|
Ersatz posted:I've been worried that Harrison Ford wouldn't be passionate enough about the character to play Deckard again, and would instead just be playing himself ala the recent Star Wars. lol Harrison Ford nailed it in TFA. You could literally tell he was having fun and putting in the effort. Dunno what you're smoking.
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
in Airforce One he's playing President Jack Ryan pretty much seriously, compare the scene where he threatens the IRA moneyman in the bar with the standoff with Gary Oldman
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
lol if you can't understand the anime how in the hell are you going to understand the actual film?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Hmm. In DADoES the replicants/androids died after 4 years because they were organic and their cells could not be regenerated from natural decay. But I thought the film made clear that the limit was artificial in that version. Even if it didn't, breakthroughs in medical engineering happen all the time. We've had dozens of promising studies that could change our lives forever come out in the past two or three years alone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I accidentally moused over the spoiler and now I'm sad. Same. Seriously why are we even putting spoilers with spoiler tags itt?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11929436 I want to do what Roy does to Tyrell to Rachel (the Rachel in that article). What I am saying is that I want to 28-Days-Later-eye-gouge her to death
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Holy mother fucker I can't remember the last time I I don't really want to compare it to the original, because it seems way more like a continuation, an evolution if you will, of the type of storytelling in the original. There was maybe one scene that I found to be a little awkward, but it was also one that had a lot of symbolism that I just need to think about before I dismiss it -- (big time spoiler don't read if you haven't seen it) -- the scene where they bring in Rachel and then execute her -- Seemed a bit stupid on a superficial level, but if you think a few layers deep it works. Overall it's a much watch for fans of the original, fans who hated the original, millenial trash who were bored by the original, and people who JO to the visuals of the original, and basically everyone else as well. 9.5/10 with an extra 0.5 thrown in because of the nostalgic 80's-film-level amount of boobs
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:For me what resonated was K realising how empty his one real relationship with JOI was when he realises how scripted she is from the pink advertisement after finding out he isn't the chosen one. Him choosing to act and "become" human after that really completes the arc. Completely agree. It was the culmination of his experience and the choice he made was what defined him. And I'm glad he didn't actually execute Deckard. He basically was like, "gently caress that, I'm going to save this guy and let him meet his daughter and everybody else can go gently caress themselves." And it ultimately came down to the fact that it was only after that little stroll and seeing the giant hologram, at that point he could identify with Deckard and realized that killing him would just make things worse overall. It was the wrong thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
warez posted:Pretty sure the male was him? But he was just a clone/replacement or something of Rachel's spawn, not really the ~special replicant~ that he was looking for initially. It's definitely left open ended enough that you could argue that K might be the long lost twin and thus Deckard and Rachel's son. Only problem with that is that the DNA was identical, so that would mean that they should be identical twins, and thus, both girls, yet one was clearly labeled male. So who the hell knows...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Danger posted:The male was a fake database entry That's certainly what you should assume based on what Deckard says, but he by no means explicitly states that they did this. I don't think what -- did they seriously name a character after a DBZ villain -- Frieza states either? But it was hard to make out some of what she said. Pretty generic stuff though and no specifics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:
It feels more like an open-ended thing that was left intentionally vague so that people with aspergers can argue about it in the decades to come. In other words, a true spiritual successor to the original.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:The male never existed. They fabricated the records. Her memory of the horse was put into a male replicant so that he would eventually follow the breadcrumbs and trigger the events of the film. Him thinking it was himself made K "depart from baseline" significantly, as his boss put it, which allowed him the independence to do what he did This is true, but only if you take everything at face value, which in a cyberpunk film is never a good idea unless you don't mind missing out on some really great themes / commentary edit: They also never state that this is what happened. Literally all he says is that he showed them how to "fudge the records / trail." He doesn't even mention the fact that he duplicated DNA records or if there was a twin. It's pretty obvious this was intentionally vague to leave it open to interpretation as to whether or not K could really be the long lost son. Hell, it's a much easier conclusion to come to than "is Deckard a replicant" from the original Blade Runner theatrical version, or even the DC for that matter. Preston Waters fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
Danger posted:It's left ambiguous if that is just a cover to hide her or if he parentage resulted in genetic issues. Also I can see how it's made (somehow) even more ambiguous by this movie, but for me it cemented that Deckard is human. lol the entire point is that it doesn't matter if he's android or human -- they're the same thing because they're both alive and sentient. It wouldn't change what Deckard could get out of life one iota if he knew the answer for certain.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
oversteps posted:hadn't seen the original and was a women's studies major. In short, I disagree. She had a few discomforts with the way women were portrayed here. Oh my.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
HAT FETISH posted:I liked the hologram advert girl with the text indicating that whatever it was she was promoting was a product of the Soviet Union. Emphasises that the film's continuity is still rooted in a future based on extrapolating the state of things in the 1980s. I just thought it was just an ad for some Soviet-era ballet, not necessarily showing that the USSR is still around? Ersatz posted:I'll grant you that there's some pretty intense male gaze in this movie, but both that and the commodification of women in general are presented as key features of the film's dystopia. It's done in service of a feminist message. Yea, the boobage was pretty much showing the world to be scummy and consumerist / exploitative. The other nudity was basically non-sexual, unless your thing is gutting open a uterus... Preston Waters fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I was worried for a while but man did it out preform my expectations. To come to this conclusion you're also saying that Villeneuve set this out completely straightforward plot but also was incredibly sloppy with establishing that all of this is not to be questioned. I just don't think that's the case. He clearly made a movie that's to be read on multiple levels and, yes, it leaves some wiggle room for you to come to your own conclusion about whether K is the son or not, which much like in the original film, doesn't necessarily matter in the grand theme of the film because K essentially was defined as a human by his actions, not because he was or wasn't birthed naturally.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:This might seem like a very random question, but is there any animal cruelty in this film? Dog drinks whiskey ---> Dog appears sad when Deckard gets forcibly removed and probably dies alone without the warm embrace of a new master  Probably second saddest thing that happens in the film imo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Do we really need to spoiler? I figure if youre reading this thread at this point youre asking for it Waiting for mod approval before I lay down my next question.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:See a few people have mentioned this but he did not strike me as unphased. Quite the opposite actually, to me it sounded like he got emotional/defensive like it struck a nerve. As if maybe this was something he had doubts about and needed to remind himself of. It's also a small wink to fans. At least to everyone who is familiar with the fact that Ford is 110% against the idea of Deckard being a replicant. It was almost as if Jared Leto was Ridley Scott. I kind of smirked at that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Cacator posted:They explicitly spell it out for you earlier in the film though? I think we're arriving at the conclusion that going to see a film high on substances might be fun because of the sensory experience, but you probably won't understand a lot of poo poo presented in the film, even on a basic level. Gotta keep that frontal lobe working, folks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Then you laugh in the director's face, say no, and tell him if he wants a Director's Cut, he can have it later. maybe you should wait for the Netflix version where you can fast forward so all of us who want to experience a proper film can enjoy it at the theater.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:Lord of the Rings was way too long. It would have been much more palatable as an hour and a half romp through Middle Earth. Why can't you people see that? I can't stand the idea that a weakness of a film is your own inability to enjoy it. Seriously who cares about the run time? Rushing through a film can kill the atmosphere and hurt the story. You also need time to actually process what happens or else it's awkward as hell like "holy-poo poo-Han-Solo-murdered-holy-poo poo-lightsaber-fighting-holy-poo poo-there's-Luke-Skywalker-finally-end-credits ...wait, Han Solo was murdered by his son? What the gently caress? It certainly doesn't feel like it..."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:
Yea I know. I was agreeing with you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:Give credit to MisterBibs, he's trying something new by mustering up an opinion while waiting for the real barometer of quality; the box office takings. Smokey, this isn't Sony Pictures Classic. This is Sony. There are rules...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I intentionally saw the film stone cold sober the first time so I could follow everything with the expectation that I'd see it again stoned as gently caress just to soak in the ambiance. I was referring to the "royal 'you'."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:They don't. Yes they do. I'm not sure how you could have gotten caught off-guard by this. It should have been your first instinct when Freysa told K the child was a girl. Who else would it be, some other memory designer that we've never met in the story before? There's absolutely zero reason it should have been a surprise when they went to meet her after the climax of the film. You'd have to be not paying attention at all, in which case, it's not the film's problem, it's yours.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:LMAO I'm sure she understood it just fine that doesn't mean she can't dislike it. If this was directed at me, I was talking about Vegetable and the other posters who missed obvious things and fault the film for it. They can dislike it for those reasons, but it's not the film's fault. Seems like most people "got it" without a problem. edit: oh, you were talking about "muh wife" Preston Waters fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:I mostly enjoyed the movie. Found it gripping, well paced, had good visuals, emotionally affecting, etc. It's definitely vague enough to where it could go either way. Open ended enough for you to draw what you can or must from it, like a good film noir should be. n4 posted:But holy poo poo the shots in this movie and the bugged Vegas hologram fight scene. I want a 4k rez video of that scene now
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Going to see it again later tonight. One thing I'm going to look for is if the terminology used in the "testing" scenes matches or describes what's going on in the overarching plot
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Blade Runner 2049 is a movie about female characters helping Ryan Gosling achieve orgasm and/or get something he needs before being abruptly written out of the script after they have served their function. If the main character were a female and you made this complaint about the way males are written you would be chided endlessly and labeled a red piller. Hint: it's because you're looking for reasons to be mad and perceiving things way differently than the way they're presented.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:As we were leaving the theater my wife remarked, "this was a movie for dudes" and I was inclined to agree. All the female parts needed more time in the oven and it became more than a little absurd how all of them just have to make a pass at Ryan Gosling. Even the female statues in Las Vegas were eternally preserved in blow job face. The first Blade Runner was very masculine as well, but it kind of emphasized how all the female characters were smarter and stronger than Deckard, a leering coward who shot women in the back and took advantage of a frightened woman who couldn't say no. Exhibit A. Seriously, this is hilarious. Please post more about your wife's feminist analyses on movies. We could all get some mileage out of this. Personally, as someone who didn't go into the film looking for slights against my own ego, I found all of the female characters to be in charge of their future and equals in society. Society just sucks in general. This is the case when viewing the film on even the most basic level -- the giant hologram backpage pleasure ads that we see are geared toward heterosexual men, but we're shown that sleaziness certainly extends beyond that group when the Lietenant propositions K -- that's straight up sexual harassment. When you dive deeper you'll realize that you get into the whole fact that he's what society views as an object, which is abhorrent to feminism in and of itself. This is a future where women have broken the "glass ceiling" and are flourishing in it. It's almost like Villeneuve wants to show that this idea of exploitation of others (eg. sexual harassment) is a crime that is able to be perpetrated universally. Advancement and success also gives an ability to exploit others. If you go into the film looking for a statement of men vs women, you've already missed the point. We're all in this poo poo hole together, basically. The main character just happens to be male. What you are describing as sexist is actually basic quality storytelling. Supporting characters serve a purpose in the story. When that purpose is done, the plot moves forward and they exit the story. You'd have to be looking to have your feelings hurt to take offense to this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:because movies like those don't get written. Yes they do. All the time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
exquisite tea posted:"You're supposed to find this imagery really off-putting" I say as the camera lovingly lingers upon two hot chicks undressing in sexual service to Ryan Gosling, who remains tasetfully clothed throughout. "Blade Runner is empowering because women can have babies, or something" another dude chimes in from the back, having totally figured out feminism and allayed all possible critiques of sexism. That's not what I said at all. You're acting like you're intelligent enough to discuss this film, but you are not reading or responding to what I actually said.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 21:45
|
|