Blade Runner 2049: Rick Deckard is a WHAT

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Blade Runner 2049: Rick Deckard is a WHAT

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Yea, even if I had no idea about the original film, I'd be hyped just for more Villenueve +Deakins.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2016 16:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 08:38

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

The point of Blade runner is that whether or not Deckard is a replicant is a pointless question because replicants are human beings.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2016 02:54

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

exquisite tea posted:

Zimmer + Blade Runner sounds like the mismatch of the century.

I wonder if they even approached Vangelis.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 14:15

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Welp just read a review this morning that drops a pretty big spoiler right at the outset. If that sort of thing bothers you, you may want to avoid.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 14:22

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

sean10mm posted:

Which review?

Guardian has some pretty big spoilers beyond the obvious one I've seen elsewhere.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 16:19

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

morestuff posted:

I'm kind of curious what you guys consider spoilers

According to the reviews, these are central plot elements that are revealed right at the beginning; but some might see them as fairly big spoilers:

Edited because folks were accidentally spoiling themselves. But really, it's something that is revealed apparently in like the first 5 minutes and reviewers are taking it for granted that it's known as a general plot synopsis so don't be surprised if you get spoiled some other way.

Danger fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Sep 29, 2017

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 16:32

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

drat, that Telegraph review:

quote:

[O]ne of the most spectacular, provocative, profound and spiritually staggering blockbusters of our time....[h]alf a week after seeing it, I still can�t quite believe it exists....in the foyer afterwards, I felt like I�d just seen the last blockbuster ever made.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 16:46

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Cacator posted:

Any reviews mentioning the score? I know it won't compare to the original's but it's distressing to me we haven't heard anything outside of the trailers which could very well be trailer specific music.

The impression I've gotten is that it's sparse, allowing the excellent sound design to do a lot of work, and relies heavily on Vangelis.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 17:37

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Steve Yun posted:

Hey Danger, maybe delete your post because ^^^

I editted it. I'm not sure info that's widely available in the marketing press is really off limits for discussion and it's gonna be asinine to have two Blade Runner threads, one for spoilers. Really though, go on lockdown if you want nothing because a ton of reviewers are just taking for granted that it's a generic plot detail to include. I'll be shocked if most people make it a week without seeing it without an internet blackout.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 20:33

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

DeafNote posted:

you mean it literally uses Vangelis' music? or it just builds on their themes/style?

It utilizes main parts of it. Zimmer did the theme.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 22:06

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

What? Wouldn't that just be like Gray's Anatomy?

# ¿ Sep 30, 2017 16:16

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

They are indistinguishable from humans except for very sophisticated emotional testing.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2017 19:15

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Prometheus rules. Force Awakens isn't the worst film ever, just incredibly bland. I think Villeneuve being at the helm of this has people more hopeful.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 15:46

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Numerous reviews are stating that, as hard as it is to believe, that Ford's performance is one of the best of the film and best of his career. Also, at least one interview I saw, he seemed to genuinely give a gently caress about the movie.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 16:14

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Timby posted:

On the other hand, multiple reviews have also said that Deckard doesn't even show up until the last quarter of the movie and he's only got a few scenes.

Why is that on the other hand? Anyhow, I'd typically agree that just having heard the idea of a Harrison Ford cameo is nothing to get excited about, but it seems hopefully he's actually decided to not sleepwalk through a script here. But who knows, I'm hyped about the new Villeneuve regardless whether its a new IP or not.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 16:59

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

exquisite tea posted:

If I remember correctly, it was stated in Future Noir that Ford didn't really have a great time on the set of Blade Runner in between ego disputes with Ridley Scott and all the production delays. He downplayed talking about Blade Runner for many years and it wasn't until the Final Cut rerelease that he started to come back around on it.

Yea, he and Scott were on the outs for quite a while but reconciled back in like the 2000's whenever they were doing the anniversary stuff. Ford's biggest resentment is the doing the voiceovers.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 17:18

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Ersatz posted:

Ford has created some iconic and beloved characters over the course of his career with hammy and fun performances (Han Solo, Indiana Jones), but it might be the case that he recognizes Deckard in the original Blade Runner as his best/most serious acting. Assuming that's the case, he might have been giving it his all in this film, to preserve that part of his legacy.

I'm stoked.

Honestly his acting in BladeRunner isn't stellar either. The movie isn't remembered because of Harrison Ford. Call me crazy but my favorite Harrison Ford is from Apocalypse Now. It's the only scene I've watched him in that at all feels genuine because he's nervous as hell.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 17:23

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Muffin Rhino posted:

I only had one question coming out of this movie...

So unless I'm mistaken, K discovers the DNA matches both a female and a male. the female is bubble girl? who is the male? ugh

The male was a fake database entry

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 05:38

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

bawfuls posted:

As for K's memory, I think there is still some ambiguity. Did the resistance or whatever direct her to plant that memory in him specifically, or was it something she put into just some random replicant herself? Speaking of Decard's daughter, was her compromised immune system real or just a fabrication they used to protect her?

I'm leaning towards the latter and that K was not unique. The replicant he slept with recognized it as well but considered it a dream.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 12:29

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Also thought it was a sweetly poetic when Joi was convincing him he had been born and had a soul that she described it (don't remember exact (quote) as someone pulling you into the world and wanting you and that is exactly what Deckard does for K out of the water at the end. Lots of Pinocchio references.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 12:34

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

algebra testes posted:

Question about the object that the people are looking for in the film

In the original doesn't Batty get told by Tyrell that he can't be changed because something something virus? So is her having auto immune problems a reference to that?

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.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 14:30

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

AnxiousApatosaurus posted:

For the Joe/JOI discussion:

While Joe is watching the JOI advertisement they intercut to the 'because you've never seen a miracle' scene. I think at that moment Joe decides that he has seen a miracle and it was his holowaifu growing beyond her programming and actually loving him.

Yea, that and the you become human by sacrificing for something greater line or whatever it was; referencing Joi's humanity.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 15:12

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

BarronsArtGallery posted:

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.

Right, it was always the wrong question from the first movie and still is with this one. I was referring to just the explicit plot detail, but I agree it's extraneous.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 15:16

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Wendell posted:

Oh, come on now!

I mean, that's a fair observation but worded in an incredibly obtuse way. Both women are functionally the same; in service to the nightmare maw of late capitalism: "we hope you enjoyed our product".

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 16:35

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Vegetable posted:

But that's part of JOI's programming though. She said things to make him feel like a real boy. It did what it was programmed to do.

If you are programmed to obey and fight against racism, but decide later that you have broken your programming and decided to fight racism on your own because of your morality; are you really free thinking it just satisfying a program? It's like the most PKDickian premise ever.

Regardless of the answer, K believed she loved him. Remember what the one eyed lady said after he discovered he wasn't the child: we al wish it were us, that's why we believe.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 21:15

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

No, no one noticed the 60 foot tall woman. Good catch.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 22:11

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

3Romeo posted:

Spoiler for a cameo: So, Gaff and the sheep. I took it as a reference to Dick's book, but there's more to it than that, right? If it'd been a horse the way he'd made the unicorn (in re: Blade Runner's Director's Cut), I'd say okay, there's some prestidigitation going down, but the sheep he made threw me off. Anyone know how it relates?

It's a literary reference.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 22:56

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Xealot posted:

I can see that argument. I interpreted it as, "JOI struggles to operate within the parameters they allow her." A ton of her thoughts and motivations are influenced by her programming. But at the same time, she tells K to erase her from the console and break the antenna on the mobile unit, betraying her manufacturer to keep K untraceable. If she was literally just a product, I don't think she'd do that.

She wasn't designed to be unique, but became unique. My interpretation of the giant hologram scene is that K saw JOI's marketing as a parody of her, a counterpoint to the fake Rachel that Deckard likewise rejects.

Yea that comparison is right on. I think it's a nice microcosm of the scope of the film itself from an ethical perspective. What begins as a sweeping fate of the world plot distills down into a quest of personal devotion, of particular Christlike love (What am I to you?). Paul's letter to the Galatians wasn't a random reference.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 00:03

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Just reminded of this movie the other day because it contains probably my favorite match cut of the last decade.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2018 17:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 08:38

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

BarronsArtGallery posted:

It has many of them. Which one?

The cut from the campfire to the city at night.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2018 21:36

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Blade Runner 2049: Rick Deckard is a WHAT