|
Thanks for the help! Any thoughts on the use of the theme from Peter and the Wolf? It seems like they could have use any jingle (or a made up one) so there has to be something in that specific choice, right?
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Thanks for the help! A couple things - Peter and the Wolf is a Soviet fairy tale. The various parts are played by different instruments. In addition to the "animals" theme, there's the pedagogy of fairy tales and the assumed relationship of corporations to consumers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
If I remember correctly Peter and the Wolf has something like a repeated refrain about going outside the garden gate and into the meadow, and it is being used as a ringtone by a device that allows Joi to go outside.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Two awesome posters (much better than the official crap this movie got) 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:A couple things - Peter and the Wolf is a Soviet fairy tale. The various parts are played by different instruments. In addition to the "animals" theme, there's the pedagogy of fairy tales and the assumed relationship of corporations to consumers. Speaking of Russian stuff. Were the junk yard raiders speaking russian?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Speaking of Russian stuff. Were the junk yard raiders speaking russian? It also looks like the Soviet Union never collapsed, because of the hologram of the ballerina being advertised as "Soviet Happy, built in the CCCP". Given the prostitutes speak in Russian, does that mean there's some Russian equivalent of Tyrell/Wallace Corp?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:It also looks like the Soviet Union never collapsed, because of the hologram of the ballerina being advertised as "Soviet Happy, built in the CCCP". I was thinking possibly failed invasion army from the near past.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:We had a lot of talk earlier in the thread about all of the strong feminist messages and imagery in this film. If you don't see the obvious motherhood = power motif then that's on you. Yeah but there were tits, therefore
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Given the prostitutes speak in Russian They speak Finnish, and one of them even is Finnish: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1279980/
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Two awesome posters (much better than the official crap this movie got) Would print frame the first poster. Where did you find it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
The effect of the light constantly shimmering as it reflected off/through the water inside Wallace's HQ was so loving good. drat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Would print frame the first poster. Where did you find it? http://hanswoody.com/ http://posterposse.com/ here's his original 
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
That'd be dope without the logo and background texture. If it were on black it'd be 🔥
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:He dies. If the acting doesn't imply it, the music does. Its the same song that played when Roy Batty died He was just laying down, was like a normal day for him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Sirotan posted:The effect of the light constantly shimmering as it reflected off/through the water inside Wallace's HQ was so loving good. drat. I was watching Dangerous Days today and only then noticed Tyrell's office has a very understated version of that effect. Also its cool that one of the original openings planned for Blade Runner ended up being redone as Batista's scene in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
guys, do you need to have seen the old blade runner to see the new one? I've seen it but some of my mates haven't and I don't want them to have a bad time. Oh, also is the new one good?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:He was just laying down, was like a normal day for him. Has anyone discussed the imagery around this as the snow making K one of Wallace's "angels"? double nine posted:guys, do you need to have seen the old blade runner to see the new one? You don't need to see the old movie, but it helps. Blade Runner 2049 is a slower-paced, philosophical science fiction neo-noir movie with incredible world-building and visuals, so judge accordingly. I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Man, I reeeeaaalllly liked this movie. I liked it much better than the original even (I find BR to be a littttle too ponderous even for me). I thought the meditations on humanity but especially loneliness were really moving. I can't stop thinking about this beautiful film. One of my favorite things about BR and BR2049 is that the world feels so lived in. It feels like a dynamic place with history and culture. I think one reason why is that BR/BR2049 don't really call attention to stuff. They don't do exposition dumps about why there's so many languages on the billboards or whatever. The camera just floats over things and you tell yourself your own story about how it all got this way. Vegas was AMAZING in BR2049. I loved the giant statues and the casinos frozen in time. Just amazing. One motif I was really vibing on for BR2049 is that of giant women. There are frequent setpieces with GIANT women peering down at men, be it projected faces, holographic ballerinas or JOIs, or the giant Vegas statues. I've been mulling over that a lot: in a film about a man trying to find another man while a third man schemes from his tower, you have the female counterparts to all three and huge-rear end goddesses towering over the landscape. Man I love this movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
david_a posted:Somebody already mentioned it, but I loved the solar towers as a sort of mirrored callback to the fire towers in the original opening (although I was kinda wonder how well they would work, but maybe the fog dissipates at some point). I like the idea that humanity tried switching to solar energy but that it was too late, and now the air quality is so bad/the climate's so hosed that they don't work very well. Mirrors the situation that we're in now. We could have avoided catastrophic climate change had we taken solar energy seriously sooner. Queering Wheel fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:I never understood why the Unicorn meant that Deckard was a Replicant, I guess because Gaff also knew what Deckard dreams a la Deckard knowing Rachel's memories? Why would they use a Replicant to hunt Replicants when they're are banned on Earth and Deckard doesn't even have the super strength or agility that the film states that all Replicants have? Seems like it would be useful to have a super human killer to hunt down illegal super humans. My interpretation of that is that if Tyrell could make a replicant that appeared human by all accounts (hence no super strength), and didn't know it was a replicant, and was tasked with uncovering other replicants without ever guessing it was itself a replicant, then the possibility of manufacturing replicants who never question their existence (as the Nexus 6 models obviously do) is entirely valid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:http://hanswoody.com/ why is Hillary's face on the building
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:I never understood why the Unicorn meant that Deckard was a Replicant, I guess because Gaff also knew what Deckard dreams a la Deckard knowing Rachel's memories? Why would they use a Replicant to hunt Replicants when they're are banned on Earth and Deckard doesn't even have the super strength or agility that the film states that all Replicants have? Seems like it would be useful to have a super human killer to hunt down illegal super humans. There's no way to prove it one way or the other, but my favorite theory is that Gaff already tried to catch the Nexus 6 models (which is how he got injured), and Deckard was the replicant made to finish the job. It makes a lot of sense of why Gaff has so much contempt for Deckard, trails him, and doesn't bother to help against Roy when he apparently could have. Deckard might have Gaff's memories in that case, and he knows that Deckard dreams of unicorns because he does too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:why is Hillary's face on the building
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Bill Dungsroman posted:My interpretation of that is that if Tyrell could make a replicant that appeared human by all accounts (hence no super strength), and didn't know it was a replicant, and was tasked with uncovering other replicants without ever guessing it was itself a replicant, then the possibility of manufacturing replicants who never question their existence (as the Nexus 6 models obviously do) is entirely valid. My interpretation is that the unicorn memory is a failsafe put in all replicants, something to prove to them that they're artificial even if their memories otherwise tell them they're not. As for Deckard, if he's a replicant (I don't think he is or is not - the ambiguity is the point) I figure he's the same as Rachel: "An experiment. Nothing more." By Tyrell's own admission, Rachel isn't Nexux 6 - she's something new and different. She takes an unusual number of VK questions, while it "usually takes" many more. Since Batty and the other replicants are in the field and have been for more than 3 years, they are the "usual" and Rachel must be a more advanced model. She seems to be there to prove how well implanted memories work. So Deckard (in the possibility where he's a replicant) must be there for a different test, especially since he's been in the field a while, otherwise all the human characters wouldn't have interacted with him as if they'd known him for years. If they were Gaff's memories and everyone were just "playing along" that makes sense, but the one that definitely doesn't read like that to me is his (deleted scene) conversation with Holden. I do like that theory as to why Gaff has the limp, though. And then technically it could be that Gaff has memories of a unicorn (but... why?) and is showing Deckard that it's his memories he has. The only way I can make sense of it is that Rachel was an experiment in using real memories, and Deckard was an earlier experiment in using false memories. But this all brings up something that was bothering me about the film: If Rachel is able to give birth, couldn't that be due to her experimental nature and mean that no other replicant would be capable of giving birth? Or is that intentional, and Wallace wants the child because their genetic makeup would unlock the secret to Rachel's ability to give birth? And if so, why not just use genetic material gained from her remains? e: I know that's all overthinking it, but still, the question still lingers for me. Though the possibility that Wallace floats out there that Deckard and Rachel were made for each other certainly corresponds to it. But that doesn't ring true for me, since it never felt like Deckard and Rachel were in some great romance. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Yak of Wrath posted:The "Pony Memory" I believe was implanted into a portion of replicants to recruit to the slave rebellion. Those that had the memory were told of the "miracle" and inducted. The prostitutes were initially sent to look into K as a Blade Runner hunting the child, but the one in the apartment recognised the pony, so they approached K to recruit him. Would that even work well? The memory is just an unremarkable memory. It doesn't suggest anything about a miracle or would prime anyone to believe it. K only believes in the miracle because he finds the evidence that the memory is a real one and he's found the bones and knows from physical evidence that a replicant gave birth and seen the date scribbled near where the bones were found. Without the bones and the date scribbled at the burial site, though, it's just a random memory that was based in fact. Only thing you could tell people is 'I know a memory you have', which just means you're a replicant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
I've always sort of maintained that the point of the original is that replicant isn't some physical property of being, it's essentially a class relation. That is, what determines whether someone is a replicant isn't really the facts of their creation--they're explicitly written as being otherwise indistinguishable from human beings--it's their role in society, how they're treated by others, how they're looked upon, how they see themselves. Of course the Deckard of the original is a replicant! Maybe he was born, maybe he wasn't, but in either case he's a paid assassin looked upon by society with contempt, and one who will be quietly disposed of the second he breaks rank and refuses to serve his purpose. Anyone who today pushes a broom or assembles a circuit board is hardly any different from the artificial humans of the movie on this level. And the replicants of 2049 are not so much artificial humans as they are an artificial nation, one created to be colonized and exploited. They're a new third world, intended to transcend the limits of capitalist expansion geographically by opening horizons biologically. All of humanity is thus elevated to an oppressor class, albeit an intermediary one between the truly wealthy and their new toys, in exactly the same fashion as the workers of the first world are so elevated today--by inserting a second, more ruthlessly exploited class beneath them. Probably not a coincidence that the person who's lifelong ambition was to engineer this set of circumstances was such a big fan of slavery. Deckard occupies a slightly more ambiguous position between replicant and human, straddling the social line between oppressor and oppressed by brokering between the two. He gets his little share of the pie and violently defends it. Yes, to the extent it makes sense to talk about the biological "facts" of a fictional world, he is one or he is the other. But solving that puzzle gets you absolutely nothing! Everything you need to know about Deckard is explained by the fact that he's a cop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Tomahawk posted:Did anyone else feel like the second half of the movie was much weaker than the first half? The movie was strong enough to stand on its own without Harrison Ford imo Yes, the first half was flawless in my opinion and the second half, after he found Deckard, felt like it was written by someone else. It was still strong enough that I enjoyed it though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Woozy posted:I've always sort of maintained that the point of the original is that replicant isn't some physical property of being, it's essentially a class relation. That is, what determines whether someone is a replicant isn't really the facts of their creation--they're explicitly written as being otherwise indistinguishable from human beings--it's their role in society, how they're treated by others, how they're looked upon, how they see themselves. Of course the Deckard of the original is a replicant! Maybe he was born, maybe he wasn't, but in either case he's a paid assassin looked upon by society with contempt, and one who will be quietly disposed of the second he breaks rank and refuses to serve his purpose. Anyone who today pushes a broom or assembles a circuit board is hardly any different from the artificial humans of the movie on this level. And the replicants of 2049 are not so much artificial humans as they are an artificial nation, one created to be colonized and exploited. They're a new third world, intended to transcend the limits of capitalist expansion geographically by opening horizons biologically. All of humanity is thus elevated to an oppressor class, albeit an intermediary one between the truly wealthy and their new toys, in exactly the same fashion as the workers of the first world are so elevated today--by inserting a second, more ruthlessly exploited class beneath them. Probably not a coincidence that the person who's lifelong ambition was to engineer this set of circumstances was such a big fan of slavery. While I don't completely agree with this in its entirety, it fully evokes the Caves of Steel influences on the original BR in regards to class. Love this line of thinking and I'll definitely be pondering on it, especially in light of 2049's deepening of the themes. starkebn posted:Yes, the first half was flawless in my opinion and the second half, after he found Deckard, felt like it was written by someone else. I can't really disagree. It reminds me a lot of my own writing where I come up with the first act, second act, and ending, but then for the third act just kinda go "...and throw a bunch of general third act things in there, like car chases and shooting and stuff" that get me to the end point. But the second half had an adorably shaggy dog sooo feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Saw it again. Noticed things I didn't notice the first time. It's still great, and I still think it's better than the original. It's captivating throughout the entire runtime. For 2 hours and 45 minutes, I never wanted to look away from the screen (except when K sticks his hand into the box full of bees  But it makes sense considering replicants would have reduced/altered pain responses and that probably wouldn't trigger a response with him like with a regular human).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Shoehead posted:
I'm pretty sure I remember a scene like that from the book
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
It's really been incredible watching dumbshits who admit to binge-watching an entire season of some crappy Netflix show in one weekend start squirting tears about movies being over two hours long. Saying dumb poo poo like "no movie NEEDS to be over an hour and 45 minutes"...Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
How Darwinian posted:Deckard might have Gaff's memories in that case, and he knows that Deckard dreams of unicorns because he does too.  I don't think this was intentional, but death of the author and all that, I really like it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
starkebn posted:
There was always this notion that Gaff was more Deckard's handler rather than his partner, but now that we see in the new movie how there's a market for memory implants it's definitely something I like. It would fit with his scene in this one too He basically describes him the exact same way he'd describe himself, then just says he has no idea where he ran off to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's really been incredible watching dumbshits who admit to binge-watching an entire season of some crappy Netflix show in one weekend start squirting tears about movies being over two hours long. Saying dumb poo poo like "no movie NEEDS to be over an hour and 45 minutes"...Jesus. Yes it's been hard for me because I cannot understand how the length of something has anything to do with its quality. I've seen the movie twice now (once in a food/beer theater and once in IMAX) and can't stop recommending it to people, but the conversation always goes "ehhhhhh but it's almost three hours long." So what? If you're entertained for 3 hours isn't that a good thing??? Aughhhhgh
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
I think it's also possible to view the unicorn thing as a kind of coincidence. Gaff generally seems to fold animals that are symbols for their recipient (Joe gets a sheep because at that point Gaff reasonably assumes he's a loyal replicant, etc.). As I recall, it seems pretty strongly implied that Gaff has intentionally allowed Deckard to choose to run away with Rachel. If so, maybe the unicorn is not really for Deckard at all but is instead a symbol of Rachel. And Deckard's own vision of the unicorn could similarly be him realizing that she's something truly special and unique, and he shouldn't ignore his feelings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
That's how I always took it, that his leaving the unicorn was his way of saying "Now's your chance to GTFO before I have to on the record be at your place finding clues about Rachael's whereabouts and hunting you down." It's less saying "unicorn" specifically and more "living your dream."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Martman posted:I think it's also possible to view the unicorn thing as a kind of coincidence. Gaff generally seems to fold animals that are symbols for their recipient (Joe gets a sheep because at that point Gaff reasonably assumes he's a loyal replicant, etc.). I thought that was a reference to the book. Gaff is asked what happened to Deckard; he replies "I guess he got what he wanted", then puts the sheep on the table. In the book, Deckard is hunting Roy's group for a bonus that he plans to use to buy a real sheep.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
One thing that I really liked about the last 20 minutes was how most of the movie had spent time building up how grand and world changing this child was. Her existence could be the end of humanity or lead to perfect replicants. In the middle of this mystery of self discovery, there is this grand world-defining plot happening at the same time. By comparison, the original movie was very small, with just small story in one city that probably only affected 4 or 5 people. So after the chief told K to kill the child to stop the revolution, and the resistance asks K to kill Deckard to protect the revolution, K instead of choosing some side in this grand war, rejects them both. He doesn't care about the future of humanity or replicants. He just wants a child to have a chance at meeting her dad and feel the love and acceptance he sought. I feel like this makes the movie all the more relatable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:There was always this notion that Gaff was more Deckard's handler rather than his partner, but now that we see in the new movie how there's a market for memory implants it's definitely something I like. It would fit with his scene in this one too He basically describes him the exact same way he'd describe himself, then just says he has no idea where he ran off to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's really been incredible watching dumbshits who admit to binge-watching an entire season of some crappy Netflix show in one weekend start squirting tears about movies being over two hours long. Saying dumb poo poo like "no movie NEEDS to be over an hour and 45 minutes"...Jesus. In an alternate universe, they can enjoy a 105 minute Blade Runner sequel directed by W.S. Anderson about the resistance going to war with Wallace Corp, with big battle at end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 01:19
|
|
