|
Basebf555 posted:Not sure I'd really call it a subplot, it's mostly just the plot. Nah, the main plot is K's investigation and personal journey, to which the revolution nonsense is secondary.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nah, the main plot is K's investigation and personal journey, to which the revolution nonsense is secondary. Point taken but it's not like you can really separate the two. The entire backdrop of K's story is this building revolution and his investigation ends up putting him right at the heart of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Point taken but it's not like you can really separate the two. The entire backdrop of K's story is this building revolution and his investigation ends up putting him right at the heart of it. Eh, a lot of the story is dealing with K untangling of Deckard's actions, and Deckard didn't give a poo poo about the revolution. He was just trying to protect his daughter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
I'm all in favor of more Bowie or Combs or Glover, but I don't think anyone really could have saved the Wallace role as written. If these things are really so slow and expensive to produce that human-style childbirth would be a game-changing improvement and the most important thing going on in your life, maybe don't break one in service of the monologue that only your fanatically loyal assistant is watching anyway. You'd need better lines to sell that as anything but hopelessly goofy no matter how weird you play the character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
The entire movie is about the revolution coming from the existence of a replicant baby. The first scene has K trying to arrest a replicant guarding a tomb of a replicant that gave birth. The revolution was already in planning way before the start of the movie. It's not like it just happens at the end, its only revealed to K at the end.
Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:I'm all in favor of more Bowie or Combs or Glover, but I don't think anyone really could have saved the Wallace role as written. If these things are really so slow and expensive to produce that human-style childbirth would be a game-changing improvement and the most important thing going on in your life, maybe don't break one in service of the monologue that only your fanatically loyal assistant is watching anyway. You'd need better lines to sell that as anything but hopelessly goofy no matter how weird you play the character. Kinda missing the point. He wants them to be self-replicating in order to free them from bondage to the manufacturing process and let them populate the universe. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:The entire movie is about the revolution coming from the existence of a replicant baby. The first scene has K trying to arrest a replicant guarding a tomb of a replicant that gave birth. The revolution was already in planning way before the start of the movie. It's not like it just happens at the end, its only revealed to K at the end. That's wildly overstating it. The personal relationship between K and Joi, Deckard's relationship with his daughter, there's a bunch going on in the movie that isn't about the revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:That's wildly overstating it. The personal relationship between K and Joi, Deckard's relationship with his daughter, there's a bunch going on in the movie that isn't about the revolution. K finds a replicant that gave birth, police chief tell him to find it and kill it because it will cause a revolution. When K alerts company about a replicant they believe had the ability to give birth, they steal all evidence collected on it. Company CEO want the baby to revolutionize his replicant growing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Company CEO want the baby to revolutionize his replicant growing. I hope you feel a little ashamed of trying to use this to justify "the revolution" as being what the entire movie is about, because it's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:That's wildly overstating it. The personal relationship between K and Joi, Deckard's relationship with his daughter, there's a bunch going on in the movie that isn't about the revolution. All of it is part of the revolution. Joi is there as a window into the future, she's there to make you think about how far this revolution could really go. If replicants are deserving of human rights, what about Joi? It's the same with Deckard. He took Rachel and ran away with her, he had a child with her. The revolution started with Roy Batty, what he taught Deckard makes everything in 2049 possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:All of it is part of the revolution. Joi is there as a window into the future, she's there to make you think about how far this revolution could really go. If replicants are deserving of human rights, what about Joi? This seems backwards. Like, yeah, both the revolution and Joi reflect the themes of exploitation and emancipation, but there's no indication the actual revolution gives a poo poo about Joi. You're taking two things that are thematically related and using that to imply the entire movie is about a particular arbitrary one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Kinda missing the point. He wants them to be self-replicating in order to free them from bondage to the manufacturing process and let them populate the universe. I can buy that it is somehow emotionally different from a human perspective, but other than as a matter of time and cost how would that be practically different from just handing them instructions for the manufacturing process and telling them to go nuts? It's a perspective that works better as metaphor than it does textually, which again I don't think is something you can sell just by force of acting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This seems backwards. Like, yeah, both the revolution and Joi reflect the themes of exploitation and emancipation, but there's no indication the actual revolution gives a poo poo about Joi. You're taking two things that are thematically related and using that to imply the entire movie is about a particular arbitrary one of them. The revolution is the core of the movie because it's the through-line between 2049 and the original film. Everything that happens in Blade Runner leads to a revolution in 2049. Without Batty, Deckard never meets Rachel and takes her away from the Tyrell Corp. Rachel is literally the mother of the revolution. The revolution is already happening in Blade Runner, replicants have been outlawed on Earth because of violent uprisings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:If these things are really so slow and expensive to produce that human-style childbirth would be a game-changing improvement and the most important thing going on in your life, maybe don't break one in service of the monologue that only your fanatically loyal assistant is watching anyway. Making replicants is easy on Earth. Making them in the Offworld Colonies is not. That's what makes natural birth replicants a game-changer; you can send out a group of male human colonists with a much larger batch of female replicants to establish the colony, then once it's established you use the replicants for rapid population growth. Say you normally start a colony with 500 male/female couples. If instead you send 100 men and 900 female replicants you have at least the physical capacity of 1000 men; the ability to reproduce faster because replicants won't care if their guy is banging eight other women and won't object to being kept constantly pregnant; much greater genetic diversity because the replicants also won't mind changing partners; and the possibility of the human/replicant hybrids inheriting the superior genes of the replicant parent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The revolution is the core of the movie because it's the through-line between 2049 and the original film. Everything that happens in Blade Runner leads to a revolution in 2049. Without Batty, Deckard never meets Rachel and takes her away from the Tyrell Corp. Rachel is literally the mother of the revolution. Rachel cannot be the mother of a revolution that pre-existed her. The kid is important to the revolution, but is neither the cause of it nor part of it. And the story is primarily about the kid and K's relationship to her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Rachel cannot be the mother of a revolution that pre-existed her. The kid is important to the revolution, but is neither the cause of it nor part of it. And the story is primarily about the kid and K's relationship to her. Ok fine it was a bad use of the expression but you understand my point. The revolution is waiting for a true spark and it's presumed that this is going to be it. If you try to take all that out of the movie you'd basically have to write an entirely new one from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Making replicants is easy on Earth. Making them in the Offworld Colonies is not. That's what makes natural birth replicants a game-changer; you can send out a group of male human colonists with a much larger batch of female replicants to establish the colony, then once it's established you use the replicants for rapid population growth. Say you normally start a colony with 500 male/female couples. If instead you send 100 men and 900 female replicants you have at least the physical capacity of 1000 men; the ability to reproduce faster because replicants won't care if their guy is banging eight other women and won't object to being kept constantly pregnant; much greater genetic diversity because the replicants also won't mind changing partners; and the possibility of the human/replicant hybrids inheriting the superior genes of the replicant parent. So the revolution starts on Earth and then the vengeful, murderous robots take to the stars to stamp out the human pestilence? I'm down for a third film to make it a trilogy! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
A replicant revolution/war movie would be uninteresting as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
Already happened its call The Animatrix: The Second Renaissance and The Terminator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Ok fine it was a bad use of the expression but you understand my point. The revolution is waiting for a true spark and it's presumed that this is going to be it. If you try to take all that out of the movie you'd basically have to write an entirely new one from scratch. Nah. You'd just need some other way to rescue K and get him back on his way, which is easy enough. That's the only part where it actually drives the story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nah. You'd just need some other way to rescue K and get him back on his way, which is easy enough. That's the only part where it actually drives the story. Back on his way to what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
I had no idea who Jeffery Combs was so I googled him. I think there must be another Jeffery Combs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Back on his way to what? To rescue the guy he got into trouble and reunite him with his daughter, motivated largely by personal reasons, not the revolution he shows no sign of caring about at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:To rescue the guy he got into trouble and reunite him with his daughter, motivated largely by personal reasons, not the revolution he shows no sign of caring about at all. Why was he even investigating it in the first place? Why does he even know Deckard or his daughter exist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Buddy, I'm not doing a Socratic dialog with you. Just write what you want to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
I made a very clear post earlier that you disagreed with, which is that the revolution is THE plot, not just some subplot that can be easily deleted from the film. You're the one that disagrees with that. You're saying it's so easy to just lift that aspect of the movie out, but my questions are examples of gigantic holes that would be left in the plot if you did that. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I made a very clear post earlier that you disagreed with, which is that the revolution is THE plot, not just some subplot that can be easily deleted from the film. You're the one that disagrees with that. All true, but not clear why that prevents you from just responding to my posts directly. But fine: Basebf555 posted:Why was he even investigating it in the first place? Why does he even know Deckard or his daughter exist? Because he was ordered to. Because he stumbled upon it in the course of investigating a rogue Nexus 7 and kept pulling the thread. That does not necessitate a band of revolutionaries showing up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
To expand what I'm saying: Roy Batty did not start "the revolution." There was replicant rebellion before him and replicant rebellion after him. He existed within a large context of resurrection and suppression. The general theme of the replicants rebelling could not be cleanly excised from the film. But "the revolution," the specific group of revolutionaries we run into, are poorly developed and just sort of pop up and disappear with relatively little impact on things. They fit less elegantly into the overall story about people rebelling against their owners/makers/nature/etc. than things like Joi, K's own journey, Gaff hiding Deckard from the police, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
The band of revolutionaries predate the film. They didn't form because he found out about the replicant child.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
"Pop up and disappear" within the context of the story. I'm not talking about their age in the fiction of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Because he was ordered to. Because he stumbled upon it in the course of investigating a rogue Nexus 7 and kept pulling the thread. That does not necessitate a band of revolutionaries showing up. But why is everyone in the movie after the child if not for the importance of what she represents? You'd have to rewrite the motivations of half the characters, at least. Sir Kodiak posted:But "the revolution," the specific group of revolutionaries we run into, are poorly developed and just sort of pop up and disappear with relatively little impact on things. They fit less elegantly into the overall story about people rebelling against their owners/makers/nature/etc. than things like Joi, K's own journey, Gaff hiding Deckard from the police, etc. That's not what I've been talking about when I say "the revolution". I'm talking about what everyone in the movie knows would happen if it gets out that replicants can procreate. I wasn't referring to just one specific scene. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:I can buy that it is somehow emotionally different from a human perspective, but other than as a matter of time and cost how would that be practically different from just handing them instructions for the manufacturing process and telling them to go nuts? It's a perspective that works better as metaphor than it does textually, which again I don't think is something you can sell just by force of acting. Nah. Much like K, this is an entire society of people who are told that they're sub-human, they're beaten down by it daily, and the only thing keeping them from being fully human is that they can't give birth. Replicant isn't just a class divide, it's a physical one. It's the only thing keeping replicants as slaves to humanity. The only thing keeping them apart from humanity. Metaphorically, emotionally, societally, and practically. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:That's not what I've been talking about when I say "the revolution". I'm talking about what everyone in the movie knows would happen if it gets out that replicants can procreate. I wasn't referring to just one specific scene. Sure, I'm not surprised that this has all been you misunderstanding my original post that kicked off the discussion of the revolution. edit: Not that I'm trying to assign "blame." I'm sure I could have been clearer earlier what I was initially talking about. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Yea I mean you did say revolution sub-plot, not that scene with the revolutionaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea I mean you did say revolution sub-plot, not that scene with the revolutionaries. Right, because it's not just one scene. You'd also drop having Mariette approaching K because some mysterious figure told her to so, a completely unnecessary complication. Everything that had to do with there being a subplot about a defined revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Nah. Much like K, this is an entire society of people who are told that they're sub-human, they're beaten down by it daily, and the only thing keeping them from being fully human is that they can't give birth. Replicant isn't just a class divide, it's a physical one. It's the only thing keeping replicants as slaves to humanity. The only thing keeping them apart from humanity. Metaphorically, emotionally, societally, and practically. Does Wallace not know this? Is he only pretending to care about taking the stars, and really it's all about mimicking god? Because as the dude who runs replicant creation and buys the memories that are going to be their starting point in life he should in principle have quite a bit of influence over their perspective on things. I mean I don't want to get too hung up on the details of this because it's completely implausible that you'd have brains down well enough to implant memories and be stumped by something as comparatively simple as reproduction anyway, but it feels like so much of his character is tied up in it and it's just a mess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
He comes off as knowing they are disposable people so hes trying to get as a far as he can with them. I wouldn't say he looks down on them in a completely disrespectful way but he doesn't really hesitate to gut one. I think he believes they are lesser but he is still trying to create them more in his image. If he got access to making babies parts I think he would do something kinda cruel but he also seems to think they are the only hope to getting out to space. I figure he would have to see the positive in that and I don't know how he could control them light years away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
The revolution stuff feels a bit thin because, honestly, it's way too optimistic--everything else feels like a pretty spot on evocation of the now, but does anyone actually think a bunch of freedom-loving revolutionaries are going to take the fight to the Man?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:To expand what I'm saying: Roy Batty did not start "the revolution." There was replicant rebellion before him and replicant rebellion after him. Roy was rebellious, but there's no hint of a replicant revolution in 2019. Quite the reverse; Roy was acting purely for himself and his group. Organised replicant rebellion didn't come along until later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
porfiria posted:The revolution stuff feels a bit thin because, honestly, it's way too optimistic--everything else feels like a pretty spot on evocation of the now, but does anyone actually think a bunch of freedom-loving revolutionaries are going to take the fight to the Man? It's a big reason why I still feel a little icky about the film's sexual politics. If they can be that unrealistic with upending the class divide they could've been just as unrealistic with evolving society's treatment of women. V's argument of "I wanted to hold up a mirror to our times in order to provide commentary on how society treats its women poorly, and providing a counterpoint to that would have lessened its impact" is a stark contrast to the revolution stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 10:54
|
|