallace's motivation for wanting live born replicants when he's no problem churning them out in millions. Did I miss something?


He called them his children. Sooner or later people stop wanting to have children, and instead desire their children to have children of their own.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 10:03:17


Post by: Ouze


 yakface wrote:
For me personally, this would be an easy vote for best picture, best director and best cinematography (at least), and I don't even need to worry about what other movies are coming out the rest of the year, cause none will top it.


Perhaps you were unaware, sir, but there is a little movie called Geostorm out, starring *the* Gerard Butler.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 13:04:16


Post by: Frazzled


 Ouze wrote:
 yakface wrote:
For me personally, this would be an easy vote for best picture, best director and best cinematography (at least), and I don't even need to worry about what other movies are coming out the rest of the year, cause none will top it.


Perhaps you were unaware, sir, but there is a little movie called Geostorm out, starring *the* Gerard Butler.


Thread win.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 15:00:38


Post by: vonjankmon


 Frazzled wrote:
She thought it was loud. As she's partially deaf...

It was just really really slow. About 45 minutes too long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Thargrim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Wow that was...boring. the wife fell asleep three times. How do you make a 50 foot tall hit naked chick boring? That movie thats how.


Shouldn't go to the movies tired, i've seen some pretty lousy movies in the theaters and i've never fallen asleep.




She wasn't tired when she went in.


The moment when K encounters the giant hologram is when he decided to take control of his own life.
Spoiler:
He basically sacrifices himself to reunite Deckard with his daughter, thus making his apparently meaningless and very normal existence mean something


This isn't a marvel or DC movie, it's not a space opera either. It has a lot more in common with noir/neo noirs than it does Star Wars/Star Trek etc. It's not for everyone and requires more thought and reflection from the viewer. All I know is I couldn't sleep until 2 AM after seeing this, I had a lot of things floating around in my head.


I am familiar with film noir. You liked it, great. I thought it was dull as dishwater.


While I enjoyed the movie, I agree with you Frazzled that is was likely close to 45 minutes to long. And honestly it was almost entirely due to individual scene length, no the actual number of scenes, a good editor could have cut out 30 minutes without a problem and vastly improved the movie. I mean really how long do we need to watch K stand around while a guy frantically turns to *EVERY* page in a book other than the ones he is trying to find? 30 seconds right there that could easily have been cut that added *nothing* to the movie, not atmosphere, suspense, exposition, nothing and there were a lot of periods like that in the movie.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 17:16:44


Post by: Manchu


 sebster wrote:
Whether or not Joi is 'real' is perhaps an open question, whether K saw her as such not so much. That scene, and K's choice afterwards make sense only in his understanding that he saw Joi as real. Whether or not she is 'real', he understood her as such.
When K first meets Luv, he observes that she must be special because Wallace gave her a name. Later on, Joi insists on naming K because he is special. "Special," in these instances, points toward "real." But note that K never names Joi. If truly believing she was real was just a choice (as he comes to think mid-way through the film), he would gladly make it. But it isn't a choice.

I think we're getting into the heart of the film's theme here. K's foil Luv also wants to "choose" to be real inasmuch as she works to merit it: to be strong, competent, successful - "the best one." Luv's choice is not purely psychological; it is also a matter of physical action. But everything she does is as Wallace's instrument (God's angel). In this way, Luv still relies on Wallace to validate her reality, and he is unaware of/indifferent to that yearning. Similarly, K projects his own yearning to be real onto Joi assuring him that he is. In turn, he needs her to be real.
Spoiler:
It's only when K realizes that he cannot rely on this projection to validate himself (because it was nothing more than a projection) that he is capable of validating himself, through a moral action motivated by love. It isn't being loved that makes us real, but being able to love.
 vonjankmon wrote:
While I enjoyed the movie, I agree with you Frazzled that is was likely close to 45 minutes to long.
I don't know where you're going to find 45 minutes to cut. The example you give doesn't have thirty seconds to shave. I guess you could take 2-3 seconds. But interpolate that to the whole film and think about the actual consequences: you still aren't cutting anywhere near 30-45 minutes and now you have destroyed the director's and editor's artistic choice regarding pacing. Frankly, this kind fo thinking is exactly how trash gets made.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 19:02:19


Post by: vonjankmon


My wife was a photography/videography major in college and the scene length stuck out to her so badly that about half way through the movie she started counting how long each scene was to get an idea of what could have been edited out to save some time.

I left the theater after that book scene and used the restroom, washed my hands, checked my phone, spun a Pokestop in PokemonGo and still got back into my seat before the reveal in the next scene. My wife joked that she thought she was going to have to tell me what happened so I wouldn't miss out on the important conclusion to that scene but it dragged on for so long it didn't turn out to be necessary.

Now scene length is a totally subjective thing. Some people obviously enjoyed the movie exactly as is, but I think a lot of people who saw it would disagree.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 20:03:27


Post by: Manchu


After the orphan slaver cannot find the relevant records
Spoiler:
K reluctantly faces the possibility that he has memories of the place. By this point, Ana has already told him that the memories in question are not artificial. So no matter how short or long the scene is, the point of the scene is clearly not a reveal precisely because whether the memories are real has already been established. Saying the scene could have made that point in less time is a non sequitur since that is not the point the scene was acted and shot and edited to make. The point was K's extreme reluctance to face it - hence why it needed to be slow and why, in its conclusion, the soundscape had grown so overpowering.

The scene is about a character who gets by in his gakky life by not having to blame himself for anything he does or feels - that character is inexorably but painfully drawn down a path of realization that he's been living some kind of terrible lie and in fact all the blood is on his hands.
It's probably worthwhile spending some time thinking about the scene before suggesting it should have been done differently.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 20:10:41


Post by: Frazzled


 vonjankmon wrote:
My wife was a photography/videography major in college and the scene length stuck out to her so badly that about half way through the movie she started counting how long each scene was to get an idea of what could have been edited out to save some time.

I left the theater after that book scene and used the restroom, washed my hands, checked my phone, spun a Pokestop in PokemonGo and still got back into my seat before the reveal in the next scene. My wife joked that she thought she was going to have to tell me what happened so I wouldn't miss out on the important conclusion to that scene but it dragged on for so long it didn't turn out to be necessary.

Now scene length is a totally subjective thing. Some people obviously enjoyed the movie exactly as is, but I think a lot of people who saw it would disagree.

Exactly.
Some liked the length great. Others didn't. Thats fine too. the argument those that didn't somehow don't like good science fiction is a bit snobbish, and frankly infantile. I loved his previous work: Arrival, but I didn't fault those who didn't by arguing they somehow just aren't up to snuff.

Everyone can have differing opinions and tastes and thats ok. Unless of course you don't like African Queen, in which case die in a fire you piece of gak!



To the movie itself. Wouldn't the manufacturer know if their model is capable of reproduction? This isn't Jurassic Park-nature finding a way. You either have the machinery or you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
After the orphan slaver cannot find the relevant records
Spoiler:
K reluctantly faces the possibility that he has memories of the place. By this point, Ana has already told him that the memories in question are not artificial. So no matter how short or long the scene is, the point of the scene is clearly not a reveal precisely because whether the memories are real has already been established. Saying the scene could have made that point in less time is a non sequitur since that is not the point the scene was acted and shot and edited to make. The point was K's extreme reluctance to face it - hence why it needed to be slow and why, in its conclusion, the soundscape had grown so overpowering.

The scene is about a character who gets by in his gakky life by not having to blame himself for anything he does or feels - that character is inexorably but painfully drawn down a path of realization that he's been living some kind of terrible lie and in fact all the blood is on his hands.
It's probably worthwhile spending some time thinking about the scene before suggesting it should have been done differently.


OK this brings up a real problem I had with the film. Certain moments the "soundscape" (good word!) became physically painful. This iss a high end-pay $20 per ticket so the sound equipment functions perfectly (as does the bar!).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 20:41:32


Post by: Manchu


 Frazzled wrote:
the argument those that didn't somehow don't like good science fiction is a bit snobbish, and frankly infantile.
The trouble is, confusing [what is good] with [what I like]. A great example for me is Game of Thrones. I read about half of the first book and I have seen an episode of the show, plus bits and pieces. The parts of the book I read were extremely well written and the characters seemed to be drawn with an engaging amount of dimension. Similarly, the television show is beautifully produced and acted, so far as I can tell. I just don't like it. Can't get into it, for whatever reason. But the reason isn't that it's bad. No doubt BR2049 is not a film that everyone is going to like. I mean, it's a flop. But it is a very, very good movie.
 Frazzled wrote:
Wouldn't the manufacturer know if their model is capable of reproduction?
What something appears to be depends on how one looks at it. It's easy to imagine that replicants aren't people if you look at them as the product of science and industry. But the truth is in the name. Cut into a replicant and you will find some serial numbers - but the serial numbers are emblazoned on tissues that were not the invention of a human mind. The achievements of Wallace and Tyrell aren't acts of creation in the divine sense. They tinkered with the work of the true Creator. They looked into the mysteries of His work and saw some of what was there, and missed other things.
 Frazzled wrote:
Certain moments the "soundscape" (good word!) became physically painful.
You saw Arrival so you probably know Villeneuve likes to vibrate the theater during important moments. It's part of how he creates tension. When I was watching the scene described above, I asked myself
Spoiler:
I already know he will find the horse so why am I so invested in seeing this? The answer, of course, is because it's not about finding the horse, it's about how K is going to deal with that overwhelming moment. And so the sound (not music) there is also overwhelming as the realness of reality bears down on K.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 20:51:45


Post by: Frazzled


In reverse;
1. Yea, but it needs to dial back a bit. My complaint about the painful level is not the only one. Again. I liked Arrival so am familiar, this was..over the top.
2. Replicant reproduction. I don't mean aetherially. It seemed in the movie that it was a major deal to the manufacturer that they could reproduce. However, it had to be designed into the product for it to occur. He didn't know that, or what was his deal? After all, once they can self replicate its pretty much the end of his manufacturing (that whole Slavery is Unconstitutional and frankly fethed up thing). Moving them from machines to life kills his company. The stockholders will not be pleased.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 21:02:24


Post by: Manchu


What do you mean, "aetherially"?

The issue is, human beings are not products. Tyrell and Wallace figured out how to copy what already existed in nature. It was an achievement but they didn't invent humans. Replicants, as the name conveys, are replicated humans. Sure, the scientists tinker with them to make them X degrees stronger or quicker. But that is negligible stuff compared to the existence of sentient life.

As mentioned ITT, what is the only actual difference between a person and a replicant? The answer is the latter is manufactured rather than born. But if a replicant is born then the distinction vanishes and the truth, which was always there, becomes apparent - replicants are just people. They always have been people.

AFAIK Wallace studied Tyrell's records and determined a replicant could bear a child. He could not figure out how to make a replicant that could do so.

His goal is not to make money. He's well beyond that, as a megalomaniac with a god complex. He wants to "save humanity," which apparently means "replacing" the human population with replicants - or, once you realize there is no difference, ushering in the next era of human evolution, which he believes will parallel mankind's conquest of the stars.

As to the sound being painfully loud: it's meant to be. The length of the movie is a close analog. I really badly needed to use the restroom with about 45 minutes to go. It was also a painful experience but I could not tear myself away from the screen. It wasn't that the movie was too long. The movie is as long as it needs to be. I just shouldn't have gotten a soda.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 21:07:47


Post by: Frazzled


But he's not replacing humans with replicants. They are human too, and thus his company is now bankrupt and he committed felony murder.

As to the sound, if its meant to cause me pain, then I have a legal action against him for failure to warn.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 21:12:49


Post by: Manchu


Yeah he is effectively replacing humans because the implication is that humans are too weak to be fruitful and multiply among the stars. Whereas normal humans have only managed to colonize nine systems, Wallace believes that replicants can colonize many times more if only there can be some order of magnitude more of them.

Good luck with your case.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/25 23:19:33


Post by: yakface


 Manchu wrote:
Yeah he is effectively replacing humans because the implication is that humans are too weak to be fruitful and multiply among the stars. Whereas normal humans have only managed to colonize nine systems, Wallace believes that replicants can colonize many times more if only there can be some order of magnitude more of them.

I'm still on the fence about exactly what his plan is/was.

He mentioned that all the great accomplishments in human civilization were made on the backs of slave populace. The way he said that made me think that he was still planning on trying to sell replicants as a product/slave even after he was able to get them to reproduce, not necessarily to completely replace the human population (although that could also be his intention).

His willingness to inflict needless pain on replicants (slashing the stomach of one that was newly born, shooting the 'Rachel' replicant in the head to punish Deckard) shows that he doesn't have reverence for them as a replacement for humanity. Instead, I imagine that he would have a giant breeding facility (and then likely 'fix' those replicants being sold out into the world).

But like much of the movie, it is pretty nebulous (in a good way), so there are multiple possibilities all of which are both right/wrong until (if) they come out with more info in more sequels.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 06:36:05


Post by: Manchu


Wallace's speech (and actions) indicates he has no interest in being humane. He cares about the species, not about individual persons. My takeaway is, Wallace believes people have gotten too precious about individual lives and the dignity of those lives, that this attitude is holding back human development, and that the rate at which humanity is branching out to the stars is slow-unto-extinction.

Consider that in the past humans did not need a replicant/human distinction to justify mass exploitation. In the conquest of the New World, for example, something as biologically insignificant as skin color was enough to distinguish true humans from less-than-true-humans for the purpose of cruelly but profitably enslaving one another. So it's not necessarily the case that replicants will be the slaves of naturally evolved humans. Rather, someone will have to be slaves. It's a historical certainty, given the scope of human ambition.

Replacement of naturally evolved humans is a logical necessity. Replicants are engineered to be more suited to the hardships of harsh environments. A genepool more suited to its environment will naturally outbreed one that is less fit. Naturally evolved humans, even using manufactured replicant slave labor, have only managed to colonize nine worlds because of their physical and moral fragility. Wallace expects biologically reproducing replicants to make exponentially better progress.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 12:59:41


Post by: vonjankmon


Manchu you obviously liked the directing and editing decisions made in the movie and that's great, you are by no means alone on that front. A lot of people really loved the movie, including a few people in the group I saw it with.

However you seem to be under the impression that anyone that doesn't agree with you didn't understand the movie, or understand what they were trying to do in each scene. I assure you that between my wife and myself, we understood what was being attempted in each scene and in the movie over all. We just felt that it could have been handled in a shorter fashion while still achieving the goal.

In my opinion K standing around looking bored for a minute didn't show any reluctance on his part, just how panicky and oddly incompetent the orphanage owner was.

I am a bit sad that the movie is not doing better though, while I do think it could have used some more editing it was not shallow, which is a common complaint I have about a lot of movies now and it being a bit longer than I thought it should have been is much better in my opinion that having to sit through a BayFormers movie.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 14:22:45


Post by: Manchu


Hold up, you not understanding the scene has nothing to do with us disagreeing about its length. You complained that the scene should be cut down to get to "the reveal." There is no reveal in the scene. The scene is not about what K will find - the audience already knows that. Whether the scene is too long or long enough is a separate issue from the more basic question of what the scene is about.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 16:38:35


Post by: vonjankmon


Alright, I'm done. Manchu you have decided that I did not understand the movie so it's not possible to have a discussion with you about it because you're working from the assumption that I'm wrong from the very beginning.

Glad you enjoyed it though and I wish it had done better at the box office because good Sci-Fi is so hard to come by when it does show up I'm always sad when it doesn't do well.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 16:44:01


Post by: sebster


 vonjankmon wrote:
While I enjoyed the movie, I agree with you Frazzled that is was likely close to 45 minutes to long. And honestly it was almost entirely due to individual scene length, no the actual number of scenes, a good editor could have cut out 30 minutes without a problem and vastly improved the movie. I mean really how long do we need to watch K stand around while a guy frantically turns to *EVERY* page in a book other than the ones he is trying to find? 30 seconds right there that could easily have been cut that added *nothing* to the movie, not atmosphere, suspense, exposition, nothing and there were a lot of periods like that in the movie.


When your wife did video in college she likely would have been asked to do an exercise where they clap with each edit. They will do this for older movies, where the claps are spaced out but holding to a slow rhythm, and they would do this to more recent films, where the claps will be much faster, but often with little or no rhythm. The purpose of this isn't just to show that editing has changed over time, but to get the class to think about editing and how it impacts the feel of a scene. Long single shots can build tension, quick back and forths between two characters in a dialogue can give the feel of a debate, a battle of wits. That kind of thing.

Bladerunner 2049 held a rhythm similar to older movies, longer cuts, longer scenes. Your later point about the scene with the book indicates you seem to think once a scene has delivered all the information it needs to it should move on. That couldn't be further from what good editing is all about, to be honest. Whether cuts and scenes are fast or slow is an artistic choice for the movie, a technique the director and editor use to impact the viewer. It absolutely isn't about ending a scene when the plot point has been delivered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
2. Replicant reproduction. I don't mean aetherially. It seemed in the movie that it was a major deal to the manufacturer that they could reproduce. However, it had to be designed into the product for it to occur. He didn't know that, or what was his deal? After all, once they can self replicate its pretty much the end of his manufacturing (that whole Slavery is Unconstitutional and frankly fethed up thing). Moving them from machines to life kills his company. The stockholders will not be pleased.


Like every mega-rich super genius in a dystopian future, he didn't seem that bothered about money any more. He had dreams that had nothing to do with maximising shareholder value.

I used to have a problem with this, in stuff like the Aliens movies where Weyland Yutani clearly should have stopped pouring good money after bad in their various xenomorph programs. But now watching real world mega-rich people like Bill Gates. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg hit a point where they actually don't care about money and instead on global impact special interest projects, its probably one of the more believable parts of all these sci-fi stories.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 17:45:28


Post by: Manchu


vonjankmon, if you think the scene was about the reveal you could explain why rather than blatantly mischaracterizing my point as an assumption. Of course it's perfectly valid to declare you didn't enjoy how long certain scenes are. It's quite another thing to say you know how the scene should have been edited, especially considering you misidentified the point of the scene. I definitely agree with you, however, that BR2049 bombing is hard blow to sci fi - especially considering Villeneuve is set to direct Dune. That budget will be cut, at the very least.

sebster, the clapping exercise thing (Mark Kermode?) is so helpful - I love it when people like me in the general audience get little bits of film school like that from critics. I wish more people, both the critics and us regular "folks at home" would use these references to talk about movies because it illuminates how artistic choice is not just a matter of taste but also skill. Great point about IRL billionaires, too. In an episode of Star Trek Discovery, Elon Musk is name dropped as one of the great heroic innovators. TBH he strikes me more like ... a Bond villain.

W-Y (from the first two movies anyway) is still scarier to me than a guy like Wallace precisely because W-Y isn't driven by a single personality. Instead, it is this lumbering, insensate colossus that indifferently crushes whatever gets in its way. And this enormous beast is infested with scheming parasites, like Burke. Burke is scarier, to me, than Wallace.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 20:32:51


Post by: Pacific



 Manchu wrote:
When I was watching the scene described above, I asked myself
Spoiler:
I already know he will find the horse so why am I so invested in seeing this? The answer, of course, is because it's not about finding the horse, it's about how K is going to deal with that overwhelming moment. And so the sound (not music) there is also overwhelming as the realness of reality bears down on K.


That was such a powerful moment, and I'm sure I was holding my breath (probably for too long) as it built up to it.

Spoiler:
The moment at the end where K is lying out on the steps with the falling snow and the Vangelis track (from the original) kicks in, the warmth you get from that nostalgia fitted perfectly to lift you as a viewer to try and feel as K himself feels at that moment. Just beautiful, I think he certainly understands the efficacy of using audio to lift the entire experience


The music was worked similarly well in Sicario, which again is an extremely arresting film (if you can stomach parts of it).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 21:32:19


Post by: Manchu


That is an excellent point about feeling what K feels. I was chatting about the film with my buddy who saw it with me and he made a similar point. Another scene along those lines is when
Spoiler:
Freysa tells K he isn't the child. Whew, that was a hard moment.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 22:55:46


Post by: Howard A Treesong



The sequel retroactively establishes that Rachel was part of a short-lived prototype line of replicants designated "Nexus-7", which was not only intended as a test to make replicants more mentally stable with implanted memories, but to develop replicants capable of naturally conceiving children on their own (all other models before or since are sterile). Rachel died in childbirth in 2021, and the child was hidden by the replicant underground.

In 2020, Tyrell Corporation introduced the Nexus-8 replicant, built with open lifespans not limited to only four years. Tyrell himself had been killed during the events of the first movie in November 2019, and the secret of producing replicants that can procreate died with him. The Nexus-8 went into mass production, but a new wave of replicant rebellions occurred, culminating in rogue Nexus-8's detonating a nuclear weapon in orbit over the western United States, to create an EMP pulse that wiped out all of the electronic records. "The Blackout" destroyed most records about replicants, making it difficult for humans to track them down on Earth, but the terrorist attack led to mass purge and complete shutdown of Nexus-8 production (though many existing units were able to go into hiding in the chaos).

In 2036, however, genetic engineer Niander Wallace designed a new line of "Nexus-9" replicants. They also have an open lifespan, but were designed to be unable to resist orders given by a human, even if that order is to commit suicide. Wallace Corporation had solved a global food crisis with genetically modified crops, which combined with the demonstrated effectiveness of Nexus-9 programming, allowed him to successfully push for the ban on replicant production to be lifted.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

I was looking done stuff up and, well, was any of the middle section here stated in the film? They mentioned the blackout several times but while this explanation sorts out many details of which generations of replicant were made when and what became of them, where's this coming from?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 23:35:11


Post by: chromedog


Not in the film, no - but it was all on the "Road to 2049" website that was put up as part of the promotion for the movie.

Including the timeline stuff.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/26 23:54:39


Post by: yakface


 chromedog wrote:
Not in the film, no - but it was all on the "Road to 2049" website that was put up as part of the promotion for the movie.

Including the timeline stuff.

Well, the movie did mention that there were replicant rebellions that led to them being banned in the introductory text. But it didn't mention that the whole EMP/blackout thing was caused by those rebellions.

But yeah, anyone who hasn't watched the short films associated with BR2049, totally should.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 00:38:11


Post by: Luciferian


Blade Runner is my favorite film so I had a lot of interest in this one. I think they pulled it off fairly well, but I don't think it quite matches the original. It is beautifully shot, acted and scored. However, it doesn't quite have the intimacy and brutality that the first one did. Blade Runner made a point of showing you the minds and idiosyncrasies of each character through their attachment to objects of sentimental value, their memories, and their relationships. Whether any of it was real or imagined didn't quite matter; all those little things still added up to make each individual who they were, and indeed, to make them each human in spite of any indications to the contrary. It gave you a sense of urgency for what was at stake, especially for Batty and his crew.
Spoiler:

On the other hand, K felt somewhat more expendable. The first movie featured characters defying fate in order to fulfill and affirm their very existence, but 2049's K jumps headlong into a fate which only serves to punctuate the emptiness of his own existence as a tool to be used by others. Instead of being a character who forms very real human bonds and associations in spite of his artificial status, everything in his life is either fake or someone else's. The ending doesn't give you a sense of loss for him more than a release from servitude or simply an object whose inertia has run its course.

I can appreciate, however, how the same themes from the first movie were kind of explored from different angles in this one. There were some interesting inversions - for example, the first movie has you questioning whether Deckard is unwittingly manufactured, whereas 2049 has you question whether K is unwittingly "real".


That minor difference in tone and the perceived lack of intimacy when compared to the original are the only things I can really complain about in this movie, though. Other than that I found it to be a very good film; honestly much better than I dared to hope.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 05:43:17


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
sebster, the clapping exercise thing (Mark Kermode?) is so helpful - I love it when people like me in the general audience get little bits of film school like that from critics. I wish more people, both the critics and us regular "folks at home" would use these references to talk about movies because it illuminates how artistic choice is not just a matter of taste but also skill.


I like Kermode but I haven't watched him for a while. I don't remember him mentioning the clapping test. I know from friends who've done film at one level or another who explained it to me.. I even went to do it once, but I got distracted and forgot about within by like the second scene.

Great point about IRL billionaires, too. In an episode of Star Trek Discovery, Elon Musk is name dropped as one of the great heroic innovators. TBH he strikes me more like ... a Bond villain.


I have to get around to watching Discovery. I guess maybe the point here is that in movies these characters tend to get placed in either the Bond villain or the genius inventory role, but in real life these are complex people with many good and bad features.

W-Y (from the first two movies anyway) is still scarier to me than a guy like Wallace precisely because W-Y isn't driven by a single personality. Instead, it is this lumbering, insensate colossus that indifferently crushes whatever gets in its way. And this enormous beast is infested with scheming parasites, like Burke. Burke is scarier, to me, than Wallace.


That's a good point, and I feel the same.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 12:26:51


Post by: Frazzled




Glad you enjoyed it though and I wish it had done better at the box office because good Sci-Fi is so hard to come by when it does show up I'm always sad when it doesn't do well.

Ditto! Intellectual sci fi should always be supported.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 13:35:16


Post by: welshhoppo


Just saw an advert on Crunchyroll for a Blade Runner 2022 Blackout.


Wonder if it's canon?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 14:35:53


Post by: Manchu


It is one of the three short films commissioned to market BR2049 ... so yep.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 16:51:32


Post by: Howard A Treesong


I really liked the touch that both Atari and PanAm are still going strong in the alternate future of 2049, a nice nod to the original film when their existence was unremarkable.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 16:55:09


Post by: Galef


 Manchu wrote:
It is one of the three short films commissioned to market BR2049 ... so yep.

Aren't those 2022, 2036 and 2048?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 17:13:31


Post by: Manchu


 welshhoppo wrote:
Just saw an advert on Crunchyroll for a Blade Runner 2022 Blackout.
 Galef wrote:
Aren't those 2022, 2036 and 2048?
???


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 17:41:02


Post by: MarkNorfolk


I haven't seen the shorts yet, but what I took away from the movie about Wallace is that he wants to move from replicant manufacturer (where he has to make them) to slave breeder (where they make themselves and he controls them).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 18:37:18


Post by: welshhoppo


MarkNorfolk wrote:
I haven't seen the shorts yet, but what I took away from the movie about Wallace is that he wants to move from replicant manufacturer (where he has to make them) to slave breeder (where they make themselves and he controls them).



I think Wallace is an interesting character.

Spoiler:
He seems to have an odd relationship with the Nexus-9. He calls them his children, yet he will happily gut one because she cannot reproduce.

I think, either he is still jelous and annoyed with Tyrell for making a superior model and having an inferiority complex, or he's annoyed that all his children are "flawed" in his eyes.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 19:33:02


Post by: Manchu


I think he is certainly using the word "children" in a very abstract, metaphorical sense. Again, Wallace cares about the species rather than individuals. By contrast, Deckard in that conversation is talking only about individuals.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 20:35:10


Post by: welshhoppo


 Manchu wrote:
I think he is certainly using the word "children" in a very abstract, metaphorical sense. Again, Wallace cares about the species rather than individuals. By contrast, Deckard in that conversation is talking only about individuals.



The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.


But I suppose it's the difference between Deckard and Wallace. Plenty of people would cause the death of many unknown people to save the life of their own child.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/27 23:35:55


Post by: chromedog


 Manchu wrote:
 welshhoppo wrote:
Just saw an advert on Crunchyroll for a Blade Runner 2022 Blackout.
 Galef wrote:
Aren't those 2022, 2036 and 2048?
???


Yes, those are the years focused on in those shorts. 2022:Blackout, 2036: Nexus Dawn and 2048: Nowhere to run.

Key events in the timeline from 2019 to 2049.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/30 21:31:48


Post by: Thargrim


http://collider.com/blade-runner-2049-deleted-scenes-hologram-fight/#joe-walker

They almost cut the fight between K and Deckard in the hologram showroom. Thankfully they didn't...it's a shame to hear about the apparently awesome Vegas entry/flyover that got cut though. Based on the art and designs i've seen it would have been epic. Really wish Denis would consider doing an extended cut, even though he said he doesn't do those.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/10/30 23:27:04


Post by: welshhoppo


 Thargrim wrote:
http://collider.com/blade-runner-2049-deleted-scenes-hologram-fight/#joe-walker

They almost cut the fight between K and Deckard in the hologram showroom. Thankfully they didn't...it's a shame to hear about the apparently awesome Vegas entry/flyover that got cut though. Based on the art and designs i've seen it would have been epic. Really wish Denis would consider doing an extended cut, even though he said he doesn't do those.


Maybe Ridley will get involved and they'll release 3 cuts with 3 different endings and then not tell anyone which is the right one for the next 30 years until Blade Runner 2069 comes out.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/12/14 20:27:43


Post by: Thargrim


So there wont be any deleted scenes for this on the disc. Comes out in digital on the 26th of this month and january 16th for the physical copies. Best buy is selling two nice steelbook versions...I'm debating on getting the 4k one even though I only have a standard blu ray player and tv. I cant wait until January to see it again so looks like I'm buying it twice regardless.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/12/14 20:39:02


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


Surely you jest,

deleted scenes on a 1st run disc? No, we all need to buy that so they can release a 2nd version with some of the deleted scenes, and then a 3rd one with more (probably with and edited version of the movie but not the cinema release)


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/12/14 20:45:55


Post by: Thargrim


 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Surely you jest,

deleted scenes on a 1st run disc? No, we all need to buy that so they can release a 2nd version with some of the deleted scenes, and then a 3rd one with more (probably with and edited version of the movie but not the cinema release)


I thought prometheus and alien covenant had some on the initial release. But denis said he isnt fond of revealing deleted scenes since he said once a scene is cut its dead. In the end though we may get a bundle of the original and 2049 together in a special case in a few years with new features.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/12/15 16:16:27


Post by: Kaiyanwang


Looking forward to the disk. I loved the movie and it kills me that did not had the same popularity of a lot of worse made crap.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/12/15 19:51:14


Post by: Xenomancers


 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Looking forward to the disk. I loved the movie and it kills me that did not had the same popularity of a lot of worse made crap.
Starwars in particular. Blade runner just blows starwars out of the water.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/12/15 20:33:36


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Looking forward to the disk. I loved the movie and it kills me that did not had the same popularity of a lot of worse made crap.
Starwars in particular. Blade runner just blows starwars out of the water.

Spot on.
At the cost of sounding cheesy, is a miracle a movie like 2049 happened.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/12/15 20:46:37


Post by: Fractal Basilisk


I adore 2049, and am stunned it was even made. How much artistry and love went into this?

Treating the viewer with respect was a huge portion: Look at the relationships between K and his Wife. He then later encounters the vulgar hologram advertising Joi, and silently gains a new understanding of what they had. Then, he takes action to give himself actualization in life.

Truly, a miracle this film was made and sure to be a cult film for years.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2017/12/16 02:59:50


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 Fractal Basilisk wrote:
I adore 2049, and am stunned it was even made. How much artistry and love went into this?
Treating the viewer with respect

So much this. Also I love how Joi is somewhat the new "is Deckard a replicant". You can interpret her character in at least 2 ways.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/19 19:43:04


Post by: trexmeyer


I watched it again now that it's out.

I really want to love this movie, but I can't. It's still good, but I absolutely despise the last third of it or so simply from a storytelling perspective. I appreciate what it is trying to do, but the "twist" concerning K left a bad taste in my mouth the first time and the second viewing did nothing to improve it.
I can't think of another movie that is so visually stunning, has such great performances, and is also such an absolute letdown at the end.





Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/19 19:57:04


Post by: Kaiyanwang


The "twist" is the point of the movie. If K became, say, part of the resistance or saved his boss from Luv, he would have remained a thing, a tool, that follows the order of others.
He used to think that being born means having a soul, but then Joi is killed and he has the bridge scene (the purple light one).

That scene is the new "is Deckard a replicant" and can be interpreted in one of these two ways:

I) K understands that the Joi he sees on the bridge is not "his" Joi, is a shallow fake that is only cosmetically similar to his "true" one. "His" Joi decided to become mortal (and paid for it), a "real girl", but follow the humanity she started to feel thank to him, as an act of absolute Will. Now is his turn for an act of that kind.
II) K understands that Joi is illusory and is made only to keep him in a bubble in which she says what he wants to hear. The twist comes as a realization of being entrapped within illusions, mostly created by himself. An act of absolute Will as before (and as before, dictated in part by empathy) is now nuanced with a shade of impulse for maturity.

If K is the "chosen", his acts (regardless what he decides to do with the resistance) are less interesting. The fact that he is really a nobody gives more importance to his decision.

He cannot kill Wallace, is not powerful enough arguably.. this is not the genre we could say. Wallace is the arrogant (and "blind") Demiurge that came to power after God-Tyrell fell. Is beyond his reach.
But this does not mean K cannot embrace the empathy and free will just discovered and follow them.
Arguably, is partly what Johnson wanted to do with Rey, but is nowhere as much skilled in writing as the people involved in 2049.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/19 20:43:46


Post by: Manchu


By "twist" do you guys mean, that K is a replicant after all?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/19 20:45:46


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 Manchu wrote:
By "twist" do you guys mean, that K is a replicant after all?

This is what I understood. I based my answer to trexmeyer to this, he will correct me if I did not get what he said.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/19 22:05:54


Post by: Manchu


I ask because I think it's arguable.

Does the movie try to convince you that K isn't a replicant? Or does the movie try to get you to feel what K is feeling? If it's just the former, then sure that's a twist. But if it's the latter then I think the movie is inviting us to experience, along with K, the sometimes razor-fine distinction between hope and denial.

You know, this is a movie you can think about more and the more you think about it, the more you realize how good it is. I don't know what I will think about certain elements of the film years from now but for now I believe:

(a) K knows that he's a replicant, and so the audience knows it as well; he just dares to hope otherwise - as do we; and

(b) Joi is just a highly responsive app onto which K projects the interior emotional life he cannot afford to personally express


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/19 22:16:48


Post by: chromedog


"Her eyes were green" is also a musical interlude piece in the original soundtrack, btw.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/20 03:02:54


Post by: Lance845


I do not think the movie ever expects you to think k is not a replicant. Hes too strong right from the get go. Its never in question that he is a replicant, even if he was a "born" replicant. (Which he isnt).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/20 05:18:26


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Manchu wrote:
I ask because I think it's arguable.

Does the movie try to convince you that K isn't a replicant? Or does the movie try to get you to feel what K is feeling? If it's just the former, then sure that's a twist. But if it's the latter then I think the movie is inviting us to experience, along with K, the sometimes razor-fine distinction between hope and denial.

You know, this is a movie you can think about more and the more you think about it, the more you realize how good it is. I don't know what I will think about certain elements of the film years from now but for now I believe:

(a) K knows that he's a replicant, and so the audience knows it as well; he just dares to hope otherwise - as do we; and

(b) Joi is just a highly responsive app onto which K projects the interior emotional life he cannot afford to personally express


Re: a) do you mean he hopes he is more than just a replicant?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/20 12:13:39


Post by: Nevelon


I think one of the themes of the movie revolves around does it matter if he is? What is Life/Soul/etc? IIRC the rebellion leader near the end says something along the lines of “being willing to die for your cause is the most human thing”

We have Joi, who is just a computer program. Is she just running code? Is she a person. She acts like a person, and is willing to risk/sacrifice herself for the one she loves. Or some facsimile thereof. Is she a real girl?

We have K. Who is a replicant. He starts as a cog in the machine, but throughout the movie we witness his coming of age story into a real person. The tipping point for that is the bridge scene. If his Joi was willing to make a human-like sacrifice, was she just a program? Or a person? She started as the hologram, but grew to be the woman who loved him. If she could do that, what’s his excuse not to fight for what he believes in?

IMHO the major theme in the movie is “what does it mean to be alive?” We have programs, replicants, and humans, all showing various facets of life and free will, of soul and body. And we aren’t spoon fed and answer, but need to think about it.

Which is the best hallmark of quality sci-fi.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/20 14:11:21


Post by: Manchu


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Re: a) do you mean he hopes he is more than just a replicant?
Yeah, I think he hopes that he is "real" because, as a replicant working for the man, he thinks of himself as "fake," i.e., less than human.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon, yeah there is a major theme of how prejudice works. You have this line between human and replicant. But that line creates other lines, like when Mariette sees that K has a Joi phone and she's like "oh you don't like real girls." So there's a hierarchy of realness and fakeness. It's obviously very important to the replicant female characters in the movie to establish that, although might be fake in a sense, Joi is even less than them.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/22 03:58:53


Post by: trexmeyer


The "twist" is that K is not the offspring of Rachael and Deckard. It's a given that he's a replicant. He runs through walls.



Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/22 07:10:50


Post by: chromedog


K is a replicant. This is made rather obvious by Sapper's comments as well as the other cops at the station - also several residents of his apartment building. Including the old Hungarian lady who makes her distaste for the skinjob known. (Yes, I know they shot a lot of it in Hungary, and the language has been a part of "cityspeak" since EJO used it in the original (He calls Deckard "Horse c**k" in Hungarian.) and he calls him "Pensioner/retired person" in this one).
The is he/isn't he a replicant isn't the mystery in this movie. It's blatant out and out "he is one".


The memories of the wooden horse, etc are meant to lead you to believe that he MAY be "the child", but that child was female.

Spoiler:
I had a feeling it would turn out to be Dr Stelline, the memories implant specialist in the bubble. Her resemblance to a young Sean Young was a big clue.


The "real girls" comment is also a reference to another Ryan Gosling movie ("Lars and the real girl") because Villeneuve is a fan of his work.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/24 09:44:36


Post by: Lance845


 trexmeyer wrote:
The "twist" is that K is not the offspring of Rachael and Deckard. It's a given that he's a replicant. He runs through walls.



And gets his head repeatedly smashed into one until it breaks.(the wall not his head)


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/24 20:09:45


Post by: Manchu


 trexmeyer wrote:
The "twist" is that K is not the offspring of Rachael and Deckard. It's a given that he's a replicant.
This sort of begs the question. Replicants are manufactured, people are born - according to the film.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/24 21:14:41


Post by: chromedog


He goes toe-to-toe with Sapper Morton (combat medic nexus 8, but still a soldier) and comes out much better than Deckard did against a superannuated nexus 7. Even if Deckard WAS quite a bit "older" than he is.

Even the other replicants don't like him (Mariette's 'friends' - the other "pleasure models"). One of them calls him "motherf***er" in Finnish (to be fair, she (that actress) IS Finnish, though).

He's the decoy for "the child". Not the child.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/24 21:57:24


Post by: Manchu


???

Yes, it's clear from the beginning that K has "superhuman" strength and endurance. That's not the measuring stick of being real versus fake. How one comes into the world is the measuring stick.

Remember, Replicants aren't robots. In terms of tissues and organs, there's no difference between manufactured and natural human beings. Tyrell & Co. figured out how to "build" humans from the ground up, rather than merely breeding them or cloning them.

Point is, the outcome is judged by the process. That's why the crucial issue in BR2049 is the (in)ability of manufactured people ("Replicants") to procreate.

If K was born then he's "real" - thus the purported twist is that, despite the emotional arc allowing us to hope otherwise, K was not born.

Other Replicants don't like K because he's a Blade Runner.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/24 22:50:49


Post by: welshhoppo


Now the real question is still whether Deckard is a replicant?


But yes, the idea is that he's created and not born.


Being born would mean that he has a soul.

But he comes to terms with the fact that you don't not need to be born to have a soul.


God I need to watch this film again, maybe back to back with the blu Ray of the original.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/24 22:56:41


Post by: Galef


I like the contrast between K and Roy from the original

Roy makes his "tears in the rain" speak about how he has all these memories that are his and no one else's and that when he dies, they are lost

K, otoh, says that all his best memories are "hers". Meaning that his memories will live on. And he is at peace with that.

-


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/24 23:02:58


Post by: Manchu


Does it really matter whether Deckard is a replicant? Stelline was born, rather than manufactured, regardless.

The relevance of Stelline being born is, it nullifies the born/manufactured distinction. In other words, result turns out to be more important than process. Life can come forth from the womb of a manufactured person.

Like all such prejudices, this one seems a bit silly after it becomes irrelevant.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/25 00:37:03


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 Galef wrote:
I like the contrast between K and Roy from the original

Roy makes his "tears in the rain" speak about how he has all these memories that are his and no one else's and that when he dies, they are lost

K, otoh, says that all his best memories are "hers". Meaning that his memories will live on. And he is at peace with that.

-

This is a very nice one.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/30 16:02:08


Post by: jmurph


Deckard is pretty heavily implied a replicant in this film. It is the whole reason why Wallace wants the child. Wallace even asks him if he ever wondered if he was specifically designed to fall for Rachel. Also, it seems like the whole 2 replicants having a child thing is pretty integral to the story (since they are supposed to be incapable).

Which is a pretty stupid conceit to begin with, that artificially birthed humans are not human. Of course they are, just as sterile humans are still humans. The whole movie was an overlong exercise in navel gazing that missed good opportunities to showcase how people dehumanize others so long as it benefits them. It also had a surprisingly sexist narrative (women are largely either lovers, mothers, and daughters that need to be protected or whores and killers- even the one strong female officer is largely masculine and asexual, meanwhile *every* sex worker is female) that took place in a very white future. Seriously, not 1 black or Latino in power in Los Angeles? And othering through the eyes of Ryan Gosling (who can turn his girlfriend on and off at will and exists only to please him, BTW)? Really? It's a movie about white people liberating other white people, more specifically intergenerational power struggles between heterosexual white males, which is shockingly tone deaf in a world where we still have constant persecution of racial, gender, religious, and sexual identity groups. It is a pretty, vacant, dull film.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/30 18:21:01


Post by: Manchu


BR2049 inherited the classic debate about Deckard and consciously decided to leave well enough alone. That question is totally irrelevant to Wallace, other than as part of his attempt to manipulate Deckard. It's also irrelevant to the story of BR2049. What actually matters is Rachel: she's not supposed to be able to bear children and yet ...

The prejudices of a culture often seem absurd to outsiders. This is also the case with respect to a fictional setting. If you ignore or even simply overlooked the exposition, you will probably have trouble understanding the prejudice against Replicants. However, much of this exposition is implicit because, I think, the film wants you to be enough of an outsider to sympathize with K more than K sympathizes with himself.

K is not an outsider to his world; the prejudice he encounters makes sense to him. He has internalized it. He has constructed his external personality and internal emotional life to deal with it. We see a fellow police officer scream bigoted insults at him in the halls of the precinct. We see the same slur scrawled across the door of his apartment. K doesn't let it affect him, at least not visibly. He just does his job.

That's the way he sees himself: an object designed to accomplish its purpose. And that's the core of the prejudice against Replicants. Going back to why Replicants exist in the first place, humanity needed slave labor "for use off-world." Replicants are not clones. They are built from the ground up, in imitation of humans. By the later models, the imitation was so great that Tyrell could boast that Replicants were "more human than human."

It's foolish to criticize BR2049 for not portraying non-whites in power. First, the highest civil authority depicted in the film is a police captain (who is a woman). The most powerful person (and least human) in the film is its villain, who is (par for the course) a white male. Second, more powerful officials are portrayed in BR2036 Nexus Dawn: one white man, one white woman, one East Asian man, and one black man.

Criticizing the film as misogynistic is like criticizing Starship Troopers for being fascist; it's a great way to gauge who totally missed the point of the film. Joi is a projection of K's suppressed desire to both give and receive human sympathy; the fact that she is treated as a "character" at all (rather than an element of K's characterization) is supposed to reflect poorly on K, as when Mariette notes that he "doesn't like real girls." Luv, too, is contemptuous of K's fetishization (she stomps the emanator). Moreover, K (like the audience) begins to believe that he is the Chosen One only to find out (from a woman) that not only is he nobody but the Chosen One is yet another woman.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/30 19:53:19


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 jmurph wrote:

Which is a pretty stupid conceit to begin with, that artificially birthed humans are not human. Of course they are, just as sterile humans are still humans. The whole movie was an overlong exercise in navel gazing that missed good opportunities to showcase how people dehumanize others so long as it benefits them.

In that world, for the people that live in it, replicants are not considered humans because they are made. Is the premise of the first movie. And both movies show that there is some difference in the inner world of Replicant and Humans in BR. Roy and K overcome that, but is part of what make them special from the point of view of an outsider.

It also had a surprisingly sexist narrative (women are largely either lovers, mothers, and daughters that need to be protected or whores and killers- even the one strong female officer is largely masculine and asexual, meanwhile *every* sex worker is female) that took place in a very white future.

The "sexist narrative" is an observation I found online very often in many bloggers/The guardian articles etc but is IMHO a very shallow interpretation of what happens. The director itself said that BR2049 is about today, not tomorrow. Should not a director show, and perhaps denounce, objectification (in case of the movie, literal objectification)?
If the police officer is asexual, why she hits on K?
The fact that a man, portrayed as evil, is trying to seize and control reproduction is an anti-feminist theme? Since when?
The male character is victim of a typical dynamic of an oppressive society on men: disposability. By the way, this is something that disturbed me deeply ready many commentators. Many were appalled by the violence on the women, but male disposability was assumed. A given.
This is not how is supposed to work.
Overall, the movie has a one of the main themes disposability. We see it in humans excluded by the society, degraded to poor scavengers, and in the child slaves.
Seriously, not 1 black or Latino in power in Los Angeles?

The old movie implies migration from east asia and europe. True that the new one shows one african. One of the prostitutes speaks Finnish. The soviet union is still up. Is a different world and I can imagine that what happened changed dramatically the migration patterns.
We are not sure that the ethnic composition of the population but who are we seeing in power other than Wallace? You wanted a latino wallace? What could have changed? You would have complained about the fact that the bad guy is latino?
Is almost 10 months I am in this country, and for the life of me, I still cannot understand this narrative omni-present in american media. Is almost as one can relate with characters only in base of the ethnicity. So I cannot watch The Seven Samurai because there are no Italians? When I was a kid I did it wrong because I liked Blade? Representation is important but should it overcome any artistic decision? The Thing by Carpenter is a bad movie because it has only men?

And othering through the eyes of Ryan Gosling (who can turn his girlfriend on and off at will and exists only to please him, BTW)? Really? It's a movie about white people liberating other white people,

Is about a self-discovering human saving other humans because an empathy discovered through shared memories.
The humanity is what is important. In the movie the walls are between humans and replicants. The amount of melanin is not an issue (as it should not be in real life).
I am sorry but I cannot help finding this statement racist.
Also, the "girlfriend" becomes possibly more and more independent until she gains humanity as well, unless you go with the interpretation that she is in fact an illusion (and he realizes that in the famous bridge scene).

more specifically intergenerational power struggles between heterosexual white males, which is shockingly tone deaf in a world where we still have constant persecution of racial, gender, religious, and sexual identity groups. It is a pretty, vacant, dull film.

1) Are you assuming the sexual inclinations of the characters? Even K and Deckard could be bisexual for what we know. Wallace could be anything, his kiss is a mere act of power (copied by Luv later in the movie, even if she has arguably second reasons).
2) You assume that a movie to be a metaphor of real life events must follow the same events in the same fashion. You can talk about segregation showing on film any group of humans, separated for any reason.
3) Is being an heterosexual white male something inherently bad? You make it sound like it is.
4) What do you think of the movie Hotel Rwanda?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/30 21:16:38


Post by: Lance845


There is no doubt that Decard is a replicant.

In the first movie when in the dark replicants eyes have a reflective quality to them not unlike cats or birds at night.

When you watch BR you will notice when he interrogates Rachel that her eyes have that quality. And at several points Decard is in similar lighting and you see his eyes are the same.

It's a dead give away you have to watch for. Watch the eyes.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/30 22:30:07


Post by: Manchu


There is no definitive answer. Sir Ridley insists that Deckard is a Replicant. Harrison Ford and screenwriter Hampton Fancher disagree. Denis Villeneuve intentionally did not answer it one way or the other. In BR2049, Gaff tells K that there was something about Deckard's eyes - this is a reference to the classic reflective eye theory, and the debate more generally. It's kind of a joke because in order to buy the eye theory you have to have already concluded that the glowing eye imagery is actually meant to signify Replicants, which even Sir Ripley hasn't outright claimed.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/31 08:00:59


Post by: Lance845


 Manchu wrote:
There is no definitive answer. Sir Ridley insists that Deckard is a Replicant. Harrison Ford and screenwriter Hampton Fancher disagree. Denis Villeneuve intentionally did not answer it one way or the other. In BR2049, Gaff tells K that there was something about Deckard's eyes - this is a reference to the classic reflective eye theory, and the debate more generally. It's kind of a joke because in order to buy the eye theory you have to have already concluded that the glowing eye imagery is actually meant to signify Replicants, which even Sir Ripley hasn't outright claimed.


Scott HAS claimed that. They went through a lot to try a get the effect. When they figured it out though a rig of light/mirror/ and screen they had to actually attach to the camera, it became something they used in specific scenes and only with specific characters. The director, who was in charge of all those shots, says hes a replicant and filmed it with all the evidence to say he was.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/31 15:37:01


Post by: jmurph


Some well thought out responses.Bear with me as I attempt to manage the embedded quotes.
 Kaiyanwang wrote:
 jmurph wrote:

Which is a pretty stupid conceit to begin with, that artificially birthed humans are not human. Of course they are, just as sterile humans are still humans. The whole movie was an overlong exercise in navel gazing that missed good opportunities to showcase how people dehumanize others so long as it benefits them.

In that world, for the people that live in it, replicants are not considered humans because they are made. Is the premise of the first movie. And both movies show that there is some difference in the inner world of Replicant and Humans in BR. Roy and K overcome that, but is part of what make them special from the point of view of an outsider.

I think this is addressed more in my point that the film is heavily a white hetero male narrative, and artificially trying to call them outsiders, whatever the conceit of the original stumbles now, so I will get back to this.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
 jmurph wrote:

It also had a surprisingly sexist narrative (women are largely either lovers, mothers, and daughters that need to be protected or whores and killers- even the one strong female officer is largely masculine and asexual, meanwhile *every* sex worker is female) that took place in a very white future.

The "sexist narrative" is an observation I found online very often in many bloggers/The guardian articles etc but is IMHO a very shallow interpretation of what happens. The director itself said that BR2049 is about today, not tomorrow. Should not a director show, and perhaps denounce, objectification (in case of the movie, literal objectification)?
If the police officer is asexual, why she hits on K?
The fact that a man, portrayed as evil, is trying to seize and control reproduction is an anti-feminist theme? Since when?
The male character is victim of a typical dynamic of an oppressive society on men: disposability. By the way, this is something that disturbed me deeply ready many commentators. Many were appalled by the violence on the women, but male disposability was assumed. A given.
This is not how is supposed to work.
Overall, the movie has a one of the main themes disposability. We see it in humans excluded by the society, degraded to poor scavengers, and in the child slaves.


First, I have noticed a reflexive tendency to defend the movie by saying "you don't get it". That is a bad argument that could apply equally well to those who don't see the sexism. So let's stick to the basis of our opinions and recognize different people with different experiences can reach different results.

Let's start with the director's comments- he states that it is about today and gives the whole spiel about caring about portrayals of women. So let's look at the portrayals. Women are the only ones portrayed as sexual objects and sex workers. There is no deep commentary- it's seems to be a continuation of in built assumptions. The movie spends a lot of time on the whole replicant/real person struggle but kinda treats these women as scenery. Men are the movers and shakers. Women are, at best, stand ins for male urges. They are not empowered in any way, and the film never really addresses that.

Wallace is a bad guy, clearly, and his obsession with recreating natural reproduction is not anti-feminist. But again, the problem is that it is all males driving the story. Women are still secondary objects. Even Joshi, who is the closest we get to a real female character, is heavily masculinized, and tragically underused. Which *could* have been played to subversive effect, but her hitting on K just shows that where they bring in her femininity, it is a typical romantic approach to the male lead. Not good. Why not just have her using her own pleasure model (with a clear shot of a handsome muscular model in full nude)? But, nope, women never get to show any true sexual control and it's all female sexual imagery. Mariette, likewise had potential as a strong character, but ends up being relegated to subservience.

Depictions of violence are tricky. Yes, there was violence against men, but it was generally two way- they guys at least got a chance. To that degree, I would disagree that the violence directed at Joi was particularly misogynistic (well, except to the degree that she is a pretty stereotypical negative female stereotype, but I digress). However, the violence towards non-combatants was much more one sided. Really, this wasn't a huge issue for me as the glorification of violence didn't seem excessive. It was more the lack of agency that was the issue.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
 jmurph wrote:

Seriously, not 1 black or Latino in power in Los Angeles?

The old movie implies migration from east asia and europe. True that the new one shows one african. One of the prostitutes speaks Finnish. The soviet union is still up. Is a different world and I can imagine that what happened changed dramatically the migration patterns.
We are not sure that the ethnic composition of the population but who are we seeing in power other than Wallace? You wanted a latino wallace? What could have changed? You would have complained about the fact that the bad guy is latino?
Is almost 10 months I am in this country, and for the life of me, I still cannot understand this narrative omni-present in american media. Is almost as one can relate with characters only in base of the ethnicity. So I cannot watch The Seven Samurai because there are no Italians? When I was a kid I did it wrong because I liked Blade? Representation is important but should it overcome any artistic decision? The Thing by Carpenter is a bad movie because it has only men?


Again, if the director is saying this movie is about the world of today, arguing some fictional migration pattern is a bit disingenuous. It would have been nice to see some POC in positions of authority, not necessarily the bad guy. Don't take it personally- do a little research on Holly wood casting. There has long been a problem with Hollywood consistently using minorities for ethnic stereotypes and criminals. Even when a main character is originally supposed to be a non-white, Hollywood tends to cast them as white anyway. It's an ugly history that is deeply tied in to America's history of racial and cultural segregation and trying to appeal to a white, hetero, male dominated majority. Most whites don't even recognize how insidious and corrosive it is. But it is definitely real. Fiction fans have a nasty tendency to want to gloss over this stuff instead of dealing with it head on.

And no, The Thing is not a bad movie because it has only men. But there is a problem when movies continue to follow the same stereotypical roads and don't even realize it. That's the thing about movies like Blade Runner 2049; I don't think anyone sat down and said let's make a movie with some pretty racist and sexist overtone, rather it's a product of biases that have become so ingrained they are almost automatic. It's just a shame that a movie that has so much potential and is supposed to fundamentally be about illustrating the futility and destructiveness of othering still falls into such ways.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
 jmurph wrote:

And othering through the eyes of Ryan Gosling (who can turn his girlfriend on and off at will and exists only to please him, BTW)? Really? It's a movie about white people liberating other white people,

Is about a self-discovering human saving other humans because an empathy discovered through shared memories.
The humanity is what is important. In the movie the walls are between humans and replicants. The amount of melanin is not an issue (as it should not be in real life).
I am sorry but I cannot help finding this statement racist.

Which tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is. Absolutely skin color should not be an issue. But for hundreds of years it has been and continues to be. Ignoring that and the systems that allow it to continue is exactly why is continues. Calling out racist and sexist narratives is the only way to address the issue.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
 jmurph wrote:

Also, the "girlfriend" becomes possibly more and more independent until she gains humanity as well, unless you go with the interpretation that she is in fact an illusion (and he realizes that in the famous bridge scene).

more specifically intergenerational power struggles between heterosexual white males, which is shockingly tone deaf in a world where we still have constant persecution of racial, gender, religious, and sexual identity groups. It is a pretty, vacant, dull film.

1) Are you assuming the sexual inclinations of the characters? Even K and Deckard could be bisexual for what we know. Wallace could be anything, his kiss is a mere act of power (copied by Luv later in the movie, even if she has arguably second reasons).
2) You assume that a movie to be a metaphor of real life events must follow the same events in the same fashion. You can talk about segregation showing on film any group of humans, separated for any reason.
3) Is being an heterosexual white male something inherently bad? You make it sound like it is.
4) What do you think of the movie Hotel Rwanda?


The girlfriend is always a program designed to please. That will never change. The fact that he has a moment of awareness about it would have been a lot more effective if he had shown more revulsion. As it was, it still came across as a kind of pity moment.

1) K and Deckard were clearly portrayed as straight males. Both are portrayed as dominants in heterosexual relationships. They are the main driving forces and center of the story. Wallace's orientation is irrelevant- he is a monster for narrative purposes. Portraying him as non-hetero would have other troubling implications.

2) Ignoring reality is usually a bad idea. It is especially bad when you follow tropes that undermine your message.

3) No, it is not. The problem is that heterosexual white male has become the default due to power dynamics, to the degree that other voices are not heard. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this becomes especially problematic in a movie that approaches othering. It just shows a tremendous lack of self awareness.

4) I think that is getting too far off topic....

Look, I loved Blade Runner growing up. But as I learned a bit more about the real world, I began to see some very troubling things mixed in there. BR2049 was a chance to deal with some deep issues and it kind of stumbled. Like I said, it's not that it's some horrible racist misogynistic screed, just boring and largely superficial. Which is disappointing.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/31 20:05:47


Post by: Manchu


@Lance845

What I mean is, Sir R is on record explaining the reflective eyes are purely exegetic/stylistic (hence why VK testing is necessary; "more human than human"). Which amounts to nothing more than reaffirming his personal position about Deckard being a Replicant. If you accept auteur theory, there's no need to talk about eyes: you already have the director's word. We're only talking about reflective eyes at all because Sir R's interpretation isn't enough to carry us through to the work of another director, Villeneuve. That's why Gaff's comment in BR2049 is so telling: it's a sidelong smirk at the debate because in-setting there's nothing noticeable about Nexus 7 eyes.

@jmurph

You are letting the tail wag the dog. For example, you insist that Joshi is "masculinized" - but this is simply handwaiving away evidence that doesn't suit your thesis. You say the female characters are insufficiently empowered and yet you characterize an assertive female character in a position of authority as "masculinized." At best, you're simply projecting your own internalized sexism (strength, power = masculine) onto the movie. This is probably why you're misreading the scene where Joshi hits on K as reinforcing the desirability of the male lead.

What happens is, Joshi shows up to a subordinate's home uninvited, decides to hang around getting drunk despite it being inappropriate and awkward, and caps off the evening by making a half-hearted pass at a subordinate. Although Joshi is not acting from malice, her actions are nonetheless presumptuous, offensive, and belittling. But K must simply endure it, as a subordinate and as a "lesser" person given the politics of the setting. Many women in the audience will be familiar with what K's going through (a.k.a., sexual harassment). The whole scene is constructed to demonstrate how prejudice does not have to be intentional or even conscious to be a real thing. Joshi can reasonably see herself as open-minded and genuinely concerned for K but we see the interaction from K's perspective where Joshi's behavior comes off as insensitive at best and downright gross at worst.

You also notably failed to address Luv, except by writing her off as a killer - which is an odd criticism. How does Luv being a killer harmonize with your complaint that the female characters are underempowered? Luv is clearly depicted as extraordinarily competent. At the same time, she is no mere one-dimensional badass. Her characterization, in a duet with K's, demonstrates how self-destructive it is for the victims of prejudice to construct their identities on the basis of accepting said prejudice. Luv tells herself she is content to be "lesser" so long as she is the best of the lesser ones (the angel/slave duality). Like K, she sublimates her suffering and longing into cold professionalism. But I guess that makes her "masculinized"?

I guess you also missed that the leader of the resistance movement is a woman. And that Mariette's true motivations throughout the film are revealed when we learn that she is an agent of the resistance; not a sexworker but a freedom fighter. And that the most important in-setting character, the point of all the action throughout the film, is a woman. And that the entire film revolves around the reproductive power of women as symbol for hope in the midst of human misery (which is in turn embodied by a white, male character). And this is before we even get to the complicated question of Joi as an idealized projection of K's own suppressed internal dimension.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/01/31 23:10:42


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 jmurph wrote:

I think this is addressed more in my point that the film is heavily a white hetero male narrative, and artificially trying to call them outsiders, whatever the conceit of the original stumbles now, so I will get back to this.

I fail to understand which part of the movie is specifically "white". The movie talks about universal human value. Belonging, memory, etc do cannot resonate with another audience because of the low level of melanin in the actors?
Also, what does "white" means in this case? I am Italian, I wrote "caucasian" immigrating in the USA, but my culture is not a finnish culture, syrian culture, spanish culture, german culture, or an Iranian culture. If you allow me, you are watching the world through extremely narrow lenses.
You mean WASP? I am not ango-saxon and for sure I am not protestant. I should fail to identify with with any character in the movie? Not even sure this is valid for this movie. Where is the border? I am at loss.


First, I have noticed a reflexive tendency to defend the movie by saying "you don't get it". That is a bad argument that could apply equally well to those who don't see the sexism. So let's stick to the basis of our opinions and recognize different people with different experiences can reach different results.

Not implying that you are "not getting it". I just find ironic that a movie that tackles some themes without just checking some presence boxes (we have x and y, therefore we are progressive!) is accused of being sexist.
It also drives me mad, because diversity in movies is becoming just checkboxes and pandering; if then the movie appeals to the lowest common denominator is ok as long as all the boxes are checked (and those who dislike it will be called racists or sexists).

Let's start with the director's comments- he states that it is about today and gives the whole spiel about caring about portrayals of women. So let's look at the portrayals. Women are the only ones portrayed as sexual objects and sex workers. There is no deep commentary- it's seems to be a continuation of in built assumptions. The movie spends a lot of time on the whole replicant/real person struggle but kinda treats these women as scenery. Men are the movers and shakers. Women are, at best, stand ins for male urges. They are not empowered in any way, and the film never really addresses that.

No woman in the movie is a mover or shaker? The police chief and her authority and orders? The replicant prostitute/spy? Luv is the true antagonist since Wallace is too distant. The boss of the resistance? Even the daughter, arguably, because she set in motion the events that led to K's "awakening".
K that rejects all of this in the climax. He rejects to follow, at the end, the orders of two women - the chief and the resistance commander. To do that, it means such women had power in the first place.

Wallace is a bad guy, clearly, and his obsession with recreating natural reproduction is not anti-feminist.

The attempt to control female reproduction is a feminist issue. If you deny this, I don't know what to say. Unless I misunderstood what are you meaning here.

But again, the problem is that it is all males driving the story. Women are still secondary objects. Even Joshi, who is the closest we get to a real female character, is heavily masculinized, and tragically underused. Which *could* have been played to subversive effect, but her hitting on K just shows that where they bring in her femininity, it is a typical romantic approach to the male lead. Not good. Why not just have her using her own pleasure model (with a clear shot of a handsome muscular model in full nude)? But, nope, women never get to show any true sexual control and it's all female sexual imagery. Mariette, likewise had potential as a strong character, but ends up being relegated to subservience.

First and foremost, I fail to understand how having only males, or only females or whatever driving the story makes a specific movie inherently bad. The Godfather is bad because of this? I really fail to grasp this basic assumption.
Secondly, Joshi had a weak spot for K and commits an act that is borderline sexual harassment. There is attraction but not romanticisms. Is another instance of desire projected on a object-person (in universe).
Thankfully Joshi is more complicated than that and has motherly traits, as long as traits not related to her gender like her social structure vision, and aim for Order.
Mariette is playing double agent for the resistance. Commanded by a woman. Did we watch the same movie?
Also how in heaven can you decide arbitrarily that Joshi is not properly feminine for the role she is supposed to play? If anything, this smells of crypto-sexism.


Depictions of violence are tricky. Yes, there was violence against men, but it was generally two way- they guys at least got a chance.

You mean like the guy surprise-murdered by Luv? I seriously doubt that.

To that degree, I would disagree that the violence directed at Joi was particularly misogynistic (well, except to the degree that she is a pretty stereotypical negative female stereotype, but I digress). However, the violence towards non-combatants was much more one sided. Really, this wasn't a huge issue for me as the glorification of violence didn't seem excessive. It was more the lack of agency that was the issue.

I register 2 non-combatant female replicants killed, vs 1 man killed by surprise. Joi is a very special case I fail to understand how is supposed to be misogynistic unless you take her first appearance at a complete face value.
Joi is programmed to be what K wants to hear. In base on how you interpret what happens to her, she either rejects her role and becomes a real girl, or she was a scam in the first place, maybe a way Wallace gathered data, and realising this is part of K's maturation/rebellion.


Again, if the director is saying this movie is about the world of today, arguing some fictional migration pattern is a bit disingenuous. It would have been nice to see some POC in positions of authority, not necessarily the bad guy. Don't take it personally- do a little research on Holly wood casting. There has long been a problem with Hollywood consistently using minorities for ethnic stereotypes and criminals. Even when a main character is originally supposed to be a non-white, Hollywood tends to cast them as white anyway. It's an ugly history that is deeply tied in to America's history of racial and cultural segregation and trying to appeal to a white, hetero, male dominated majority. Most whites don't even recognize how insidious and corrosive it is. But it is definitely real. Fiction fans have a nasty tendency to want to gloss over this stuff instead of dealing with it head on.

But these patterns were part of the background even in the original movie. Olmos used a cityspeak composed of Japanese, Spanish, and German, Hungarian, Chinese, and French. The USSR is still there. You are demanding that part of the old world-building is ignored because you want some token representation instead of a focus on universal themes, and a coherent universe.
The rest of this part of your post just makes me think about the discussion raised by Ghost in the Shell. The white knights complained about the "whitewashing", while the Japanese did not give a crap. Also why Idris Elba can be Heimdall? Why that is ok (it is for me, but because I think is a good actor). Really this is ridiculous. Cognitive dissonance.
Criminals... should again I complain about the Godfather? Italians brought mafia. Is a fact. Immigrants are a resource, but not always the best come. This does not mean I support the Orange Guy, and he is not crazy about me, mind it (btw, I see your point of view is typical for the left in the ango-saxon countries... with priorities like this, be prepared for other 4 years, and good luck to us all).
But you cannot get offended by that. This remind me the Simpson and all that jazz about Apu. That is a great guy, nice life and kids.
Italians in the Simpson? Mafiosi and a Cook. Italians complaining? Zero.
Seriously, the ones that keep seeing themselves as victims will be forever victims. Is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Is a culture of weakness.

And no, The Thing is not a bad movie because it has only men. But there is a problem when movies continue to follow the same stereotypical roads and don't even realize it. That's the thing about movies like Blade Runner 2049; I don't think anyone sat down and said let's make a movie with some pretty racist and sexist overtone, rather it's a product of biases that have become so ingrained they are almost automatic. It's just a shame that a movie that has so much potential and is supposed to fundamentally be about illustrating the futility and destructiveness of othering still falls into such ways.

But how in heaven is this a priority? Do you complain there are no Japanese in Zulu?
Why everything must have a well measured representation, a checklist or is invalidated? Why this has priority above story in the way a movie is judged?

Which tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is. Absolutely skin color should not be an issue. But for hundreds of years it has been and continues to be. Ignoring that and the systems that allow it to continue is exactly why is continues. Calling out racist and sexist narratives is the only way to address the issue.

But what is racist or sexist in this narrative? If a movie has only blacks is racists? If has only women is sexist? This is nuts! A movie can have a majority of a given sub-group of people and not being demeaning, or maybe show violence or conflict and be clear that is not a view the director supports. I am appalled.


The girlfriend is always a program designed to please. That will never change. The fact that he has a moment of awareness about it would have been a lot more effective if he had shown more revulsion. As it was, it still came across as a kind of pity moment.

She is either an illusion (in that case is like complaining that the Wizard of OZ is actually an puny guy) or she mirrors K's act of independnce and will. But since she starts like a 50s housewife, that's not good.
You see what happens here? This mentality kills writing. It becomes a minefield. I can see why writers prefer safe mediocrity.

1) K and Deckard were clearly portrayed as straight males. Both are portrayed as dominants in heterosexual relationships. They are the main driving forces and center of the story. Wallace's orientation is irrelevant- he is a monster for narrative purposes. Portraying him as non-hetero would have other troubling implications.

2) Ignoring reality is usually a bad idea. It is especially bad when you follow tropes that undermine your message.

3) No, it is not. The problem is that heterosexual white male has become the default due to power dynamics, to the degree that other voices are not heard. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this becomes especially problematic in a movie that approaches othering. It just shows a tremendous lack of self awareness.

4) I think that is getting too far off topic....


1) And again then, why is bad then that K is hetero. Why is important that he is "white" in an universe in which the main "wall" is between manufactured or not (albeit we witness an horrible social stratification even among "proper humans").
And more importantly, why a non hetero cannot be a villain. What you wrote has seriously unfortunate implications.

2)This is just a nonsense that kills any metaphor, ever.

3)Power is in money and in violence. You are falling for a fallacious narrative.

4) In Hotel Rwanda, a real story from the Rwandan genocide is told. Is people that belong to an ethnicity, the Hutu, killing another ethnicity, the Tutsi, because walls in the society. In your worldview, these are all black people. The genocide was based on divisions degenerated because of the former colonialism, let's not forget this - but the hands on the machetes are of the fanatical Hutu nationalists.
Same the Rohingya. You would not call white the people killing them.
You just base a narrow view about oppression based on the assumption that all the evil in the world is because of a group of people with Y chromosomes, not enough melanin and that like females. The world is bigger than that. More complicated. And even each of these men is more than that. You are the one building walls.

Look, I loved Blade Runner growing up. But as I learned a bit more about the real world, I began to see some very troubling things mixed in there. BR2049 was a chance to deal with some deep issues and it kind of stumbled. Like I said, it's not that it's some horrible racist misogynistic screed, just boring and largely superficial. Which is disappointing.

I find more boring and superficial reduce, if you allow me demean, people to their "race", sex and sexual orientation.
Dehumanizing, actually. And pointless, because if one follows this direction will always find a way to put more walls, separation, and find more subgroups that do not feel represented.
It also justifies some kind of gakky writing. Or allows corporations to dodge criticism ("how do you dare to state that our inclusive movie is written like crap, you sexist/racist!"). I would say is a dangerous road but is too late. We are already there.
If instead you focus on universal human experiences, you can enjoy a movie even if has not all the boxes checked, all the actors come from a distant country, and so on.

Also, if you find troublesome THAT scene in the original BR, that's another topic entirely. About a scene involving a man that in that moment is the Villain (see the Zhora killing, Scott literally rubs it in your face). And the scene became a meme itself because there are clearly points in which Deckard stops, and both are arguably very clumsy because of their uncertain humanity. Rachel implies she cannot rely on what she knows because her memories are fake, and Deckard blocking her is well beyond the act, is about her survival. She goes out, she is dead.
But hey, let's become the new religious bigots and try to find sin everywhere, this will go a long way.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/01 00:14:02


Post by: Manchu


It really seems like a case of watching a film through a political prism or filter. I am not sure which metaphor is better suited: bending the light or simply blocking it?


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/01 15:34:21


Post by: jmurph


Manchu:
On the other side, such flippancy indicates an opaqueness in and of itself. Again, different minds can reach differing opinions. All minds are prisms (or filters). One of the tragedies that often happens is refusing to admit the biases that creep into our definitions of "normal".

I understand that some do not see the issues that I see. I think that I have provided sufficient examples of the problems with the movie, and others can always explain them away from a different perspective. That's fine. Dismissing others perspectives, however, I think goes to the very root of the problem.

Joshi's pass is a great example of how a pretty good idea can be mishandled. So, a superior making sexual advances is bad. But then they portray it with the one female in power and as an attraction to the white, hetero, male lead. If you can't see why this is problematic given the history of narratives in film, I don't know what to say. Likewise, masculinization is a thing. When a female character is portrayed in such a manner that the parts that mirror stereotypically "male traits" are glorified and feminine traits are either ignored or minimized, you have masculinization. It is a separate issue entirely from casting. Again, I thought Joshi could have been a really great character and was criminally underused.

I am not ignoring Luv- she falls into a well worn niche of femme fatale. A female character that ruthlessly acts to do her bosses bidding is not an empowered character. She is merely a tool. Had her character struggled with her actions and ultimately made some sort of decision, she would have been more than a one dimensional character.

Yes, the leader of the resistance was female. Great, but she was a few lines of dialogue, not a character making any kind of real decisions or having any real impact. Mariette is another that had great potential as a character for exactly the reasons you point out, but, again, ultimately gets reduced to a tool. Dr. Steline is another that has a lot of potentially interesting character points, but is literally kept in a glass cage the entire movie.

Again, I don't think any of it is overt, intentional stuff, but it's still pretty rough given the premise of the movie. Also, my primary gripes aren't just this stuff- it's that it is a poorly paced rather boring movie. Even if it had addressed some of these issues better, it would still be a dull, if pretty, slog. Just less disappointing.

Kaiyanwang: Obviously there are some communication issues between us. When I said Wallace was not anti-feminist, I could have been clearer for example, that I did not feel he was an illustration of the movie's anti-feminism; his character certainly had an anti-feminist (although really just more inhumane in general) nature. The movie made it very clear this is a Bad Thing.

Likewise, there seems to be some cultural disconnect on what "whiteness" means in the context of the US and discrimination. I strongly recommend you do some research in the area, as it is a complex and fascinating if disturbing history that shapes the US to this day. There is also a good deal of writing on the trend in entertainment to make protagonists white, hetero males, and funnel everything through that spectrum presumably for economic reasons and the exclusionary effect it has on other voices.
The short version is that the US has long protected very wealthy interests and there has been a constant struggle between those seeking a more egalitarian society and those who would prefer a perpetual subservient worker under class. Slavery caused it to divide largely along racial lines (previously, ethnic groups such as Italians and Irish were often not considered white) and post Civil War, a lot of effort was dedicated to keeping racial divisions in place. These were reinforced by legal force until the Civil Right movement started to be victorious in tearing them down. Unfortunately, patterns that had been created over the years remained, and oppressive systems jettisoned their most obvious elements, but continued in place. Since the Civil Rights movement, the struggle for more egalitarian society continues and regressive elements have been somewhat successful in rephrasing it as an attack on "traditional values" and/or white males. I won't go any further than that, as it is delving into US politics, which is verboten.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/01 19:35:03


Post by: Manchu





Automatically Appended Next Post:
@jmurph

Experience is inherently subjective, of course. But there is a distinction between critically engaging a movie versus grading it against some extrinsic ideological rubric. A worthwhile critique must first give the movie the chance to explain itself (what's called "understanding the film") and then secondly address that explanation. It's clear that you don't care what BR2049 has to say for itself. Instead, you care about whether it meets whatever quotas you brought to the theater, which are arbitrary to anyone who isn't on board with your agenda. And that doesn't amount to useful insight. For example:
 jmurph wrote:
If you can't see why this is problematic given the history of narratives in film, I don't know what to say.
This contains no information about the film. You are merely asserting a claim to the moral high ground. Your entire response to Kaiyanwang is the same: "learn more so you can agree with me." It is impossible to take your complaint about being dismissed seriously when that's all you yourself are doing.

I have learned that the word "problematic" is an intellectual void. Labeling something "problematic" is necessarily incomplete because it merely flags the labeled thing as ambiguously troublesome (similar to how the passive voice obscures who is acting). If you think BR2049 is sexist, just argue BR2049 is a sexist movie. If you think it's racist, argue it's a racist movie. Why intentionally obscure your point by draping the gauze of "problematic" over it? Quite simply, the critique has to be vague because evidence and argument will not support the more precise, trenchant criticisms of sexism and racism. In the case of BR2049, this is because the film introduces and deconstructs a fictional prejudice to explore IRL prejudices. That theme is front and center throughout.

So what does this word "problematic" actually mean, given that it is intellectually hollow? It's a concept of totalitarianism: we must use approved vocabulary to demonstrate that we are thinking approved thoughts. Earlier in the thread, Kaiyanwang sarcastically posted:
 Kaiyanwang wrote:
let's become the new religious bigots and try to find sin everywhere
In the same way, "problematic" means the subject does not exactly align with the ideological purity of the self-appointed censor, regardless of how or why.

For example, is Luv "empowered"? The character is clearly sufficiently competent to successfully pursue her goals. Your counterpoint is, those aren't her goals. In fact, that question is explored by the movie - are Nexus 9s capable of free will? As it turns out, what they think, feel, and do is no more or less determined than it is for (other) human beings. This is crucial because the point of the movie is to show that the supposed distinction between human beings and Replicants is an illusion of prejudice. Wallace is exploiting Luv by brainwashing her into accepting that she is merely the instrument of his will. We see, however, that Luv has doubts about this and struggles with it but ultimately cannot deal with the terror of admitting she is a free being who must accept personal responsibility for the good as well as the bad she has done. (K is forced to face this when Stelline says his memories are real - his response is to explode in pain and anger while every moment before this he is totally stoic.)

Luv doubles down on the concept that she only wants what Wallace wants but this is clearly a shoddy rationalization because, at the very least, it overlooks that what she really wants is, as she ultimately asserts, to be the best. Being the best isn't just willfully accepting the lie that she is "fake" - she has to be "fake" in order to be the best. Because how on earth can we say that one subject is better than another? "Best" is a quality of objects, not subjects. So, yes in fact she is pursuing her own goals throughout the movie. Luv is a three-dimensional character and empowered in any meaningful sense. Luv is not some narrative metaphor for women generally. She is "her own person" - a fully-realized character of equal standing to the protagonist (specifically as his foil).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/01 21:36:41


Post by: Kaiyanwang


jmurph, I am convinced that you have the best intention and I am sure 100% of your intellectual honesty, but I am likewise convinced that you see everything through very specific lenses.
I can only say that albeit the civil rights movements fought the most righteous of battles, now these principles are wielded as weapons by some, and used either as a measure of power or to enforce artificial agendas that kill creativity and discourse, as long as detracts from authentically and nowadays more complex power dynamics related to sheer power and wealth, and how they dictate the directions of our society. Is pointless to aim for representation while you have such wealth disparity imho. This is a false battle. An easier battle if you wish, while the true oppression shifted elsewhere. Easier to put a black guy as a protagonist in a movie than solve huge wealth disparities.
Also, IMHO you alienate a huge fragment of working class "whitecisheteros" that do not see themselves, and should not see themselves as oppressors.
A working class that has specific standards and feels justifiably threatened by globalisation because got the short end of the stick, and is easy prey of populists. Feels threatened and has an high rate of drug use and suicides, by the way. Wow, is great to be on top!
Sorry but this worldview is at best outdated.
I will not proceed further because of the off-topic, but one should acknowledge that we are indeed moving toward a slightly bladerunneresque future. I ask often myself who, how many, will benefit from what me and my colleagues will discover.

In merit of the movie, I think Manchu covered it better than me.
For those interested, I remembered this link about Luv. My apologies if someone already posted it upstream.
https://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/tears-of-a-machine-the-humanity-of-love-in-blade-runner-2049


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/01 21:39:53


Post by: Manchu


I'm not so sure because it seems like a rather clumsy restatement of a certain Guardian article to me.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/01 21:51:00


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 Manchu wrote:
I'm not so sure because it seems like a rather clumsy restatement of a certain Guardian article to me.

But that's the woman that defined The Last Jedi "the most triumphantly feminist Star Wars movie yet".
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/dec/18/star-wars-the-last-jedi-women-bechdel-test

Note the bedchel test in the link. Numbers, boxes checked. Superficial analysis. Themes and motivations be damned.
Nevermind if the female protagonist is fascinated by a Dark Triad man, Twilight-style, or Holdo behaves like the most unreasonable commander ever.

As always, go to comments, order by recommendation and enjoy.
The guardian has better readers than writers


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/02 06:41:00


Post by: sebster


 jmurph wrote:
Joshi's pass is a great example of how a pretty good idea can be mishandled. So, a superior making sexual advances is bad. But then they portray it with the one female in power and as an attraction to the white, hetero, male lead. If you can't see why this is problematic given the history of narratives in film, I don't know what to say.


Role reversal is a common and frequently very effective tool to get people to see what others experience. Take the scene as written, with a male supervisor acting in a presumptuous, entitled way towards an employee, with the employee having to just tolerate it because of their weaker position. Make the senior a male, and most men will see it through his eyes, and they are likely to focus on his awkwardness and the issues in his life that's led him to this point, and miss the situation he's put the female employee in. They will see the act as unintentional and therefore likely dismiss it as harassment. But in BR2049 instead we have the junior staff member as male, so men see the event through his eyes, and they see what he has to tolerate, regardless of the intent of the supervisor. They see the scene through the eyes of the victim, something they likely wouldn't do if the genders are in their more common roles.

It's a very effective technique, and it was well used in this situation.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/02 17:45:21


Post by: jmurph


Kaiyanwang: I agree 100% that casting choices in American movies are hardly the most important human rights issue and definitely trend towards 1st world problems. Economic disparity is certainly the crux of the issue; unfortunately in the US at least, it is inherently linked to our racial past. And I also agree that entertainment is often just a distraction from the harder issues. But, since the topic is the movie, here we are! I would never label someone who likes the movie or disagrees with my assessments as somehow "bad"; as I repeat, different minds, different conclusions. And I also fully accept I could be wrong. I tried you link, but it seemed to be no longer working.

Manchu: Tying some critiques of a movie to totalitarianism. Wow. Not touching that.


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/02 18:04:12


Post by: Manchu


Of course not, as described above that's your MO (at least ITT).


Blade Runner 2049 - post movie release discussion starts pg 5 @ 2018/02/02 19:12:49


Post by: Kaiyanwang


Boy, the link works copypasted but not from dakka.
Google "roger ebert love tears", in case. Weird.

To answer to what you wrote, I do agree that inclusivity is good, but it should be not a measure of the quality of a movie, especially at the level expected now. Nor characters should be written along pre-determined patterns otherwise they are offensive, this kills the creativity IMHO.