Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

-

 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.

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.

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.

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?

 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.

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?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
if you prefer James Cameron's reading

Are you guys doing some kinda in-joke?

No, just getting it wrong.

 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!

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.

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
)

 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.

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.

 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.

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

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)

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:

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)

 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.

 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.

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?

 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?

 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.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,

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.

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.

 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?

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).

 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.

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.