|
Neo Rasa posted: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." It's definitely both. Gaff left an origami animal to tell Deckard "I was here and I didn't kill your girlfriend" which implies he's at least giving him a head start if not a free pass altogether. The purpose of it being a unicorn is to tell Deckard "I know what you've been daydreaming about" which implies it's an implant/he's a replicant. I held firm to my belief that Deckard was human for a long time because to me a human falling in love with a replicant answers the question "are they people" and is a stronger statement than "surprise they're both replicants, you can now question their emotional responses to everything". I wanted to believe that the unicorns symbolized Deckard's desire(day dream) and then opportunity(pathway out of there) for true freedom, but here's the deal guys, if the Director of the film says it's a literal unicorn and he put it in the film to prove Deckard's a replicant than he's a replicant. I do like that the new film doesn't cement it either way though.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
It works either way because if it turns out that Deckard is a replicant, it does not make his love any less real
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:but here's the deal guys, if the Director of the film says it's a literal unicorn and he put it in the film to prove Deckard's a replicant than he's a replicant. Actually Ridley Scott's opinion doesn't matter at all. If Peter Jackson told you that Sam and Frodo weren't supposed to be attracted to each other would it matter?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
The answer of whether or not Deckard is a replicant in the original Blade Runner is not as interesting as the presence of the question. The message of the film is not "what does it mean to be human," it's "modern life has become so commodified and lonely that the real is indistinguishable from the artificial."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted: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. Looking forward to seeing Blade Runner 2049: The Final Cut in 2042.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:but here's the deal guys, if the Director of the film says it's a literal unicorn and he put it in the film to prove Deckard's a replicant than he's a replicant. yeah well I say gently caress the director, pal!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:The answer of whether or not Deckard is a replicant in the original Blade Runner is not as interesting as the presence of the question. The message of the film is not "what does it mean to be human," it's "modern life has become so commodified and lonely that the real is indistinguishable from the artificial." Those ideas are not at all mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
I was one of the diehard 'Deckard is a replicant' guys until this movie. There's no evidence one way or the other, but I now much prefer the idea that he was human, because it mirrors the relationship between K and JOI. I'm really glad JOI was in this movie, I feel like it adds a great layer that would be sorely lacking. K looking at generic 300ft tall JOI and realizing he has indeed seen a miracle (his JOI being self-aware and actually loving him and choosing to potentially sacrifice herself for him) and that giving him the courage to 'decide' to break his programming was beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
I love how people's interpretations of Joi are completely opposite too!  She's definitely the new "replicant question."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Actually Ridley Scott's opinion doesn't matter at all. If Peter Jackson told you that Sam and Frodo weren't supposed to be attracted to each other would it matter? Well... yeah, he's the one telling the story. I know the writers meant it to be more ambiguous but I didn't read the script, I watched the movie. Berke Negri posted:yeah well I say gently caress the director, pal! Honestly that's fair too, I'm not discounting "Death of the Author" and honestly with the purveying ambiguity of the new film I guess we might as well rekindle the debate he's a replicant/JOI loved K
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:Well... yeah, he's the one telling the story. I know the writers meant it to be more ambiguous but I didn't read the script, I watched the movie. The movie tells the story. Not interviews and marketing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
This movie was beautiful and compelling. JOI was my favorite character, and it's fascinating to wonder if she was just following her programming or becoming something more (or maybe all people are just following our natural "programming"). Also, I loved the mega-structures, like the huge buildings and huge dam. I might like the first one better though, primarily because it seemed slightly more optimistic (others may disagree with this). The first one ends with Deckard and Rachael essentially riding off into the sunset, with their future full of possibilities, while this one ends with Deckard trying to reconnect with that old life in a somewhat wistful and nostalgic sense. Plus, the world in this one feels a bit colder and more sterile. In the first one you could hope that the world is simply going through a bad phase, but now, after 30+ more years, it still seems pretty lousy. (The movie was still fantastic, though!) A few questions: 1) Wallace is still alive and well at the end of the movie, right? Deckard doesn't seem particularly safe, even if Joe declared him dead, so I worry for him and his daughter. 2) In the climatic fight, where exactly are they? It looks like there is some huge dam on the ocean-front, so are they on the outside of that? Why were they near it in the first place? Is the airport offshore? 3) I feel like I've seen a different scene where someone hires a prostitute to have sex with someone because they aren't physically there in a different movie or TV show, and it's bothering me that I can't remember it. Anybody remember something like that? Also, I don't typically pay much attention to special effects, but the low-key effects in this were astounding. 1) How did they make Rachael reappear toward the end? That didn't look like reused footage, and didn't look like de-aging. Did they find a similar actress and touch her up with CG? Sean Young is credited, but that might just be for the old footage. 2) How did they do the sex scene? Maybe they filmed the two women separately and used some sort of depth-mapping to determine which one should appear in front? Also, I went through the whole movie thinking Robin Wright was Katie Sackhoff, so now I feel pretty silly. I prefer to think that Deckard is human. For whatever reason, it makes the story seem more approachable and satisfying. To me, it more clearly breaks the human/replicant divide, as opposed to two replicants simply falling in love. DorianGravy fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
It's intentionally made ambiguous in the Final Cut though and Scott sure has hell had full control over that (one of the evidence things about him being a replicant was a continuity error created by a conversation he has with Bryant that was fixed). Deckard "canonically" is a replicant but both movies make it so that there's no particular reason for him to be a replicant or a human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Watched the film a couple of days ago, never watched the original but still had a blast. I felt that some of the Vegas sections maybe dragged on a tiny bit too long, but generally loved it. One thing I hated was that I think the cinema I was in had a screwy sound system. When the heavy bass bits came on there was always this undertone of static like the equalizer was chopping parts of the waveform off. Unless that was the intention? With all the talk about programming replicants, there isn't anything explicitly shown in the movie of a replicant being forced to obey an order. In this way it feels more like an indoctrination than some strict hardwired code in their brains. I feel they are have been engineered not only to have enhanced strength and resilience but to also be receptive to this 'programming'. They can deviate, it's just difficult for them to countenance doing so through their innate mental tendencies and indoctrination. I see them more like people who have been brought up in very cloistered environments - akin to cults or some cloistered religious groups (aka cults). On the JOI question, the program is clearly capable of learning - 'tells you what you want to hear' works only if it knows a person. She certainly has a memory, though the question if she has agency is a more difficult one to answer. Points suggesting she has some degree of agency would be the panic she displayed when K crashed his car (he was unconscious so there was no reason for her programming to trigger unless there is some sort of "911" mode). Also the antenna breaking and transferring scene - though this could be argued as part of her programming as well "just like a real girl". She does order the prostitute out in K's absence with a hint of jealousy, something she had no need to do. Finally there was the intervention with Luv, she clearly recognised her impending destruction/death and reacted to it, suggesting at least some degree of self or an extremely complex program. It's also generally interesting to note that even when she's "off", she maintains some awareness of her surroundings and is able to react. I think if not sentient then at least an extremely complex program able to masquerade as being so. She is able to learn and react within a set of imperatives - much like a person. Maybe not a genius or someone who is creative, but her portrayal in the film certainly suggests that she has agency. Even in real life you have people who are irrationally devoted to a particular cause - could they be argued to be less sentient than a learning program meant to please it's owner? Maybe not sentient at the start but the lines blur at the end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
The music! The parts leading up to where K was talking with the hookers had annoying sounds I'd describe as a motor revving between high and low speeds, and it was drowning out the music. I'm fairly certain now that was part of the music.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
DorianGravy posted:2) In the climatic fight, where exactly are they? It looks like there is some huge dam on the ocean-front, so are they on the outside of that? Why were they near it in the first place? Is the airport offshore? 2- I think it's a giant sea wall to keep the tides out due to sea level rise. 3- 'Her' did the same thing in a more sincere way. Dead Jedi posted:The music! The parts leading up to where K was talking with the hookers had annoying sounds I'd describe as a motor revving between high and low speeds, and it was drowning out the music. I'm fairly certain now that was part of the music. It is indeed part of the soundtrack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jm9ljyy9cE
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
DorianGravy posted:
"Her" had something similar to this. e:fb
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
I also wonder how they filmed Rachael's return. Did they bring her back for that part? Was the makeup so on-point that they de-aged her 35 years?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Ubiquitous_ posted:I also wonder how they filmed Rachael's return. Did they bring her back for that part? Was the makeup so on-point that they de-aged her 35 years? It was the best digital de-ageing/CG double work yet, but definitely still digital. Her muscles didn't move quite right and the light didn't react quite right to her skin. I'm guessing it's either just the newest example of a digital human that outclasses everything that's come before, or a new technique where they combine photographic elements from a stand-in with the digital model. Likely the former, since Tarkin was only one step behind this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
I stuck around for the ending credits and was surprised it wasn't Lola FX that did the Sean Young scene. It's a new studio I haven't heard of. Thumbs up. I completely bought 98% of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
DorianGravy posted:A few questions: 2) They appear to be gigantic sea walls protecting the land from erosion and to protect the city from massive storms. You see some lights off in the distance that they're flying toward so the spaceport is either a floating platform or some kind of island. I assume this is primarily to heighten security, since you can only reach it by air and they would see you coming. Being father away from any meddlesome government is probably a bonus too. I think international water starts 200 miles offshore in the US so it's probably still under their jurisdiction, though. We've seen nothing about space travel in the BR universe so maybe the ships are super dangerous/polluting?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:The answer of whether or not Deckard is a replicant in the original Blade Runner is not as interesting as the presence of the question. The message of the film is not "what does it mean to be human," it's "modern life has become so commodified and lonely that the real is indistinguishable from the artificial." Exactly. Blade Runner is entirely a film about late capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Steve Yun is correct on Deckard's humanity in the original. While Scott might have an "answer" in mind, the movie clearly intends it to be ambiguous and that ambiguity is more important than whatever Deckard's actual origin is. Replicants are vritually indistinguishable from humans. That's the point. Regarding the special effects in the sequel: The reappearance of Rachael was a deeply unsettling experience. Its one of the scenes that stuck most with me after leaving the theater, the others being the Lounge Fight Scene and Joi glitching out. I don't know anything about the studio who remade her, but it was phenomenally well done. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
The Rachel execution was the most obvious effect of the film for me, unfortunately. Her presence before that was pretty spot on. The strength of the original Blade Runner was that if Deckard is a replicant or not, the question remains the same, what makes "original" humans "better", and why should they treat replicants like garbage? The weakness of the unicorn dream is that the doubt about Deckard could still be there without it, and the question would be more interesting without "proof"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Regarding replicant's being forced to obey orders, you have reminded me of when K says to princess bride "I wasn't aware that was an option". That sentence now holds multiple layers for me. JOI clearly appears to be more than just an AI. The way she reacts when K turns on the emanator, looking timidly at the uh.. 'hardline' in the ceiling, shows more than just simple gratitude that a pleasurebot would show the owner, same with her reaction to going outside. Also, as you said, her panic when K was in the crashed vehicle when he was unconscious and she would have no reason to 'say what he wanted to hear', and her using her last moments to say she loved him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
starkebn posted:The Rachel execution was the most obvious effect of the film for me, unfortunately. Her presence before that was pretty spot on. I've seen a lot of folks saying it looked weird but even on a second viewing me and my friends legit were asking "did they just find a lookalike actor?". I agree only when they shoot her in the head does it look odd, I'm not sure why they bothered to make that part CGI, since it was in shadow
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
DorianGravy posted:3) I feel like I've seen a different scene where someone hires a prostitute to have sex with someone because they aren't physically there in a different movie or TV show, and it's bothering me that I can't remember it. Anybody remember something like that? My first thought, of all things, was Ghost with Demi Moore and Whoopi Goldberg.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
A lot of interesting parallels to the first movie in this that make for a nice companion film: One is a story about a human (?) searching for replicants/wondering if he is one, the other is about a replicant searching for a human/wondering if he is one. Rachel is kind and loving, Luv is a killer. The VK machine tests for a lack of emotions, the new test tries to detect too many emotions. A human falls in love with a replicant, a replicant falls for an AI. One has the replicant learn empathy beyond its design, the other has an AI learn to love beyond its design. Probably others I am missing also.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
checkplease posted:A lot of interesting parallels to the first movie in this that make for a nice companion film: One is a story about a human (?) searching for replicants/wondering if he is one, the other is about a replicant searching for a human/wondering if he is one. One has that ad with an Asian woman in a kimono, the other has Jared Leto in a kimono.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
They're both tales of "a man's job" as Olmos in a weird costume would call it, but in the original it's in the sense of man's brutality and cruelty and in this one it's in the sense of man's awakening to an ability to deny his penchant for brutality and cruelty. Well cheers
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:With all the talk about programming replicants, there isn't anything explicitly shown in the movie of a replicant being forced to obey an order. In this way it feels more like an indoctrination than some strict hardwired code in their brains. I feel they are have been engineered not only to have enhanced strength and resilience but to also be receptive to this 'programming'. They can deviate, it's just difficult for them to countenance doing so through their innate mental tendencies and indoctrination. I see them more like people who have been brought up in very cloistered environments - akin to cults or some cloistered religious groups (aka cults). I think it works more like conditioning where replicants are fully aware inside themselves but a sort of override allows their personality to kind of double and carry out actions that to the individual replicant they may be appalled or not want to do. This is what the "baseline" testing is intended to suss out if the conditioning is still in place. It's vague and not so much defined but that's Blade Runner, but I think the process isn't really where people are programmed and just walking around as puppets. Where conditioning ends and the actual replicant begins is one of those left unanswered questions in all its horribleness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
I think it is pretty clear, by virtue of them having to do baseline tests all the time, that as soon as a replicant's behaviour starts to drift they just whack them. So it definitely is possible, but they've been conditioned so hard and repressed so consistently they don't question it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
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. Interesting, but I thought that the whole point was to use the Replicants as slave labor so having them know about their existence and keeping them fearful of humans ("Quite an experience to live in fear") would keep them complacent an essentially good slaves. How Darwinian posted: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. I never noticed gaff's injury, but this is interesting as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:Interesting, but I thought that the whole point was to use the Replicants as slave labor so having them know about their existence and keeping them fearful of humans ("Quite an experience to live in fear") would keep them complacent an essentially good slaves. Slavery is what society / government wanted for replicants, it's pretty clear Tyrell was pushing the boundaries as an artist / god
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:Regarding replicant's being forced to obey orders, you have reminded me of when K says to princess bride "I wasn't aware that was an option". That sentence now holds multiple layers for me. The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that Joi was my favorite aspect of the film. She is the clearest continuation of the themes of the original movie, which is fitting since she is a replicant's replicant. One step further removed from the humans who created her and seen even by replicants as just a tool, like how humans see replicants. She echoes Roy Batty in that she wants what she can't have. Roy wants to live longer than his lifespan, and Joi wants to interact with K in the physical world. Joi hiring Mariette to act as her stand-in is Roy coercing Sebastian to let him see Tyrell, her dismissal of Mariette is Roy killing Tyrell and her choosing to be downloaded into the emanator is Roy choosing to die on his own terms. Like Roy, her memories, all those moments in time are lost when she dies, which is like the essence of mortality, something that they both understand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
You guys are going to hate me for this, but the recent movie this most reminded me of was Tron Legacy. Now that I say that I'm not quite sure why; maybe it's the deliberate mechanical motions of some of the characters, or use of light, e.g. the Elvis scene in this vs. the club scene in Tron. Go ahead and tell me how wrong I am because I know nothing about cinema. I have a question though, I had a hard time with some of the dialogue in noisier scenes like the fight in the water, did Luv say "I'm the next one" or "I'm the last one"? And what the heck did she mean by it, either way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:I have a question though, I had a hard time with some of the dialogue in noisier scenes like the fight in the water, did Luv say "I'm the next one" or "I'm the last one"? And what the heck did she mean by it, either way? MWAH!...I'M the best one!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't even think of that, haha. Gosling did a great job in this, there was one scene in particular where he seemingly didn't move a muscle in his face but was still emoting like the dickens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:MWAH!...I'M the best one! Too bad they didnt make her gills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:MWAH!...I'M the best one! Also for those who might have missed it because it's very quiet: Wallace says "You really are the best [one?], aren't you, luv?" After he guts the newborn replicant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 04:55
|
|