|
I saw it last night and it was fantastic.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
PoopinClumpin posted:I think it depends on whether we ever find out if a replicant gestated child is human or not. That's why I feel so strongly that the only place left to go thematically is some sort of "singularity" where everyone finds out that replicants are not more human than human, but are just, straight human but with genetic engineered seemingly superhuman traits Really I'm hoping they don't go in that direction because it's not only obvious, but it tries to answer a question that isn't really answerable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
Saw this a few hours ago and yeah, it owned. This weekend I'm gonna eat a fuckload of edibles and watch it again in IMAX.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
"Is that dog real?" "Why don't you ask him?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:The male never existed. They fabricated the records. Her memory of the horse was put into a male replicant so that he would eventually follow the breadcrumbs and trigger the events of the film. Him thinking it was himself made K "depart from baseline" significantly, as his boss put it, which allowed him the independence to do what he did This is true, but only if you take everything at face value, which in a cyberpunk film is never a good idea unless you don't mind missing out on some really great themes / commentary edit: They also never state that this is what happened. Literally all he says is that he showed them how to "fudge the records / trail." He doesn't even mention the fact that he duplicated DNA records or if there was a twin. It's pretty obvious this was intentionally vague to leave it open to interpretation as to whether or not K could really be the long lost son. Hell, it's a much easier conclusion to come to than "is Deckard a replicant" from the original Blade Runner theatrical version, or even the DC for that matter. Preston Waters fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
Eyud posted:Saw this a few hours ago and yeah, it owned. This weekend I'm gonna eat a fuckload of edibles and watch it again in IMAX.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
I got to see the 4k transfer of the original in the theater a few weeks back, it was pretty drat great. First time seeing it on the big screen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Yeah the film totally owned.bawfuls posted:The male never existed. They fabricated the records. Her memory of the horse was put into a male replicant so that he would eventually follow the breadcrumbs and trigger the events of the film. Him thinking it was himself made K "depart from baseline" significantly, as his boss put it, which allowed him the independence to do what he did
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
The way I'd read it was that many replicants had the same memories, but K's experiences allowed him to utilise it. He was just a normal murder robot cop who wasn't special. He was just fortunate and determined. The most interesting part to me is how the holowaifu, JOI, seemed to be the next-stage of humanity. The gift seemed to be a new product, allowing her further reach, outside the apartment. Was she capable of being 'real' without a physical form? I think so - her conscience seemed to be far enough removed from the default, advert model. They'd clearly had history. Ultimately, it's a bit ambiguous and I like it. Also, according to urban dictionary, JOI stands for Jack Off Instructions, which is pretty funny considering she can't physically interact with anyone. well why not fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
well why not posted:Also, according to urban dictionary, JOI stands for Jack Off Instructions, which is pretty funny considering she can't physically interact with anyone. Isn't that the point though? Just came back from the film and I loved it though, I don't think it's as visually impressive as the first one. A lot of shots are a little too dark with a lot of the background or subjects completely black without any lighting. The entire fight between K and Luv in the water there's absolutely no background and most of the fight they're just dark silhouettes. Some of the areas lack much visual interest like K's apartment and the police station, both being grey without much to look at. This film loves grey. But when the film throws a ton of color together at you it looks really god drat good. I enjoyed the story and didn't have any complaints save for the part where K learns that Deckard's child is a daughter and about the Replicant resistance, it was really corny when all of the replicants came out of the woodwork in the scene and while the one eyed woman talked about fighting back/being accepted. I feared that there was going to be a giant battle or some stupid assault on Wallace's massive fortress to kill him, but luckily it never happened. Probably gonna see it again this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Also thought it was a sweetly poetic when Joi was convincing him he had been born and had a soul that she described it (don't remember exact (quote) as someone pulling you into the world and wanting you and that is exactly what Deckard does for K out of the water at the end. Lots of Pinocchio references.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
So uh, Deckard is or isnt man those jeans and t-shirt really stand out a part of me wants him to wear what's colloquially known as "a wifebeater" except with some future trimmings on it
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
I guess I'm going to have to see this. I might have a little Director's Cut screening here first, with some refreshments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
I haven't seen it yet, but is the character K a reference to Josef K? My literary sense tingled as soon as I first saw the character name. He dies at the end? Something something is the dog real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
This is the best looking movie of all time. I think I could have spent 164 mins just watching K fly his car around in the city. I mean the small things like how it is almost a reveal at the start as to just how densely the city is packed never mind the large scale neon/bright stuff. The audio/score is almost as good but at the same time is almost just a little too much somehow but for me it just stayed on the right side. No question to me its a better movie than the original but I was never a huge fan of it. Likewise I have never been a huge Gosling fan (his best work for me was The Nice Guys) but there are a couple of scenes in this where he is magnificent without even speaking. I saw Dunkirk on two consecutive days in the cinema with 2 different people and I will be trying to do the same for this. I can't decide who my favourite director between these two is because Sicario is one of my favourite movies of all time too but I also like every single Nolan movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Amusingly this film has a twist similar to one in Nolan's disappointing Batman movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Collateral posted:I haven't seen it yet, but is the character K a reference to Josef K? My literary sense tingled as soon as I first saw the character name. He dies at the end? Something something is the dog real. A minor spoiler - midway through the film he tentatively adopts the name "Joe".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:So uh, Deckard is or isnt I'm of the opinion he is. First off the weird old photos in the original in his place, the unicorn dream, him surviving in the radiation of Vegas, Wallace insinuating he was "designed...yes? No?", plus the symbolism of the dog and how K should "ask him" if he's real. The thing though, is I think whether Deckard is a replicant is less important than the fact he's confronted that question and whether he's a machine or someone following their own choices. Regardless of whether he's a replicant, he took the latter path.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
The darkest joke in the film was *THUD*.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Question about the object that the people are looking for in the film In the original doesn't Batty get told by Tyrell that he can't be changed because something something virus? So is her having auto immune problems a reference to that? warez posted:The number of logos on display for dead companies (or at least ones who have greatly diminished in cultural standing since their heyday) was interesting. I saw one for Pan Am too. That's actually a direct reference to the original film that had Atari and Pan Am logos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Question about the object that the people are looking for in the film It's left ambiguous if that is just a cover to hide her or if he parentage resulted in genetic issues. Also I can see how it's made (somehow) even more ambiguous by this movie, but for me it cemented that Deckard is human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I think it is implied by the film that replicants are as human as humans. Given enough time and unique stimuli, replicants will develop individuality and emergent behavior. When Deckard is talking to Wallace and the latter questions his humanity/replicant identity, Deckard's response is "I know what real is." I think this means Deckard doesn't care about the human/replicant distinction. He feels that Rachel and he had a love that was real, and that's what matters to him. The question of replicant humanity is not a technical one so much as a philosophical or moral one. IMO that was present in the original film as well. Oh, definitely. I'd say that's more than just present, maybe the entire point? I might be kind of biased toward this interpretation because I took a humanities course when I was 19 that used "Do Androids Dream..." as a reading, but one of the points of the original novel is showing replicants involved in things like art (Luba Luft) that we classically associate with humanity and questioning at what point they could be considered "real"/having a "soul."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Hoping that this one justifies its longer run time. I always though that Arrival should have shaved off a good 20-30 minutes and been a much better film. I guess this will have the visuals to keep you going at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:I never really felt that Blade Runner was particularly slow. Sure, the film takes time to establish mood and setting, but it's also constantly moving forward and introducing new elements. If that's slow, what would you call a Weerasethakul or Tarkovsky film? It wasn't so much slow as I've had to watch the same intro scenes 9 times to actually get through the movie a single time. The viewings took place over the course of several months so I always needed to watch the entire thing again in case I'd missed something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
For the Joe/JOI discussion: While Joe is watching the JOI advertisement they intercut to the 'because you've never seen a miracle' scene. I think at that moment Joe decides that he has seen a miracle and it was his holowaifu growing beyond her programming and actually loving him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
AnxiousApatosaurus posted:For the Joe/JOI discussion: Yea, that and the you become human by sacrificing for something greater line or whatever it was; referencing Joi's humanity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Danger posted:It's left ambiguous if that is just a cover to hide her or if he parentage resulted in genetic issues. Also I can see how it's made (somehow) even more ambiguous by this movie, but for me it cemented that Deckard is human. lol the entire point is that it doesn't matter if he's android or human -- they're the same thing because they're both alive and sentient. It wouldn't change what Deckard could get out of life one iota if he knew the answer for certain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:lol the entire point is that it doesn't matter if he's android or human -- they're the same thing because they're both alive and sentient. It wouldn't change what Deckard could get out of life one iota if he knew the answer for certain. Right, it was always the wrong question from the first movie and still is with this one. I was referring to just the explicit plot detail, but I agree it's extraneous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:It's really, really hard to get people to write women like normal human beings. Additionally, the ability to give birth was considered the absolute key of humanity. That seems pretty feminist to me. And again, not screaming-in-your-face feminism, but normalizing it. You are 100% right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Regarding the feminist idea, I saw the film with my girlfriend, who hadn't seen the original and was a women's studies major. In short, I disagree. She had a few discomforts with the way women were portrayed here. The obvious stuff is around the barrage of sexualized advertisements, of course, but something that also struck me was every single female character in the movie was some form of a servant. The possible exception is Lt. Joshi, but even she is a public servant, being a police lieutenant. It's giving me a lot of thought, and I can't wait to see the film again on Sunday. My thoughts on the movie itself: I loved it! I am actually very sad today because of it—Ryan Gosling displayed such a sweet, profound sadness in the last third of the movie that I was left paralyzed with emotion. This was a seriously brilliant role for him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
oversteps posted:The possible exception is Lt. Joshi, but even she is a public servant, being a police lieutenant. Oh, come on now!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
oversteps posted:My thoughts on the movie itself: I loved it! I am actually very sad today because of it—Ryan Gosling displayed such a sweet, profound sadness in the last third of the movie that I was left paralyzed with emotion. This was a seriously brilliant role for him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
oversteps posted:hadn't seen the original and was a women's studies major. In short, I disagree. She had a few discomforts with the way women were portrayed here. Oh my.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Wendell posted:Oh, come on now! I mean, that's a fair observation but worded in an incredibly obtuse way. Both women are functionally the same; in service to the nightmare maw of late capitalism: "we hope you enjoyed our product".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
The irony of that line is that Joi really transcended her role as an artificial servant and he did genuinely enjoy the relationship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Film fuckin owned, I seriously can't believe it's as good as it is  warez posted:The number of logos on display for dead companies (or at least ones who have greatly diminished in cultural standing since their heyday) was interesting. I saw one for Pan Am too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
I'll grant you that there's some pretty intense male gaze in this movie, but both that and the commodification of women in general are presented as key features of the film's dystopia. It's done in service of a feminist message.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Question about the object that the people are looking for in the film Roy wasnt sick, but Tyrell trying to make him live longer would've killed him by making his cells infected or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
HAT FETISH posted:I liked the hologram advert girl with the text indicating that whatever it was she was promoting was a product of the Soviet Union. Emphasises that the film's continuity is still rooted in a future based on extrapolating the state of things in the 1980s. I just thought it was just an ad for some Soviet-era ballet, not necessarily showing that the USSR is still around? Ersatz posted:I'll grant you that there's some pretty intense male gaze in this movie, but both that and the commodification of women in general are presented as key features of the film's dystopia. It's done in service of a feminist message. Yea, the boobage was pretty much showing the world to be scummy and consumerist / exploitative. The other nudity was basically non-sexual, unless your thing is gutting open a uterus... Preston Waters fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:46
|
|