|
What I liked about Tyrell is that he's just some brainiac who cares about technology, and was very cold when it comes to the moral issues/replicant feelings, but he wasn't cartoonishly evil or anything. Leto, otoh, reminds me of Eddie Redmayne in Jupiter Rising (or was it Ascending? Or Falling?). That feels all wrong, but then again, it's only 20 seconds of a trailer.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Cacator posted:James Hong is still alive and kicking, surely they could have brought him back too? It's implied that they killed him. It's in the original script, I think, where his body is found frozen.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Saw it last night, movie is great. But like the first film, I'm still unclear on what a replicant actually is. I was under the impression that they were androids, part organic part machine, like a Terminator, or maybe wholly machine but entirely lifelike, like Ava from Ex Machina. But at no point do we see any nonorganic machinery behind the replicant facade. They bleed, seemingly have organs, bones, DNA. So are they just genetically engineered humans then? If that's the case, then the interesting argument about the line between replicant and human seems less interesting or difficult. Is the argument for the replicant v. human dichotomy, in the logic of the movies, just that if someone isn't "traditionally" born, they don't have a soul and thus aren't a person (this seems to be the justification for the dichotomy that Robin Wright gives)? Like everyone has been saying, the issue of Joi being a person is the most interesting bit here because she's entirely synthetic. If replicants aren't synthetic, then the question of their personhood just feels like a reiteration of the question "are genetically engineered/modified babies people?" or "are clones people?", which is a far less intriguing issue to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:In BR1 they wouldn't have bothered with the V-K test if replicants could be distinguished from baseline human beings via simple physical/observational tests. Not necessarily. They could be on a "presumed innocent" type system, where suspected replicants are presumed human and still have certain rights concerning ones own bodily autonomy. So you can't just physically probe anybody suspected of being a replicant, and it seems like it would take a great deal of probing to get down to the machinery (unless we take the glowing eyes of Rachael, the owl, and other replicants literally as glowing machinery). The VK makes it so that one can identify them without violating basic human rights in the event that they're wrong. I doubt this is the case, considering the future depicted in the films feels hostile to everyone, but it could be that human rights are strictly protected to further solidify the stark difference between human and replicant in the minds of the public. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I feel like people really want them to be robots and no matter how many times the first movie talked about them being biological people still came away saying "they are robots". So this movie went and showed their bones and DNA and cut one open just to make sure everyone really believes it this time. "Early in the 21st Century, THE TYRELL CORPORATION advanced Robot evolution into the Nexus phase - a being virtually identical to a human - known as a Replicant." This is from the opening crawl to the original. It goes on to say that they were at least equal and in many ways superior "to the genetic engineers who created them", but it's understandable if people think they're robots because they actually use the word robot. Them being robots in the source material also lends credence to this idea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Serf posted:Blade Runner shares very, very little with the source material. Remember that the andies were detected because of their sociopathic tendencies, which is basically the exact opposite of Roy Batty and his friends in the movie. Very true. Let's ask noted rambling crazy man Ridley Scott. "Roy Batty was an evolved… He wasn’t an engine. If I cut him open, there wasn’t metal, he was grown. then you can do human beings. If you go deeper into it and say “Yeah, but if you are going to grow a human being, does he start that big and I’ve got to see him through everything?” I don’t want to answer the question, because of course he does. Ash in Alien had nothing to do with Roy Batty, because Roy Batty is more humanoid, whereas Ash was more metal." So... it's ambiguous, but they're possibly biological only? Which intuitively is way less interesting. It's like asking if Dolly the sheep is actually a sheep, or if a baby born using IVF is still a human.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Serf posted:Also, all those questions are interesting but have the same answer. Much like the question of whether replicants are people, despite not being human. AdmiralViscen posted:Both movies are more about asking why we allow some people to be viewed as worthless commodities than explaining why replicants and people are totally different from each other I get this, and yet I still find pondering the questions concerning the enslavement of humans (and if Replicants are biologically identical to us, then they are humans, not just human-like) to be less intuitively interesting than questions concerning whether or not something synthetic can be a person/slave. Though the answers may be the same, one question makes it easy to see and the other doesn't, which is why I care far more about Joi's arc than K's. Wouldn't that also negate Roy's "discovering his human-ness" arc as well? He is human, so what's so special about him discovering he doesn't have to be a murderer? If we are to contrast Roy with Deckard, Deckard is the more robotic of the two while Roy is full of zeal for living even though he isn't human. It's my understanding that this is the lesson Deckard learns from Roy. It took a robot who learned to be a person to teach the very human Deckard how to live like a human being, which prompted him to chance running away with Rachael. There's a poetic irony there. If instead Roy is just another human, then we're essentially watching Nat Turner lay waste to the slavers before laying down his arms on the battlefield to die, which isn't nearly as novel an idea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:I love how Joi inverts our biases about the replicants. We're primed to think of the replicants as people because they're flesh and blood, they have DNA etc, but our biases about Joi are that she's a waifu, a toy for pathetic lonely men. The real man loves the fake woman but they're both consumer products Does this mean I need to reevaluate my feelings of revulsion while watching the commercial for the Gatebox? Come to think of it, this is just the dark, futuristic sequel to Lars and the Real Girl.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I like how boring Wallace is as a surname vs. Tyrell. He's also more boring as a person. After about 15 seconds of pontificating about angels from Wallace, I longed for the frank logistics of Tyrell. In the end, Tyrell was a monster, but a practical one. Wallace is the new wave of the techbro, self important monsters who believe themselves to be the new saviors of the universe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
If you plan on seeing this again, or if you haven't seen it at all, do yourself a favor and see it in a Dolby Cinema at AMC. I just rewatched it in one of those and holy poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:So I've seen it in regular movie+eatery lovely theater, and in a fancy IMAX downtown at the museum in Austin, and now apparently there's this thing called like, Dolby AMC? Considering my favorite thing about the IMAX trip was the sound vibrating my leg bones, I kinda wanna try it out for a third time there. Origami Dali posted:If you plan on seeing this again, or if you haven't seen it at all, do yourself a favor and see it in a Dolby Cinema at AMC. I just rewatched it in one of those and holy poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
The question isn't whether Joi broke the manacles of her programming to become "human". Rather, if humans are themselves manacled by their own programming, then there's no real difference. Of course as a consequence, this might mean my iphone deserves rights.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Serf posted:I don't really think there's a conversation to be had on whether people are people. Maybe not, but there's still much to be said for "what is a person?".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
I just thought, if Joi's concern for K is entirely performative, then she'd have no need to keep up the act when he isn't around to observe it. When he leaves the apartment, she essentially shuts down until he returns (until the portable upgrade, anyway). It's the assumption that she has no interests other than the programming, which commands her to "tell him what he wants to hear, show him what he wants to see". If he's not there to see or hear, she has no function (and K knows this, which is why when Joi says "I love being with you" he says "you don't have to say that"; her fawning breaks the illusion between the artifice and the programming). If this is the case, then you could argue that she exhibits behavior outside her programming when, panicked, she tries to wake up K to get him out of the car. He can't see her, he can't hear her, yet she still performs concern while there is no observer. At least on the surface, it looks like some kind of autonomy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Displays of jealousy could also just be for K's benefit. Couples often find a certain amount of jealously from their partners comforting, making them feel more wanted. She may still be behaving how she thinks he wants her to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Serf posted:I agree. Except for the bit with Mariette, which K isn’t around to witness. I figured it was a small makeshift protein farm, a kind of miniaturized version of Sapper's setup.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:This brings us back to the point of if something is that well-programmed then where exactly is the difference? Observationally, nothing. That's what makes her a good product. But phenomenologically for Joi, there may be quite a bit different from us. She may have no qualitative experience at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Do you know anyone around you has a qualitative experience? How do you know? How do I know what, exactly? Intuitively, either I have a certain kind of qualitative experience in virtue of being a certain kind of creature capable of having it, and by extension a certain kind of qualitative experience is a distinct feature of being a creature like me, or there isn't such a thing at all. Maybe you're denying there is such a thing as qualitative experience, and that's fine, I'm skeptical of it too. Or rather, are you being a Cartesian skeptic and, while granting me my own qualitative experience, looking for 100% absolute certainty that I know other creatures like me have such experiences? Because if so, you won't find that kind of certainty here, or in regards to any other question you could possibly ask.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
I like that the replicant rebel army scene was so short and out of nowhere, to the point where as an audience member you don't care, because K seemed to respond the same way. Their cause isn't as important to him as his own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Dune will now only be made if it's 1.5 hours and features a supervillian with an end of the world doomsday device, set to the tune of a punched up 80s dance soundtrack.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
I figured she kept K alive because he's the only one who knows the identity of the child besides Deckard, and there's a pretty good chance Deckard won't talk. They still need him alive, regardless of how much of a threat he can be (and she underestimates how much of a threat he is; he's just a "bad dog", and she still thinks "I'm the best one" to the end).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Hell, I just thought they used a really good Sean Young double with maybe some tiny cg or makeup touchups. poo poo looked real to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Hey, a SMG post that I really liked.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
checkplease posted:So is Pale Fire worth a read? It depends on how much of a lit nerd you are. PF is more like a curiosity rather than a strict narrative, a 999 poem by a fictional poet and the extensive annotations to it provided by a fictional academic. How this becomes interesting it a bit of a spoiler, but it's an impressive achievement and another example of Nabokov's unparalleled skill with form and language. I prefer his more traditional narratives like Lolita and Pnin for pure entertainment value but it's still a beautiful work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Because for once, he's completely correct and honest. Continuity of consciousness is a puzzle set in most introductory philosophy classes. Imagine a teleporter exists. You step in, you appear somewhere else. No problem. You don't even need sci-fi scenarios for what is basically the ship of Theseus problem. I slough off so many cells throughout my life that at some point in the future, a large portion of my cells will have been replaced. Am I still me?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Is Joi falling in love with her captor any more disturbing than Rachael falling in love with her rapist?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
When Wallace says "Do you remember the perfection of that day? Your instant connection?" to Deckard, I wanted to laugh. There was zero chemistry in the scene, Deckard was just doing a routine he'd done hundreds of times before, and after he discovers Rachael is a replicant, he refers to her as "it" to Tyrell. This is either the writers trying to shoehorn deeper meaning into the scene, or Wallace was just guessing about how Deckard may have felt in an attempt to manipulate him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:Actually . . . well I know this is a little farfetched, but this is how my mind works sometimes. Blade Runner, as told by David Lynch.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Yeah, I rewatched that specific scene last night, just to be clear for myself as to what happened for purposes of this thread's discussion. And, in the year of our lord 2017, that scene is profoundly uncomfortable and fits with the definition of rape as I understand it. Not to mention, the look on Sean Young's face is one of anguish and fear. She's also crying. Ford and Young notoriously didn't get along on set, so I imagine that dynamic bled into the scene, too. Deckard is basically telling her "whatever your reservations, this is happening, so you might as well try to enjoy it". And no amount of Sean Young repeating "I want you" through her tears at Deckard's behest alleviates the sense that this is entirely forced, nor will her mechanically saying "put your hands on me" in a manner that sounds less like a lusty request than like someone trying to calm their attacker. Even when I first saw Blade Runner 20 years ago, upon seeing that scene, I thought "ohhhh, I'm not supposed to like Deckard at all I guess", but the sultry Vangelis tune is really trying to sell it as a steamy romantic moment. The extended cut of this scene gets even more racy with Deck hoisting up her dress, propping her up against the sink, and pulling her panties down. It's such a misfire. I think what the scene is trying to say is "Rachael, emotionally inexperienced and recently discovering that she's a replicant, is unable to deal with these emotions and her attraction to Deckard. She's clinging to a kind of decorum, but she really desires to sully herself in a very human way, and Deckard recognizes this. He forces her to come to grips with it, literally." I don't buy into that kind of sexual mind reading horseshit, but it's a thing. However, the way the scene is shot and plays out between the two actors, it's just slightly more palatable than the initial rape from Straw Dogs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Is K's face cover part of his coat or another piece of clothing? It's the collar of his coat flipped up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Well obviously they didn't use the original actress because she doesn't look like that anymore or is dead. I don't think anyone would disagree that their use of a different actress resulted in an uncanny valley discomfort. They also showed her face just a few shots earlier, compounding the effect. Assuming that not showing her face or using computers to create a more convincing representation were on they table (which I don't think is unreasonable to assume), this means they did it deliberately. They used a different actress, but the head was entirely cg.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
How is there not an art book with all of Syd Mead's BR work?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Maybe some of you are seeing some flaw I don't see, because that looks like Sean Young to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Wanna see that cut.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Weak troll game, 0/10.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I can't remember, does the scene with the giant JOI projection comes after Deckard rejects new-Rachel because her eyes are supposedly the wrong colour? Nice callback I think. Yes. To make it even more obvious, when Wallace wheels out not-Rachael, he says "More joy, then."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Scott giving me some Trump vibes in that interview, lol.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
I wish I didn't know that Villeneuve wanted Bowie for the part of Wallace, because that would have been so good, it pains me. Leto is just serviceable as a pretentious next gen tech douche. But I found the weakest part to be the one eyed woman just plopping the replicant revolution subplot into the movie out of nowhere. It wasn't set up well at all. Which is made even worse because she then gives the big reveal of K not being "the one" like a minute later. It should've been this big emotional moment, and instead you feel "huh. drat, ok." It made me wonder if this scene was shoehorned in as an attempt to set up a potential Bladeiverse sequel plot, which they were seriously considering. How K reacts to all this and the climax is what saves everything from going completely off the rails. That being said, I'm fine with the design being a bit more digital and clean lines (even if everything is still pretty grimy). It's 35 years later, I'd expect the design of the world and tech to evolve and develop a kind of sleekness to it. But I do think it could've used more outdoor scenes in the city to give a greater sense of the world. Original BR presented an overcrowded hustle and bustle place of activity, lights, rain, steam, machinery and sometimes bizarrely ornate costumes. The new one is practically austere in comparison. K's apartment is a prison cell compared to Deckard's old lavish 2019 digs. The DNA room, the forensics O.R., the Casino in Vegas, the scrapyard landscapes, the halls of Wallace Corp, the solar farms, everything is so overwhelmingly stark. I get the feeling this may be a deliberate choice to reflect the loneliness of K the replicant, a singular thing operating solo in a huge oppressive world that he can never fully be a part of. It may not be classic Blade Runner, but I'm fine with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Tenzarin posted:She didn't actually drop that plot point. The police chief says, find and kill this child because if it is alive, a war will happen. IE a rebellion! It is basically the entire plot of the movie. Yet there was no indication of an actual replicant army until over 2hrs into the movie. We had a 2 minute scene of a couple of mysterious replicants watching K, and then nothing until they picked him up in Vegas. Wright's warning about a war struck me as a fear of the likely inevitability, not that she was afraid of a literal army that already existed. The movie gave us no sense of immediate danger there. Most of the tension in the second act comes from believing K is the child and what will happen to him, not the fear of war. And Wright's fear that the news of the replicant birth would leak seemed to be focused on Wallace Corp finding out, for some reason, and not a replicant army who already knows about it anyway. I'm not saying they didn't try to set it up, but it's pretty weak, which is why that replicant rebel scene is so jarring.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2018 17:29
|
|