|
[quote="“WMain00”" post="“477141938”"] The thing that gets me is that are replicants really robots by this point? They’re more like...genetically engineered humans? [/quote]They're more human than human.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
I really appreciated how the movie treats the audience as smart and capable of remembering things that have just happened. The scenes where K is investigating the orphanage and goes off to find the horse stood out here. Lesser movies would have peppered that scene with flashbacks to the earlier dream sequence to spell out to the audience that it was the same place. I expected this to happen all through that scene but it never did, it was most refreshing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
[quote="“WMain00”" post="“477141938”"] The thing that gets me is that are replicants really robots by this point? They’re more like...genetically engineered humans? [/quote] Is it ever said in this movie or the original that they're robots/androids? It's clear in Dick's book that they're androids, but I think it's ambiguous here - deliberately, one would imagine. I'd certainly always assumed they were robots, until seeing 2049. Rachel's skeleton made me rethink my entire outlook on just what replicants are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
Wank posted:So are we to think that Las Vegas was attacked by terrorists? 'dirty bomb'. Thats some bad timing. Reminded me of BoJack Horseman. I think it's the Blackout that was detailed in the anime short on YouTube
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
GazChap posted:Is it ever said in this movie or the original that they're robots/androids? It's clear in Dick's book that they're androids, but I think it's ambiguous here - deliberately, one would imagine. Not really I suppose. In the original I get the impression Nexus 1-3 were maybe more robotic in nature, but by the time 5 and 6 had arrived Tyrell was using geneticists and biological engineers to create biological robots from the ground up. Sort of I guess like how Westworld showed the process. The eyes guy was making living tissue eyes and Batty was looking for genetic engineering methods to extend his life. In the book they were androids, but even then he made no effort to "robotise" them and indeed went the opposite way. Philip K Dick was both a genius and a very scary troubled man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
good movie (holy cow the visuals), bad story. i got an extremely strong interstellar vibe from this (long winded, power of love, etc.) ryan gosling's coat is extremely anime, but my friend pointed out it was hand-stitched so that's cool! the gun was sick af fbsw fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Uh... so was it me or did Chief try to have a go at K? Definitely, was referenced by Joi too, if you remember. fbsw posted:ryan gosling's coat is extremely anime, but my friend pointed out it was hand-stitched so that's cool! I think the say at some point that it's "green". My brain kept saying it's brown. What color was it? Also I liked how in closeups you can see how dirty and matted the wool collar looks. Lolled a bit at the funny collar. Oldsmobile fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
I don't know if it was just me, but in one scene showing the city walls there was a ship of some sort hovering over the city, partially obscured by fog. The ship looked very similar to the Sulaco from Aliens, to my eyes. Anyone else catch that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
GazChap posted:The scenes where K is investigating the orphanage and goes off to find the horse stood out here. Lesser movies would have peppered that scene with flashbacks to the earlier dream sequence to spell out to the audience that it was the same place. This scene was one example of my gripes with the movie. It's all good and well that there was no hand holding flashbacks but I also didn't need to see him take every single step as he walked through the same areas that we had seen in his dream 20 minutes earlier. I don't need Ryan Gosling to spend 30 seconds staring at a metal grate when we know exactly what is in there. This part of Stuckman's review kind of echo's it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6eRA8PnuW4 Looten Plunder fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:*was it really necessary to have everyone want to gently caress Ryan Gosling? I understand that's how it works in real life because he is Ryan Gosling, but i dunno if it was necessary for the police chief to come onto him "Everyone"? Apart from Joshi, the only women who want to gently caress K are an AI programmed to give him what he wants and three prostitutes. Luv and the resistance woman have no interest in him at all, and Bubble Girl likes him because he's interesting but that's it. One thing I found really interesting was the extension of the theme in the original that the replicants desire to be human. Whereas in the original Tyrell replicants did it by asserting personal autonomy, K - who as a Wallace replicant is heavily controlled - has bought himself something artificial that he can control (Joi). This is then subverted when Joi hires Mariette to be her physical proxy, putting herself in the position of the human beings who control the replicants. This shifts the notion of control from a hierarchy to a statement that we are all controlled because we allow ourselves to be, the part of the theme that applied to Deckard in the first movie where he might be a replicant doing what he's made for or he might be a man drawn back in because allowing himself to be controlled by some gives him control over others. (Another interesting parallel: in the book, Deckard wants the bonus for hunting Roy's group so he can buy a real sheep. In BR2049, K uses his bonus for retiring Sapper to buy an emanator for Joi. The real man wants something real, the artificial man wants something artificial.) Last thought for the moment is Deckard saying to K that if he was loved he'd have a name instead of a serial number. But Wallace named Luv when he obviously doesn't love her, while Joshi only ever thinks of K as a serial number but she helps him escape after he fails his baseline test and gives her life to protect him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Jesus Christ I'd forgotten how mind numbingly terrible some posters in CD can be. "The point of the original is the dangers of AI." lmfao Looten Plunder posted:This scene was one example of my gripes with the movie. It's all good and well that there was no hand holding flashbacks but I also didn't need to see him take every single step as he walked through the same areas that we had seen in his dream 20 minutes earlier. I don't need Ryan Gosling to spend 30 seconds staring at a metal grate when we know exactly what is in there. It was part of the pacing and intrinsic design of the film. Holy poo poo why even go see a movie if afterward all you're going to do is sit down and say "I would have done this this this and this and left that out and that's why it's flawed. " Hmm, yes, maybe that's why you're not a successful director. I'm ADD as gently caress but I thought the pacing was perfect. Villeneuve is famous for the tone and suspense he builds in all of his films. And don't even get me started on that guy who thinks the kid(s) never existed. Holy loving poo poo were you on your phone the entire time? This thread had some great discussion going on and then it's like zombies showed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Actually gently caress it, if the run time was so horrible for you, start naming what you'd cut. Specifically. You can't cut out much or the entire thing wouldn't be Blade Runner. The entire experience would be thrown off and empty. It would be another lovely Hollywood sequel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Also Robyn Wright was "under-used" because she is what normal people call a "supporting character," which means she isn't the protagonist or the narrator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
There's a lot of stuff that could have been edited a lot better. Pointless scene with Edward James Olmos cameo that contributed nothing to the plot and was obviously shot second unit in a day, sexbot scene with surrogate girl that goes on forever, really bad pacing when Gosling and Ford first meet. It's not what I would consider to be a very tightly edited movie. A lot of people accuse the original BR of being a slow film but Scott is remarkably restrained with the establishing shots and never languishes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Also Robyn Wright was "under-used" because she is what normal people call a "supporting character," which means she isn't the protagonist or the narrator. her dialogue in every scene that wasn't the one where she and K talked about his childhood was laughable. Like, the really paranoiac stuff she says about him needing to stop a bomb from going off sounds really goofy and out of place. I get what it's going for but that still doesn't make it any less bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:There's a lot of stuff that could have been edited a lot better. Pointless scene with Edward James Olmos cameo that contributed nothing to the plot and was obviously shot second unit in a day, sexbot scene with surrogate girl that goes on forever, really bad pacing when Gosling and Ford first meet. It's not what I would consider to be a very tightly edited movie. A lot of people accuse the original BR of being a slow film but Scott is remarkably restrained with the establishing shots and never languishes. Ah. So then we just fundamentally disagree about the basic tenants of reality. sexbot scene was well done and creepy. Also when the two finally meet it's literally the best part of the film. Especially the freaking nightmarish scene with The King.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:her dialogue in every scene that wasn't the one where she and K talked about his childhood was laughable. Like, the really paranoiac stuff she says about him needing to stop a bomb from going off sounds really goofy and out of place. I get what it's going for but that still doesn't make it any less bad. The entire time I was thinking "the tone of this dialogue is really off, the planet earth of Blade Runner is a dystopian shitshow where nobody recognizes anyone's humanity period, why is replicant/human conflict seen as such a huge deal." Robin Wright is a personal favorite of me and my wife so to see her have to work with such bad lines was a disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:her dialogue in every scene that wasn't the one where she and K talked about his childhood was laughable. Like, the really paranoiac stuff she says about him needing to stop a bomb from going off sounds really goofy and out of place. I get what it's going for but that still doesn't make it any less bad. Yea that was so dumb for her to use alarmist language like "a war" when we later quite literally are introduced to the resistance who are literally planning a war . I also laughed a lot at the laughable scene where she asks about how he rationalized his memories which he know to be false. That was hilarious. What the gently caress is that kid of crap doing in a cyberpunk film noir?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Yea that was so dumb for her to use alarmist language like "a war" when we later quite literally are introduced to the resistance who are literally planning a war . i dunno what to tell you, maybe it was the delivery, but that dialogue stuck out as seeming out of place, and the reveal of the resistance, which I kinda assumed was a thing generally, didn't really flip me on it. Maybe if I watch it again i'll change my mind but it was the delivery and the words all wrapped together that didn't really work for me. alos I pointed out that the scene you specified was the one where the dialogue was fine so maybe read better. edit: it's deep-seated, not deep-seeded vvvvv DC Murderverse fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Also not wanting to see Edward James Olmos in a film means you have a seriously deep-seeded character flaw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
I'm just surprised that no one has sperged out about borrowing a final scene from a beloved anime at the conclusion...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
The Edward James Olmos scene coulda used a bit more leading into it/contextualising it but it was fine and good and the look of the environment they were in was uh. Just Blade Runner as poo poo. Super sterile and weirdly antiquated-modern. Same deal with the opening scene actually. Holy poo poo the interior design in this film
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Actually gently caress it, if the run time was so horrible for you, start naming what you'd cut. Specifically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:I'm just surprised that no one has sperged out about borrowing a final scene from a beloved anime at the conclusion... is it any surprise, considering who they hired to direct that anime short?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
I have a bad feeling this movie will be like The Matrix for me. Amazing to watch the first time and terrible the second, let's see. The original Blade Runner is one of those fantastic pieces of pop culture that I hated when I first saw it and learned to love it after multiple viewings. Radiohead's Kid A is another example of that for me. The biggest problem with the movie is the central thing you need to keep your suspension of disbelief for - Can androids, or artifically created life, have children? I didn't really buy into that and it took me out of the movie. The last movie I watched before this one was Alien Covenant and to be honest, I found the themes of the issues of creation with androids more believable, and interesting, in that (and Prometheus). I also prefered the sense of fun irony and 'humans are big idiots' in those movies compared to this. Still, if androids can have bones, why can't they have children? Maybe it will be a movie that will grow on me on subsequent viewings after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Just a few notes Replicants were always genetically-engineered humans, or at least the ones we see in the movies. Coco, the forensic scientist that was looking at Rachel's body, was a human. He refers to K as a "skinjob" and then apologizes for it. Luv was most likely motivated by her programming, but her unerring devotion to Wallace could also be explained by her position as a privileged member of the oppressed class. She is getting a laser-manicure while calling down predator drone strikes and seems to have a cushy position at Wallace's company that affords her a position above other replicants. I loved that she was basically evil, inverted Rachel. Rachel shows up to meet Deckard dressed in black, Luv meets K in white, Rachel is an ally and Luv is an enemy, Rachel has a real name and Luv has a fake name. They both occupy the same relative position in the enemy megacorp but they are total opposites. I liked the replicant rebellion story element. It is introduced and then never expanded upon because that's not what the story is about. It's all about K and somewhat about Deckard, and that rebellion is a far-off thing. It might as well be the offworld colonies: a thing mentioned but only as a background element. I really do hope they're not going for a third movie, because this one was perfect. I know they'll probably try to do it, but I just don't see how it could work. Robin Wright's Lieutenant Joshi ruled because she was an inversion of the usual "beleaguered police chief" archetype. She was on K's side and did all she could to help him. Her terror at the idea of replicant reproduction was completely warranted, given the fact that a rebellion was coming, and in the end I felt that Wright gave one of the strongest performances in the movie with the time that she had. Luv was terrifying once you saw her kill Coco. She really worked as a believable and threatening enemy, since she seemed like more than a match for K right up until the end. Wallace was good and used just about as much as he needed to be. I liked that nothing happened to him in the end. Roy got to kill Tyrell because that was his arc, sort of the killing your god story, a man losing his religion. But Wallace never meets with K, only Luv does. Luv kills Joi, and that is why she has to be dealt with. Joi was so good in this movie. From her mannerisms to her fun appearance-changes, I really liked her interactions with K. The use of light shining through her body to show that she is a hologram was both cool from a realism standpoint and from the sense of how K sees her. Wallace constantly refers to replicants as angels, and I think K sees Joi as an angel in the same way: a creation that adds something to the creator's life (although K is not Joi's creator, he clearly has turned her from the standard variant into a personalized version through their interactions). What is there to say about the syncing scene between Joi and Mariette? A technical wonder and very well-choreographed, it was mesmerizing. Harrison Ford brought his A-game to this movie and it showed. I liked that he quoted Treasure Island to K when they first met. Also, their fight scene in the theater was very reminiscent of Deckard fighting Roy, with visually confusing interplays of light and shadow and also Deckard attacking a virtually invulnerable opponent and realizing that without his gun there's not much he can do. Absolutely gorgeous shots, from the composition to the lighting and the use (or lack) of color. This movie was a treat to watch, and I want to see it again just to soak in the glory of the outdoor shots of the city. I got a Lovecraftian feel from the scenes of arcologies slowly emerging from fogbanks, these unimaginably huge artifices of metal and glass. The movie definitely had a creepy feeling to it, which the first Blade Runner really captured. The cyberpunk vision of the future, vast garbage dumps and city towers as far as the eye can see, is really scary. The lack of any sort of foliage is striking as well, and everything feels isolating and oppressive in how crowded yet distant it all is. Zimmer was able to somehow pull off Vangelis and bring us a soundtrack that matches the world and feeds into the feelings that the visuals bring. In short, I loved this movie. One question though: When Luv plays back that recording for K, is that Rachel? I knew they were speaking to Deckard, but thinking back on it, I can't remember if that was Sean Young's voice. If so, I feel like an idiot for missing it when it happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Serf posted:
Yes, that is from the scene from the first film where Deckard first meets and VK's Rachel. On that note, I'm really interested in what Sean Youngs involvement in the film was. She's listed in the credits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
They must've used miniatures for a lot of the landscape/city/etc.. shots
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Jedit posted:"Everyone"? Apart from Joshi, the only women who want to gently caress K are an AI programmed to give him what he wants and three prostitutes. Luv and the resistance woman have no interest in him at all, and Bubble Girl likes him because he's interesting but that's it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Movie is a solid B for me. Runs far too long, has a couple of really ineffective villains, and borrows the "life finds a way" angle from Jurassic Park, but barely delves into it. There is also a poorly executed replicant revolution scene thrown in toward the end that should not have made it into the film, in my opinion. As a whole, Blade Runner 2049 strikes me as wildly inaccessible to those new to Blade Runner, which I'm sure hardcore fans absolutely love. Visuals and sound are, of course, superb, and I was surprised a how much I liked Harrison Ford, who has the "city miles" to pull off his character's world weariness and cynicism in a way that never came across as forced. Gosling is Gosling. Robin Wright is Robin Wright. I think the Somali pirate from Captain Phillips is in the movie, doing a good job playing a character called Dr. Badger, which is a tragically bad name. Dave Bautista was very effective in his limited role, which surprised me. Hologram girlfriend was perfect. The movie is not off to a great start at the box office, and I hope it doesn't flop because it doesn't deserve to. It's well-made, it's interesting, and that's nearly all you can ask for. Wank posted:I have a bad feeling this movie will be like The Matrix for me. Amazing to watch the first time and terrible the second, let's see. The original Blade Runner is one of those fantastic pieces of pop culture that I hated when I first saw it and learned to love it after multiple viewings. For me, Blade Runner has always made a terrible second impression. Once you get past the world-class visuals and sound, you're left with a really poor detective story and Rutger Hauer's scene-chewing, the latter of which always made me wonder if Deckard and Bryant had the right Roy Batty, because the one they're chasing seems more like a drama major than someone who would lead a "kick-murder squad." CDHiggs fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Oldsmobile posted:Also found it a bit illogical or poorly explained how Miss MurderKillBot was allowed to go around killing human cops with no consequences. Yes, I get it that corporations rule but needed an explanation. The story took place within a day after that iirc, so maybe there will be future ramifications but her 'self-defense' excuse will hold up for now. Because it would be a huge deal if they couldnt trust replicants anymore, since the nexus10's seem ingrained to society
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Can someone tell me what happened when Gosling and Joi were looking at that DNA sequencing thing towards the beginning of the movie? I had gotten up to pee and came back right when that scene ended with him saying "Wanna go for a ride?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Ah. So then we just fundamentally disagree about the basic tenants of reality. sexbot scene was well done and creepy. Also when the two finally meet it's literally the best part of the film. Especially the freaking nightmarish scene with The King. I'm sorry to be pedantic but it's tenets of reality, though interestingly in a way this may be a movie about the tenants of reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Tailored Sauce posted:Can someone tell me what happened when Gosling and Joi were looking at that DNA sequencing thing towards the beginning of the movie? I had gotten up to pee and came back right when that scene ended with him saying "Wanna go for a ride?" He found two DNA profiles that were an exact match, one male and one female. The female was listed as deceased, and the male's last known location was the junk orphanage K heads to next.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Tailored Sauce posted:Can someone tell me what happened when Gosling and Joi were looking at that DNA sequencing thing towards the beginning of the movie? I had gotten up to pee and came back right when that scene ended with him saying "Wanna go for a ride?" They find 2 DNA matches to the lock of hair recovered from Rachel's ossuary chest, one boy, one girl. According to the records they access, both were processed through the orphanage they subsequently visit, though the girl has been marked deceased. Here is where K begins to assume/believe that based on his memory, that he was the boy. e: probably misremembered the lock of hair bit here VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Tailored Sauce posted:Can someone tell me what happened when Gosling and Joi were looking at that DNA sequencing thing towards the beginning of the movie? I had gotten up to pee and came back right when that scene ended with him saying "Wanna go for a ride?" They had a breadcrumb in the date of birth found at the tree / on the horse in his memory, so they looked at the records of everyone born that day and found two people with matching DNA from the same orphanage, which was as far as we can tell another breadcrumb to get him to find the horse Serf posted:Just a few notes It was also great how the film constantly showed how strong she was by opening the stuck door at the start etc, it was some simple story telling to get the audience to go "oh yeah she's really strong" when she stars killing people It's probably not a spoiler to say its the best Ford performance since 42 maybe? I can't think of any others he wasn't phoning in to a degree (The new Star Wars?). He was super into playing Branch Rickey for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
FWIW I don't think he was phoning in Han Solo either. It's a subtler role, maybe. It depends on what they actually tell us about Rey in this next one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:They had a breadcrumb in the date of birth found at the tree / on the horse in his memory, so they looked at the records of everyone born that day and found two people with matching DNA from the same orphanage, which was as far as we can tell another breadcrumb to get him to find the horse That Joi part in the crashing air-car sequence was so loving good, both before and after
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Joi had a lot of the best moments, the overlapping sex scene absolutely knocked the wind out of me and her glitching out after the crash was discomfortingly eerie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
I was a bit disappointed to see no neon umbrellas in the crowd scenes. Did anyone spot them? For some reason I've always thought they were particularly cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:48
|
|
