|
Doctor Malaver posted:And 70 year old Deckard punching K like he was punching a pillow. I mean, punching someone square in the jaw does bad things to your hand even if you're young, let alone a grandpa who's been surviving mostly on whiskey in a dusty castle for decades...
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I'm curious which recent Hollywood movies in wide release haven't been ideologically liberal. Assuming that’s not a joke-post, recent films have ranged from the nonsatirical fascism of Pacific Rim to, at the other extreme, full communism now in Elysium. Jason Bourne and Rogue One, recently, are allegorical stories about the various ideological pitfalls facing the left as they are forced into unholy alliances with liberals and other faux-progressives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
I'm 100% on Team SMG and value their analyses and jokes and what have ya, but referring to Blade Runner 2049 as "Blade 2" is really unfunny and tired and bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Blade 2 is a good movie so it muddles the waters imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Assuming that’s not a joke-post, recent films have ranged from the nonsatirical fascism of Pacific Rim to, at the other extreme, full communism now in Elysium. Oh yeah, Elysium. That's right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
CARL MARK FORCE IV posted:I'm 100% on Team SMG and value their analyses and jokes and what have ya, but referring to Blade Runner 2049 as "Blade 2" is really unfunny and tired and bad Blade 2’s not a joke; “Blade Runner 2049” is just a really poo poo title that I prefer to abbreviate. (They should have went with Ridley Scott’s original plan, and called it Metropolis.) Any confusion with the vampire movie is unintentional. SMERSH Mouth posted:Oh yeah, Elysium. That's right. Most films are more moderate, obviously, but you still had a recent trend of films warning that the various contradictions of liberal capitalism will eventually lead to a surge of right-wing populism, if not outright fascism. We’re talking for example Dawn Of Justice and Robocop 2014, where there is ambiguity over whether the dead anti-capitalist heroes will be ‘brought back wrong’.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
You could just call it "2049" or BR2049, or even BR49. But the current system is good, because a year or so from now, people can post these quotes during a discussion about Blade 2 and a bunch of people won't know the original context until we explain it to them. It will be funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
My pet title for Blade Runner 2049 is Dances with Wolves, any confusion with another film of the same name is purely unintentional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Blade Runner 2049 is some Cyberpunk 2020 poo poo, and therefore very good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Snak posted:You could just call it "2049" or BR2049, or even BR49. I mostly wanted to highlight how the sequel attempts to ‘explain’ the ambiguous title by having everyone in the future battle eachother with concealed scalpels. The actual reason is that ‘Runner’ is a Georgian-era derogatory term for the “thief-takers” (essentially bounty hunters) who were organized into Britain’s first police force in the 1750s. The point of the title, in the original 1982 film, is the implied backstory that replicant-hunting was originally a private, freelance sort of enterprise up until around the point where the film begins - which is likely why Deckard chafes at being forced into service. The ‘blade’ part is obviously the less important part. The point is that police forces have not always existed, and don’t just emerge from thin air. They are a comparatively recent invention, intimately tied to the rise of industrial capitalism. The point of Blade Runner 1 is that Deckard was ‘originally’ a sort of low-level gangster before being employed by the state. The point is that cops are a gang: “The interrelationship of u.s. capitalists and gangsters has a long history. Before permanent police forces even existed in the u.s., mercenary gangs were authorized to clear the way for settler land theft, and to enforce slave ‘law and order’ for the capitalists and their governments. Gangs of ‘Indian hunters’ such as the Pit River Rangers and the Oregon Militia were given official bounties for each Native person killed. California alone paid millions of dollars out of public funds to these murder squads. Slave patrols of white vigilante thugs were rewarded by plantation capitalists for capturing and “chastizing” escaped slaves. These early genocidal gangster mercenaries were the precursors of modern cops.” http://kersplebedeb.com/posts/cops-are-gangsters/ It’s why you have to be careful about these things. Someone earlier was celebrating cop Joseph as a proletarian hero.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The actual reason is that ‘Runner’ is a Georgian-era derogatory term for the “thief-takers” (essentially bounty hunters) who were organized into Britain’s first police force in the 1750s. The point of the title, in the original 1982 film, is the implied backstory that replicant-hunting was originally a private, freelance sort of enterprise up until around the point where the film begins - which is likely why Deckard chafes at being forced into service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Assuming that’s not a joke-post, recent films have ranged from the nonsatirical fascism of Pacific Rim to, at the other extreme, full communism now in Elysium. The big takeaway being that a movie's politics are pretty much orthogonal to how good it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Cool thing I just learned, the baseline test with the Pale Fire monologue was written into the script, but as far as repeating the different phrases with varying intensity, that comes Ryan Gosling. Apparently its an old acting trick to remember lines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Cool thing I just learned, the baseline test with the Pale Fire monologue was written into the script, but as far as repeating the different phrases with varying intensity, that comes Ryan Gosling. Apparently its an old acting trick to remember lines. Gosling also wrote all the extra lines that weren't from Pale Fire, and the original take for the baseline test was 8 minutes long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I thought it was this. Right: that article explains the title of Burroughs’ book, and states that Scott bought the rights to the title. What you’re missing is the relevant middle part, omitted in the article, where Scott decides that the term ‘Blade Runner’ would be an absolutely perfect fit for this ambiguous new type of bounty-hunting policeman. The sequel’s strange over-emphasis on the ‘Blade’ over ‘Runner’ is part of its depoliticization of the subject matter. Compare the opening text of the two films: Scott’s film specifically describes Deckard as having been part of a special police squad called a BLADE RUNNER UNIT, who were given these new shoot-to-kill orders. Blade Runner 2049, on the other hand, refers vaguely to ‘those who hunt’. “Those who hunt them still go by the name... Blade Runner”. Why the vague language? And why ”still” - over thirty years later - especially since Blade Runners are no longer enforcing the institution of slavery? Old-model replicants in this film are simply ‘prohibited’, for nebulous reasons. (Another strange inconsistency between films: Blade Runner’s opening text is entirely [i]past-tense[/], as a probable nod to 1984’s famous appendix, while Blade Runner 2: 2049 is present-tense. In other words, the original Blade Runner is presented from the perspective of an implied far-future time where Blade Runners no longer exist.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
I don't necessarily agree with all your criticisisms of 2049, but this is quite on point. "If you're not cop, you're little people." It reminds me of the documentary "The Act of Killing" which is about literal gangsters who were sponsored by the government to kill political undesireables. Any of those guys could have easily been a Blade Runner. They are now considered to be heroes by the reigning government, for killing hundreds, but yet they live in squalor, much like Deckard at the start of the first film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
This movie sucked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
I think this movie very effectively captured Scott's brooding, noirish cinematography and the oppressively brutal dreamscape of the city. It feels like Villeneuve really wanted to get that slow, imagistic tone just right. Sudden bursts of violence! K sticks his hand in a beehive! He flies over a city while the soundtrack groans! But I think 2049 totally missed the way Scott counterposes that tone with grotesque, almost slapstick bursts of energy: Rutger Hauer howls like a wolf, drives a Jesus nail through his own palm, and releases his dying soul as a dove. Fifield and Milburn in Prometheus die hideously. People in Covenant keep slipping on the same bloodstain. Kane chokes and seizes and an alien comes out of his chest. Ash's head pops off and his neck spews milk. Ridley loves to go for the gut after he's done with your head. 2049 feels like a tranquilized, choreographed, almost mincingly mannered sequel to a movie that had striking dream imagery and wild nonsense. I get that this reflects a deader, more mechanized future, but I just can't love all the wide shots and perfect compositions on their own. 2049 is too mannered, too pristine and perfect. Nobody screams "I want more life, father/fucker!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I think this movie very effectively captured Scott's brooding, noirish cinematography and the oppressively brutal dreamscape of the city. It feels like Villeneuve really wanted to get that slow, imagistic tone just right. Sudden bursts of violence! K sticks his hand in a beehive! He flies over a city while the soundtrack groans!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Yes! I’m not even being a poo poo, that’s exactly what I mean. It was all Sicario violence, understated, classy, severe, brutally and photographically real. What I miss is poo poo like Rutger Hauer talking to his hand and then stabbing it with a nail. Pris attacking people with gymnastics. There’s this sort of surrealist eruptive quality to it I love. 2049 feels kind of antiseptic by compare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Yeah, the violence in Blade 3 is pretty robotic, which is probably the point or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
uh that fight at the end with the water filling up the car is loving brutal as hell and I was squirming in my seat the whole time
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:uh that fight at the end with the water filling up the car is loving brutal as hell and I was squirming in my seat the whole time Loved that fight, simply brilliantly done and nerve wrecking, perfect sonics amplifying the entire thing. General Battuta posted:Yes! I’m not even being a poo poo, that’s exactly what I mean. It was all Sicario violence, understated, classy, severe, brutally and photographically real. What I miss is poo poo like Rutger Hauer talking to his hand and then stabbing it with a nail. Pris attacking people with gymnastics. There’s this sort of surrealist eruptive quality to it I love. 2049 feels kind of antiseptic by compare. I can very much see where you are coming from, as BR2049 never feels anything less than stately in its action and transitions, never feels hurried or panicked even as it switches into overdrive during the action sequences. Feels languid and luxurious, complete. Quite a few others have said this is the director’s cut, and I have to say it really does feel that way to me too. That being said, I personally thought Luv’s violent (and other) sequences echoed Batty & Co though not quite so extravagantly, and when I found out she based her rendition on Hauer’s Batty I wasn’t even slightly surprised. Anyway I don’t think you are wrong, I think it’s just a matter of taste, I loved the first film and love the second, in both cases for me the flaws add to ambience. And just don’t detract at all from the vivid characterisation, brilliant storytelling and layering in magical dreamy/Hell scapes and near perfect scoring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
I don't know if this had already been posted, but I stumbled across a surprisingly well done Blade Runner fan film: https://youtu.be/xfLVwXkLwhE I know that the phrase "fan film" necessitates automatic eye-rolling, and there's a shitload of ways to gently caress up a Blade Runner fan film of all things, but I was surprised by how restrained it was and that the overall themes felt in the spirit of the original movie without just being a series of homages or callback shots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
I really like that both Luv and K are chasing this holy grail of the magic and sanctity of life... And they're both ruthless killers who kill with terrifying efficiency and zero hesitation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
I finally watched Sicario today, having bought a DVD copy at the Black Friday sale at Walmart (and before anyone starts up, I wanted the Blu-Ray, but couldn't find it). It's hilarious how much of Sicario ended up in Blade Runner 2049. Just how Villeneuve shot some of those establishing shots. The introduction shot to Ciudad Juarez could practically have been BR2049.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
God drat I love Sicario
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
It's a very good movie, and probably better than 2049.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Blade Runner 2049 Director Opens up about the Film's Treatment of Womenquote:He took the opportunity to wax poetic, and consider his broader approach to women in film. “What is cinema?” he asked. “Cinema is a mirror on society. Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it’s about today. And I’m sorry, but the world is not kind to women. I get where he is going with this, but my issue is that he doesn't really seem to say anything about it. He just portrays it. I've never seen any of his other films, so I can't say if he's full of crap or not (Someone else can weigh in) It reminded me of Ebert's response to the creators of the film Chaos. Roger Ebert posted:...I believe evil can win in fiction, as it often does in real life. But I prefer that the artist express an attitude towards that evil. It is not enough to record it; what do you think and feel about it?" Obviously two wildly different films referencing completely different types of characters, but his response popped in my head while I was watching this film. I think the reason a lot of people have issues with the way woman are treated in the film is that it is presented "as is" without any sort of attitude or thought towards it. The director's response strikes me as a cop out. I'm going to watch it again because, overall I enjoyed the film, but the female characters stuck out for me in that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
As long as a film doesn't endorse something awful, I don't particularly mind if it depicts it but does not comment on it, or if it depicts it but doesn't comment on it explicitly enough for it to be clear that the film is saying that this is a bad thing. So in other word, depiction is not necessarily endorsement, and only endorsement is bad. This is not to say that BR2049's depictions are just depictions, and don't amount either to endorsement, criticism, or a bit of both. I just think that insofar as Villeneuve is correct, I think his defense is a good one. You say: Kithyen posted:I think the reason a lot of people have issues with the way woman are treated in the film is that it is presented "as is" without any sort of attitude or thought towards it. The director's response strikes me as a cop out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
BR2049 is about women struggling in toxic work environments where men have it relatively easy. And have the privilege of autonomy. The more I think about it, they should have just made Luv the protagonist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
There's something very French Canadian about the way Villeneuve directs and treats women in his films. After all, Enemy prominently features a pregnant woman as utterly menacing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Well, he did direct Polytechnique.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Why did Jared Leto stab that newborn replicant (in the uterus?) anyway? Maybe there's some subtextual value to that scene but I quite loathed it, especially as it seems to set up some sort of inner conflict in Luv which never plays out. I liked Emily Blunt's character in Sicario a lot, felt she was quite well handled. Neither passive and weak nor superhumanly mighty and brave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
I love how feminists expect every single film to be about feminism and when it isn't, it's supporting the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:I love how feminists expect every single film to be about feminism and when it isn't, it's supporting the patriarchy. Most films do support the patriarchy, if only by simple breakdown of speaking roles and screentime, and when they don't they are (by definition) feminist so it seems like the feminists are doing okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Most films do support the patriarchy, if only by simple breakdown of speaking roles and screentime, and when they don't they are (by definition) feminist so it seems like the feminists are doing okay. It must really suck having to go into a movie and obsessing / fixating on this type of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Why did Jared Leto stab that newborn replicant (in the uterus?) anyway? Maybe there's some subtextual value to that scene but I quite loathed it, especially as it seems to set up some sort of inner conflict in Luv which never plays out. He's mad because he can't make a Replicant what can make babies so he's doing like an angry child scribbling over his own artwork. The scene layers Luv's character because Luv really is a sadistic monster, but learned her sadism directly from Wallace as tantrum-throwing Old Testament godchild. Hence the repetition of her planting a kiss on K right after stabbing him; she learned that one from dad. e: It's important to understand that while he doesn't raise his voice, Wallace is basically having an angry outburst in that scene, defacing his own "artwork." Likewise it's important to understand Luv has no internal conflict about doing Wallace's bidding. She lives to serve him. She actually will lie to Wallace (by omission) in order to protect him. She is a better servant than he even knows. Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:I love how feminists expect every single film to be about feminism and when it isn't, it's supporting the patriarchy. The fact that this is what you believe definitely explains your posts in this thread. In reality, every film is inherently ‘about feminism’ since every film is made by humans caught in inescapable and unequal system. (Humans have a variety sexes and genders, etc.) Villeneuve’s film is even explicitly intended to be feminist - the villain sees fertile women as chattel and infertile women as worthless. But it is not a feminist film for reasons outlined earlier. It is not egalitarian, when feminism is egalitarianism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
Something I find myself disagreeing with was the decision to make Wallace into this comic book badguy who by turns evokes Satan and Magneto. Remember how in the first one the Evil Corporate Mastermind is just this harmless old Japanese grandpa who likes playing games?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:01
|
|