|
Krazyface posted:"Is that dog real?"
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
One thing that I found great was that K was a competent detective as apposed to *nerd voice* "Guys make peep holes to see naked ladies" Deckard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
I doubt that was intended to be ambiguous. I don't think there are millions of bottles of fake whiskey hanging around Vegas, no one's lived there since before it was nuked
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Is the fact that K is a replicant a huge plot spoiler as they just put it out there in the Fresh Air review for the movie this morning and I don't remember that in any marketing materials.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Le Saboteur posted:Is the fact that K is a replicant a huge plot spoiler as they just put it out there in the Fresh Air review for the movie this morning and I don't remember that in any marketing materials. I mean you learn this within the first, like, 2 minutes of the film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Le Saboteur posted:Is the fact that K is a replicant a huge plot spoiler as they just put it out there in the Fresh Air review for the movie this morning and I don't remember that in any marketing materials. No, it's laid out in the first few minutes. I got "spoiled" on that in the NY Times review but it didn't really ruin anything since it's the premise of the movie. That said, I wish I'd gone in blind. 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. Retrofuturism is very much my kind of jam, and the new Blade Runner loving owns at it in a unique way. The gap in time between sequels, and how our technology has changed in that gap, makes you look back at the old 80's idea of the future - flying cars, CRT monitors, and all - in a way I don't think any other pair of movies can. Asbury fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Le Saboteur posted:Is the fact that K is a replicant a huge plot spoiler as they just put it out there in the Fresh Air review for the movie this morning and I don't remember that in any marketing materials. Yeah I read that in the Guardian review too so I didn't think it was. It's strange, because it isn't in the promotional material as such but it's like the lead paragraph of every written review.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
AnxiousApatosaurus posted:For the Joe/JOI discussion: Yeah, this was my take on things, basically. K had to be re-exposed to a baseline JOI to realize how much his JOI had become. I honestly think K's JOI is my favorite character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
K being revealed as a replicant in the opening scene was quite a surprise for me and I would have been pissed if I had read it beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
AnxiousApatosaurus posted:For the Joe/JOI discussion:
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted: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... This was my takeaway. Virtual women used to sell sex littered the movie, but both the sexy waifu and the literal sex worker were motivated, proactive and self-actualized. Which is pretty good when both of them are created slaves to varying degrees. It served to deepen the divide between the natural and man-made. Additionally I noticed this movie had full frontal, but never to sell sex. The sex ads were carefully blocked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Man, this sequel to Lars and the Real Girl got weird. No but seriously that was a very good movie. Looked and sounded loving fantastic, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
just overall impressions of the film: i like that best of all, it is unquestionably a villeneuve film first, blade runner sequel second. the film is so much better than anyone deserved. it's lonely. i like that our opening shot and a lot of the time spent in the film is dealing with the past. the excesses of 20th century cast a big shadow on the movie, which i think is appropriate because we can't (and maybe shouldnt?) do science fiction that doesnt at least somehow deal with what the gently caress we are going to do moving forward. its a really tricky balancing act because 2049 is still set in the world of blade runner, and there are some nice setting and tech sidesteps that play with that, because it's so much more specifically our future now too. i mean the original said ok things are going to get nasty and polluted and gross, but the verve of the city will remain if not hopeful, it remains a bustling city. we dont get any recreations of the famous street scenes of the original here. the film is about isolation, and we have many images of isolation. i think the single sequence with the most people in it is a loving child sweatshop. solar panel farms, the whole collapse of global ecology/farming is a specter haunting the whole thing, san diego is now just a giant ship breaker / old electronics recycling sweatshop. grim poo poo. our opening scene is a solar/protein farm and a dead tree with an ossuary buried underneath. the visual of the pavement around the tree is rough. but the loneliness and isolation of the film is rougher. the twinned sex scene is one of the most visually inventive and pure villeneuve sequence i can think of, i wasnt sure if that one, or hosed up hologram elvis was my favorite. 2049 feels like a response to all the zombie franchise revivals that are entirely bound by realm of their originals, airless remixes that wont admit a single new idea. i think it can be read as a very direct counterpoint to the force awakens, the other movie that grandpa ford shows up to reprise a famous character (or maybe indiana jones, but i never saw the 4th one). it tastefully extrapolates and extends a lot of theme and imagery of the original in unexpected ways that make it feel like a very current film. i think thats the most important point. force awakens and the other big franchise revisits are essentially retro. and though this too is washed over with revisiting the original film, i think it does so in a fundamentally modern way. gosling is very good, and his isolation and hologram girlfriend are especially tough watching through a lot of it. favorites: cells. intertwined. baseline testing is really, really loving good. you know they were pressured to get something as good as voight-kampff and the baseline test is just really, really good. also fundamentally villeneuve in its intensity. i really liked that, gosling was the absolute right choice, basically the whole cast is great. i liked holo girlfriend and smoke eyed hooker. sex scene was hallucinatory. made me think of Enemy a lot. holo elvis was great. ford was coaxed into giving a performance that actually held up to the legend of his best work, instead of sleepwalking. i appreciate it takes so long for him to show up in the movie, and the worry was the film losing all its momentum and fun the second he's on screen but he doesnt. i am still reeling from the subversion of "the one" for gosling's character, i thought that played very well. music was also very good, judicious revisiting of the original's best without going for the easy scores. its weird though because i'm pretty sure for the early trailer, the music was Jóhann Jóhannsson (did the music for sicario) but i guess he got pulled rank on? worked out, at any rate. demerits: i think cg double will still date the film more than anything and wish they'd only had her cg face for just a little bit of screen time, spent more with just a reverse shot of ford. it mostly works, but only for that first couple of moments. i think in anyone else's hands i would have been profoundly upset at 2017 style cg doppelganger showing up, but here it is actually quite thematically appropriate, the uncanny valley effect in service of the story. but i am not sure if i believe that totally. could have done with a tiny bit less of the shadowy leader of the replicant/revolution plot, i mean i understand their hand in this does have some significance to the plot but its the weakest element by far and i think generally it stays in the background for most of the running time is good. k's blaster is not an iconic design (though it looks fine on screen since the whole movie is gorgeous), and i've been bothered after finding out that deckard's blaster was just bought from a place in japan that specializes in really good blaster replicas... but somehow that being used on screen despite the prop guy saying he built it is also actually quite appropriate to the theme of the film. leaned a little too heavily on esper style vocal interfacing but honestly these days vocal control for poo poo makes a lot more sense? so not really a complaint honestly? so basically no real complaints really, aside from the cg double in an otherwise extremely well made and classy movie leaving a bad taste in the mouth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:K being revealed as a replicant in the opening scene was quite a surprise for me and I would have been pissed if I had read it beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
The consumer drone in me really wants to buy a bottle of that Blade Runner whiskey, but $90 is a lot to pay for Johnnie Walker Black.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not so sure I agree. K's relationship with JOI felt lived-in and familiar. Her shifting from Diner Chick to lazy-ponytailed Girlfriend to Whatever felt like it spoke to a decent amount of time of K and JOI building something like an actual relationship, as much as a hologram and a low-affect replicant can be. The pink advertisement JOI was a baseline gotta-act-sexy-at-all-times depiction, with no nuance or personality. I'll definitely have to see it again but reflecting on it again I think there is an argument for his Joi seeing him as a miracle and being pushed into self actualisation. the AI aspect really adds a wrinkle to what it means to be a human as we've essentially accepted replicants as humans as the viewer - at what point do we see AIs like Joi being human. The layers really make the sex scene interesting as Joi who in theory is just a routine waifu program is being layered over a replicant sex worker to make that sex worker "real" to Gosling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:The consumer drone in me really wants to buy a bottle of that Blade Runner whiskey, but $90 is a lot to pay for Johnnie Walker Black.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
I was worried for a while but man did it out preform my expectations. The Double DNA conspiracy is simple, Frenchy McOneEye straight up says at the right age she "put her in blue" meaning in an effort to further obscure her trail they started dressing the child as a boy and more or less faked her death. That's why the girl "died" and why K "remembers" being a boy. What they don't explain is why the faked boy documents have the same DNA and birth date(why didn't they fake that too) and when/how she went back to living as a girl/woman. It's really not the "is Deckard a replicant" of our generation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I'll definitely have to see it again but reflecting on it again I think there is an argument for his Joi seeing him as a miracle and being pushed into self actualisation. the AI aspect really adds a wrinkle to what it means to be a human as we've essentially accepted replicants as humans as the viewer - at what point do we see AIs like Joi being human. The layers really make the sex scene interesting as Joi who in theory is just a routine waifu program is being layered over a replicant sex worker to make that sex worker "real" to Gosling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I was worried for a while but man did it out preform my expectations. bawfuls fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Watched it today. Very impressive movie. As everyone's been saying, the visuals just blow you away. But more than that the incredibly, horrifyingly dystopic world is just breathtaking. I can't even properly express myself over how depressing, scary, horrifying etc it is. I think it's easily better than the first and the way the world is conceptualized is much better. The first has a kind of "yes, this is a bad future but it's not THAT bad" kind of feel to it. This one is more like "the world is just loving horrible". A few gripes: Luv was killbot without any debth. I liked the deus ex machina drone strike (and how that was being drawn from our current times of using drones) that saved K at the dumps but they didn't really expand on that and in the end there was no other substance to her. The resistance stuff needed more screen time. It was a little out of whack with the rest of the movie. What I really liked: Joi was great. I loved how they kinda sorta made a waifu chatbot seem great but in the end it wasn't really that great and ended up creepy and manipulative. Also they didn't lay on the legacy stuff from the old movie too hard. Most of the stuff they did was references and the old characters and plot elements worked on their own. Maybe even better without the old movie. One thing that I keep thinking of: The false memories. Was the memory maker girl just filling up replicants with false memories to get them to do poo poo like what K did? Just programming them to do her bidding? Seemed like something like that was up with that. When the leader of the rebels says "oh, we all think we're Rachel's son", seems to imply it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Oldsmobile posted:One thing that I keep thinking of: The false memories. Was the memory maker girl just filling up replicants with false memories to get them to do poo poo like what K did? Just programming them to do her bidding? Seemed like something like that was up with that. When the leader of the rebels says "oh, we all think we're Rachel's son", seems to imply it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I thought the line was "we all want to be that child". The implication is that K was not the only replicant with that memory, but I don't think the memory maker's intent is clear. Certainly requires some more exploring. Now I want to see the movie again. Mind you, very rarely do I want to do so. As for the feminism discussion, I didn't think it was especially feminist and could have used more interesting female characters with depth. Also, people of color. But works well as is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I think the implication is that the boy was faked with the same DNA so that eventually the male replicant with that horse memory would follow the trail. K first suspecting and then thinking he really knows that he is that boy is an important part of what drives much of the story. I'm with Danger in that I don't think K is special in any way. If you really follow the logic what purpose would leading K on a goose chase serve. He's basically covering up a conspiracy he uncovered and saving people he endangered. I think the closest we get to a conspiracy is Deckard's daughter puting emotional/real memories into replicants to either intentionally or unintentionally make them more human and thus capable of striking out on their own. Oh and if she grew up in that poo poo hole "orphanage" than the immune system bubble in 100% a ruse
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I'm with Danger in that I don't think K is special in any way. If you really follow the logic what purpose would leading K on a goose chase serve. He's basically covering up a conspiracy he uncovered and saving people he endangered. I think the closest we get to a conspiracy is Deckard's daughter puting emotional/real memories into replicants to either intentionally or unintentionally make them more human and thus capable of striking out on their own. There's really no indication of this in the movie but I got the impression that she was either put in the bubble or put herself in the bubble because someone/she knows who she is and this prevents people from getting too close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I'm with Danger in that I don't think K is special in any way. If you really follow the logic what purpose would leading K on a goose chase serve. He's basically covering up a conspiracy he uncovered and saving people he endangered. I think the closest we get to a conspiracy is Deckard's daughter puting emotional/real memories into replicants to either intentionally or unintentionally make them more human and thus capable of striking out on their own. Agree with the first part but wouldn't the genetic disease thing be related with being related to replicants? So it kicks in after a certain age. But of course she also says her parents had tickets to leave Earth when they had to cancel or something like that. So that kind of points to her living a better life than in that poo poo hole. Edit: Also the wooden horse, why would that still be among the ashes and what's with the date?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Thinking back to the ending and how K didn't even answer Deckard when he asked "what am I to you?" K just motioned towards the building and said "go meet your daughter." Deckard never even found out that K thought for awhile that Deckard was his father, or that he empathized with Deckard's love for Rachel with his own for JOI. In an age of telling instead of showing, of Spock just spelling out the whole plot in a cave, this is a very refreshing film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I was worried for a while but man did it out preform my expectations. To come to this conclusion you're also saying that Villeneuve set this out completely straightforward plot but also was incredibly sloppy with establishing that all of this is not to be questioned. I just don't think that's the case. He clearly made a movie that's to be read on multiple levels and, yes, it leaves some wiggle room for you to come to your own conclusion about whether K is the son or not, which much like in the original film, doesn't necessarily matter in the grand theme of the film because K essentially was defined as a human by his actions, not because he was or wasn't birthed naturally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I'm with Danger in that I don't think K is special in any way. If you really follow the logic what purpose would leading K on a goose chase serve. He's basically covering up a conspiracy he uncovered and saving people he endangered. I think the closest we get to a conspiracy is Deckard's daughter puting emotional/real memories into replicants to either intentionally or unintentionally make them more human and thus capable of striking out on their own. That's a good point about the girl's time in the child labor camp. Makes me want to pay attention to her explanation to K about her upbringing, to see how much she is knowingly deceiving. I had at first assumed she did not know her identity but now I'm not so sure. Oldsmobile posted:Agree with the first part but wouldn't the genetic disease thing be related with being related to replicants? So it kicks in after a certain age. But of course she also says her parents had tickets to leave Earth when they had to cancel or something like that. So that kind of points to her living a better life than in that poo poo hole. The horse was still there because no one had any reason to go digging through those old ash piles in some forgotten corner of a long-wrecked ship. The date was her birthday, and the horse was a gift Deckard made for her before he left. They showed his other similarly carved wood animals at his place in Vegas. bawfuls fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Whole lot of negative reviews just got posted on RT. Interesting to see how long it took for a small wave of backlash critically. Still super excited to see this Sunday night.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Yeah that's a good point.Faking the second child might not have been anything more than a way to further obscure her true identity. I think K is not special in the same way no one is special. He is just another replicant with that memory like many others, but he still lived a unique set of experiences and eventually deviated from his baseline significantly By the end of the film he's making choices for himself and asserting his humanity. Does she say that she developed the immunity sickness later in life? I could have sworn she did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
This might seem like a very random question, but is there any animal cruelty in this film?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:This might seem like a very random question, but is there any animal cruelty in this film? If a dog drinking whiskey is animal cruelty (it is in real life) but the dog seemed to be pretty happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:This might seem like a very random question, but is there any animal cruelty in this film? Dog drinks whiskey ---> Dog appears sad when Deckard gets forcibly removed and probably dies alone without the warm embrace of a new master  Probably second saddest thing that happens in the film imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:Does she say that she developed the immunity sickness later in life? I could have sworn she did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Do we really need to spoiler? I figure if youre reading this thread at this point youre asking for it
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Do we really need to spoiler? I figure if youre reading this thread at this point youre asking for it Waiting for mod approval before I lay down my next question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Do we really need to spoiler? I figure if youre reading this thread at this point youre asking for it We just had someone who hasn’t seen it ask if animals were abused! That big hearted animal lover does not deserve to be unwittingly spoiled!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Dog drinks whiskey ---> Dog appears sad when Deckard gets forcibly removed and probably dies alone without the warm embrace of a new master Nah, dog was obviously rescued by the Resistance and is fine!  Incredible movie, I'm really surprised that I enjoyed it more than the original. Not a single person got up to go to the bathroom or anything in a 300 person IMAX theater.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Do we really need to spoiler? I figure if youre reading this thread at this point youre asking for it Yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:11
|
|
