|
I have yet to see any review claim that the movie is anything less than an artistic marvel. I have difficulty believing that it will equal its predecessor, but I am hyped.
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
It was an excellent movie, but I am still trying to process my thoughts. I haven’t had a movie stick with me like this in a very long time. The Fake Rachel scene, in particular, left me with a profound sense of horror and revulsion. Not even IT made me feel that way. It was also a very interesting counterpoint to the “real”and “fake” JOI. Might see this again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:Every replicant wanted to be Rachel’s child, it’s a wish fulfillment vehicle for their universal longing, one which K expresses to Joshi in his apartment chat, that is, to be a real boy. If you’re born you have a soul being the prevalent internalized prejudice. This is what I assumed. My take was that K and almost every other replicant is implanted with Stelline's memories to give them purpose and help direct them toward revolution. They are designed to pursue an end that Wallace is blind to. At the end, K rejects both his identity as a tool of the system and the programming intended to make him a tool of the replicant revolution. He rejects the opportunity to kill Deckard and become "the chosen one" again. Instead, he becomes a real boy capable of making his own decisions in saving Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Zeris posted:So is Deckard a replicant “Why don’t you ask him?”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
It's a small thing, but I also enjoyed the Pinocchio parallels. Pinocchio ends with the puppet diving into the sea to save his father from a sea monster. After outsmarting the monster, the two return to the workshop, where the Blue Fairy decides that he's proven himself and Pinocchio is reborn as a real human boy. Bill Dungsroman posted:I prefer to believe JOI's love for K was real because it's more interesting to me that it was. Although it's obviously meant to be vague. I agree with this sentiment. I think JOI's humanity is as much an open question as Deckard's humanity in the original. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Kart Barfunkel posted:Anybody familiar with Nabokov know the significance with Pale Fire? Pale Fire is a book about a 999-line poem, written by a fictional, recently deceased poet, with extensive commentary by one of his friends and collaborators. The friend's commentary starts off detached and academic but becomes increasingly deranged and disjointed as the book progresses. Eventually, the commentary consumes the original poem and the "friend" is revealed to be a narcissistic lunatic who believes that he is an exiled king and the inspiration of the poem itself. The friend is obsessed by what he thinks is a missing final line in the poem, telling the reader that it should be 1,000 lines long and not 999. (The poem's format suggests that this should be the case. The final line breaks off abruptly.) At the heart of Pale Fire is a poem, also titled Pale Fire, that tells the story of the poet's life. The poet is a successful and celebrated writer who married his childhood sweetheart and had a daughter who he loved more than anything. At some point before the poem was written, the poet's daughter, Hazel, committed suicide by drowning herself. This fact utterly consumes him and leaves his old self nothing more than “a smudge of ashen fluff.” He is dead without dying, living through a world that is both real and unreal. Some time after his Hazel's death, the poet has his own near-death experience when he collapses in the middle of a lecture. While half-dead, he sees: A system of cells interlinked within Cells interlinked within cells interlinked Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct Against the dark, a tall white fountain played. He becomes obsessed with the image of a "tall white fountain" and believes that he has seen proof of life after death. He does extensive investigative work and connects with a woman who told a magazine reporter that she also saw a "tall white fountain" after a near-death experience. He tracks down the woman, expecting some kind of transcendent experience but the woman turns out to be a disappointment. The poet connects with the journalist who wrote the story, who reveals that there was a misprint. The woman saw a "tall white mountain" and not a "fountain." There was never any deep connection proving the existence of souls and the afterlife. There is no proof that he will ever reunite with his daughter. It was all just a coincidence. Instead of collapsing into despair, the discovery galvanizes him. He recognizes that humanity is just a plaything of the gods and that it is better to keep some things hidden. There are things he can know ("I'm reasonably sure that we survive / And that my darling somewhere is alive") without ever having proof of them. He ends the poem rejecting the grand artifices that he once relied on and aspires to accept the quiet continuities of life ("Some neighbor's gardener, I guess--goes by"). QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:This loving movie. In addition to the obvious parallels (the wooden horse as K's "tall white fountain"), there's probably an argument to be made that Wallace is similar to the "friend," Charles Kinbote, from the book. Both characters are responsible for bringing beauty into the world (the commentator by publishing the poem and Wallace by recreating the replicants), but both are blind (get it?) to its meaning and purpose. They lack the vision of the original creators and, instead, try to warp and manipulate the source material in ways that fuel their own narcissism and megalomania. Kinbote sees a poem about loss as a way for him to reclaim his (imaginary) lost throne while Wallace sees replicants as a tool for humanity to conquer the stars. Their lust for power almost destroys the beautiful and delicate things that they control. The parallel works better if you see Luv as a vessel for Wallace’s will. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure the film considers it relevant. When Wallace implies that Deckard is artificial, he responds with, "I know what's real." K asks a similar question with regards to Deckard's dog and gets an ambivalent answer. His origins may be unclear, but Deckard's memories, experiences, and feelings are real and that's what matters. He's more human than Wallace.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Wallace is blind because he's the least human and most overtly villanous character in the Blade Runner universe. He's surrounded by mechanical "bees" (I am sure I read somewhere there's some apocrophya about Satan being surrounded by mechnical/metallic insects but I can't find it anywhere) contra Deckard's real bees. You might be thinking about how one of Satan's names is Beelzebub, which is literally "Lord of the Flies."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Rachel has brown eyes in the first movie. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E6oplzJuR08 Sean Young has brown eyes, but during the Voight-Kampf test, Rachael is portrayed with green eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Another thing I thought that might be interesting Maybe Wallace himself was a replicant and he hosed up his eyes to hide from beign Voight-Kampff tested, I mean I don't see any real proof for this theory, but it would be interesting. I didn't take him to be a literal replicant, because it would make no thematic sense. I did, however, think that his eyes were meant to be reminiscent of the replicants of the first movie. He's noticeably less human than K, Joi, or even Lov, who lack the odd eye effects.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Spoke with 2 other people who saw this movie. Each had a different interpretation of JOI and were surprised by the opposite interpretation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
alien covenant is good but only when michael fassbender is on the screen
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
it is coincidentally the scene with two michael fassbenders on the scene at the same time
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
I took it much less poetically: Wallace is blind because he lacks vision. He does not see or care about the consequences of his actions and this failure makes him a shadow of Tyrell. His affliction also makes him look extremely inhuman in a movie largely composed of very human replicants and computer programs. The gnosticism interpretation wouldn't be outside the realms of possibility, given Wallace's god complex. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
There's been some discussion of how Luv is a dark reflection of Rachael, but I think she works better as a counterpoint to K. Like K, Luv is told she is special but embedded in a system that repeatedly exploits her and those around her. While K's experiences lead him to reject the system, Luv is never able to transcend her false consciousness. Instead, her attempts to rectify her unhappiness with her orders lead to increasingly erratic and destructive behavior. She "acts out" through violence because that is the only way she can assert individuality in Blade Runner's caste system. K dies after accepting that he is mundane but capable of great things. Luv dies screaming that she is special without ultimately achieving anything.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Tyrell had imperfect vision. He certainly did after meeting with Roy Batty!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
The Rachael clone is supposed to be subtly off and unnerving. The entire sequence is meant to highlight Wallace's inability to understand humanity. He recreates a person, but not the subtleties and details that made her her. He expects Deckard to fall in love with a ghoulish Halloween mask of his dead lover and is forced to recalibrate when that plan fails.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:True, but they didn't manage to make it look like a 'failed' replicant. Instead it's another bad CG experiment that shouldn't have been in the movie, like Tarkin in RO. I don't think that we are saying incompatible things. The fact that the illusion is shattered at all suggests that Fake Rachael is a failed replicant. Her CGI makes her both an almost perfect copy and something alien. The scene itself doesn't pretend that the Fake Rachael is anything but horrific. ("Her eyes were green.") I can understand your objections as a matter of personal taste, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Thinking back, I can't remember any human character with dialogue who wasn't an oppressor of some kind. As far as I can tell there's: 1.) Wallace 2.) Yoshi 3.) Weird child slaver Am I forgetting anyone? The only other humans I can remember are a bunch of nameless children and some faceless scavengers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
There’s a four-hour cut of this movie somewhere.quote:WALKER: The first assembly of the film was nearly four hours and for convenience sake and – to be honest – my bladder’s sake, we broke it into two for viewings. That break revealed something about the story – it’s in two halves. There’s K discovering his true past as he sees it and at the halfway mark he kind of loses his virginity. (laughs) The next morning, it’s a different story, about meeting your maker and ultimately sacrifice – “dying is the most human thing we do”. Oddly enough both halves start with eyes opening. There’s the giant eye opening at the beginning of the film and the second when Mariette wakes up and sneaks around K’s apartment, the beginning of the 1st assembly part 2. We toyed with giving titles to each half but quickly dropped that. But what does remain is that there’s something of a waking dream about the film. That’s a very deliberate choice in terms of visuals but also the kind of pace they were striving for on set and the hallucinatory feel in the cut – it’s the kind of dream where you tread inexorably closer to the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
feedmyleg posted:It'll probably all be typical spinoff nonsense revolving around attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion or whatever, but it sounds like we're getting a new Blade Runner expanded universe. I'd be surprised if anything more substantial than a handful of one-off comic books come out of this
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 02:19
|
|