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

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

It's also big hit of nostalgia for 80s kids who grew up with Blade Runner. Remember Atari? Wasn't it great? Yeah, remember Blade Runner? That was great too right? Here, have both. Come see this movie.

# ¿ May 9, 2017 05:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 13:51

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Vegetable posted:

I don't think Denis Villeneuve of all people is going to make this movie squarely as a nostalgic piece, friends.

I'm not complaining, just noting why the marketing folks put that logo front and center in the trailer.

Snowman_McK posted:

"On June 22, 2014, Atari announced a new corporate strategy that would include a focus on "new audiences", specifically "LGBT, social casinos, real-money gambling, and YouTube".[49]"

I didn't believe you that this was a real quote, so I Googled it. It's possibly more dystopian than Blade Runner itself.

# ¿ May 9, 2017 07:03

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Woof Blitzer posted:

Is Ryan Gosling already supposed to be a replicant? Because he doesn't seem to show any emotion at all.

Dude's probably just numb from the trauma of being a hired killer. I guess we'll find out when we watch the movie.

# ¿ May 14, 2017 04:59

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Yaws posted:

I do like his recent output though :/

I think a lot of people are just having difficulty accepting that Prometheus and Covenant are comedies, so they can't enjoy them for what they are. And, granted, it's a little weird that the Alien prequels are comedies, but whatever.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2017 23:50

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

RedSpider posted:

The Sci-Fi John Wick, ladies and gentlemen:

https://twitter.com/RyanGosling/status/883368726912843776

I'm not expecting a film on the original's level, but if in failing to hit that target this new film ends up being a sci-fi John Wick, that wouldn't be so bad. John Wick is fantastically entertaining.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2017 23:38

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Torquemada posted:

Have children ever herded an adult this way except in movies? I mean, every movie that contains gangs of children in parlous circumstances has them do it, Temple Of Doom, Beyond Thunderdome to name a couple.

For sure. My wife's a teacher, and the kids and parents adore her. Whenever we get invited to one of the parent's houses the children inevitably end up herding my wife and I around as part of some crazy game (I suspect that it's because they enjoy having imaginary power over a teacher).

Obviously that's a unique circumstance, but kids really will herd adults around given the chance.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2017 11:23

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Phi230 posted:

So were the rumors that Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford got in screaming matches on set true for this film

if so very worried

If that were true maybe it's a good thing? 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.

Screaming at Ridley Scott involves a level of giving-a-poo poo that I wasn't sure Ford had left in him.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2017 21:32

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Phi230 posted:

If it's true then it means Ford is passionate about the character and Ridley is trying to meddle

I guess I trust Villenue to pull it off

Yeah, Villenue consistently impresses me with his films.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2017 21:34

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Phi230 posted:

he's decided to take on Dune which is crazy

Excellent.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2017 21:46

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

BarronsArtGallery posted:

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.

Yep - I could tell that Harrison Ford was having fun, which is a problem when I'm supposed to be watching Han Solo go through some harrowing poo poo.

I mean, I like Harrison Ford a lot, but I'm a bit worried that he's turned into one of those actors who only "acts" through variations of his own personality.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 02:23

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

feedmyleg posted:

How do I get my hands on this Blade Runner themed whiskey/scotch?

Thanks for alerting me to this - looks like it's going to be a special edition of Johnnie Walker Black Label. Unless you're in a major city, your best bet would probably be a site like whiskeyexchange.com or masterofmalt.com.

For folks who aren't into whiskey: Black Label is a decent but (relatively) affordable blended scotch, with a smoky flavor.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 03:04

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Neo Rasa posted:

I want to get this but god drat that's like triple the price of a bottle of Johnnie Walker and like, I mean like, I live in a major city but I can already get awesome alcohol in cool bottles because of that.

Edit: LMAO speaking of dropping some $$$ on Blade Runner drinking stuff -

https://www.firebox.com/Blade-Runner-Whiskey-Glasses/p4346?aff=512

OK - that's tempting, but the price is obscene. Like, $140.00 for two tumblers.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 03:41

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

feedmyleg posted:

I'm pretty sure I've seen those glasses for like $20 on prop maker forums.

But what if I do live in a major city? I can't seem to find any information on how these are going to be distributed. Are they just going to be randomly on shelves and I just, like, call every fancy liquor store?

In that case, it probably does make sense to call any of the liquor stores around you that carry limited scotch releases. Most don't. But in DC for example, there are a couple of stores with owners who pride themselves on their selection, and who work with distributors to ensure that they'll get a few bottles of the special stuff whenever they're released.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 15:51

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Milky Moor posted:

lol @ the Extremely Anime dialogue bit where that one kid is like "I get it. Humans are stupid, selfish liars but replicants are different!"

I stopped watching at that point.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2017 03:37

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

hyphz posted:

Since nothing happens to Batty's body when he times out at the end of BR, they probably just "recycle" him by reflashing his brain or something.

It's not really clear to me that something like that would be possible, as the replicants seem to be mainly, if not wholly, organic/biological. I don't think that these are robots in the way that we're accustomed to thinking about them, and I wouldn't be surprised if the replicants run off of biological brains that are somehow hard coded, as opposed to something like a computer.

At least that's how I've thought of them since I first saw the original movie. And I think that that would be thematically appropriate given that the film's initial ambiguity surrounding their humanity is effectively resolved by Batty's dying actions and speech.

Edit: like, the whole debate about is Deckard a replicant or not is a fun one to have (assuming that you're talking about a version of the film without the unicorn dream, which seems pretty conclusive). But that debate is really missing the point that, from a moral perspective, there's no difference between a human and a replicant.

Ersatz fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Sep 28, 2017

# ¿ Sep 28, 2017 19:46

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Danger posted:

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.

Seriously, proceed with caution. I've now been spoiled on things that may or may not be revealed early in the film, but that I would have nevertheless preferred to have learned while watching.

Regardless, the general takeaway seems to be a collective "Holy crap it's awesome!!!" And I'm not sure that there's much to be gained from reading individual reviews aside from specific (and potentially spoilery) reasons why.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 18:40

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Danger posted:

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.

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.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 17:00

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

That was awesome.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 04:10

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Happy Noodle Boy posted:

The sync sequence was really something.

It was around that time that I realized that I was watching something really brilliant that just happened to be the sequel to one of my favorite films.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 04:28

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

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.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 16:46

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Nail Rat posted:

The consumer drone in me really wants to buy a bottle of that Blade Runner whiskey, but $90 is a lot to pay for Johnnie Walker Black.

I've read reviews stating that the Blade Runner blend has some additional depth and flavor notes that set it apart and make it worth the money from a whiskey perspective (at work now so I can't track them down). I'm definitely going to pick up a bottle. Although I laughed pretty hard when Deckard poured some out for his dog.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 19:02

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Gonz posted:

Punch your mouth and yes.

Yeah - rip that sucker out and get back in there.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 03:31

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Sgt. Politeness posted:

survived an explosion even

I was really bothered by the dog not doing anything to defend Deckard after he stood up for its dogmanity, but then figured that if you were going to manufacture replicant dogs you'd probably make them non-violent.

Totes a replicant.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 03:34

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

jivjov posted:

Incidentally, I learned that there's not a single 24-hour emergency dentist anywhere in the Kansas City metro.

That's awful - sorry dude. I'd recommend whiskey while you're waiting, but that's probably not sound advice.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 03:36

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Jedit posted:

"Everyone"? Apart from Joshi, the only women who want to gently caress K are an AI programmed to give him what he wants and three prostitutes. Luv and the resistance woman have no interest in him at all, and Bubble Girl likes him because he's interesting but that's it.

One thing I found really interesting was the extension of the theme in the original that the replicants desire to be human. Whereas in the original Tyrell replicants did it by asserting personal autonomy, K - who as a Wallace replicant is heavily controlled - has bought himself something artificial that he can control (Joi). This is then subverted when Joi hires Mariette to be her physical proxy, putting herself in the position of the human beings who control the replicants. This shifts the notion of control from a hierarchy to a statement that we are all controlled because we allow ourselves to be, the part of the theme that applied to Deckard in the first movie where he might be a replicant doing what he's made for or he might be a man drawn back in because allowing himself to be controlled by some gives him control over others. (Another interesting parallel: in the book, Deckard wants the bonus for hunting Roy's group so he can buy a real sheep. In BR2049, K uses his bonus for retiring Sapper to buy an emanator for Joi. The real man wants something real, the artificial man wants something artificial.)

Last thought for the moment is Deckard saying to K that if he was loved he'd have a name instead of a serial number. But Wallace named Luv when he obviously doesn't love her, while Joshi only ever thinks of K as a serial number but she helps him escape after he fails his baseline test and gives her life to protect him.

Luv also made a pass at K - right after she explains to K that being asked personal questions makes a person feel desired, she pauses for a beat and then asks him a personal question. I though it was pretty funny.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 15:57

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

MisterBibs posted:

We're not talking about best or worst. We're talking about being given a nearly 3h movie and tasked with cutting it down to a more palatable length. There are plenty of movies with plenty of special features with plenty of movies with plenty of deleted scenes that would've been so cool to have been in the movie proper, but would've bloated the movie, so one understands why they were cut.

I don't think that scene would even be in the movie if the hooker-lady was revealed to be part of the underground conspiracy.

I thought that the scene was brilliant, and did a lot to complement the film's themes, in addition to complicating the relationship between JOI and Joe/K. To me it, it's possibly the most vital scene in the movie.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 18:31

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Linguica posted:

Maybe I am just racist against holograms but I didn't find anything involving Joi to be the least bit compelling. I know her entire raison d'etre is to be a perfect CGI waifu but that means I didn't "believe" a single thing she ever said or did was anything more than just her programming doing what it was supposed to be doing. I can't get emotionally involved with a character when I don't believe there's any glimmer of real consciousness there. I know this ties into the themes of Blade Runner and humanity and all that stuff, but it prevented me from responding to it.

Yeah. I found that relationship pretty fascinating, but it never felt to me like Joi was actually a self-conscious person, as opposed to being a super-advanced chat bot that was effectively adapting to its conversational partner. I'm sure that comes down to assumptions that I have about organic brains having a certain something that computers lack, and that something being necessary for consciousness.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 21:41

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

exquisite tea posted:

Zimmer was such a tone deaf choice to score this film. I know they were under the gun and had to quickly recruit a replacement, but the soundtrack was so blaringly obnoxious at points.

That's one of the few complaints I have about the film. The soundtrack took me out of it at times because it was so incredibly and pointlessly loud.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 21:42

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Cacator posted:

Too bad we can't hear what the original Johannsson score was like as the scores for Arrival and Sicario were great, Villeneuve's reason for replacing it was that he wanted something more like Vangelis but even then Zimmer's score didn't really evoke that in me, maybe in a couple pieces. It's serviceable and suits the bleaker atmosphere of the film but I do wish they went for something more iconic.

It is unfortunate, given that the Vangelis score is one of the more memorable parts of the original, and really adds a lot to the atmosphere.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 21:49

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:

That's basically the attitude that humans take against replicants in both movies, though. And the first movie definitely makes you come down on the side of the replicants. Everyone's preprogrammed to some extent. It's what you do afterwards that make you you.

Yeah, but replicants are fully organic, so it's much easier to sympathize with them under the default assumptions that they're both alive and self-conscious. I'm not saying that those assumptions are justified, but they're pretty widespread (e.g., with respect to animals in the real world).

It's worth adding that it's impossible to know whether anyone or anything other than yourself subjectively experiences being, but most people are going to assume that their computers are simply machines, no matter how advanced they become.

Ersatz fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Oct 7, 2017

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 22:05

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Linguica posted:

I guess you can argue that Joi telling K to break the antenna was showing that she had grown beyond her programming and had become self-aware and self-determining to some degree, given the assumption that Evil Corporation was monitoring K through her. But without more fleshing-out it wasn't enough to make me actually believe Joi as a "person," if I was meant to, and it just confuses the issue if I'm not.

Given that Blade Runner has its origins in a PKD novel, confusing the issue may have been intent. That's also the main reason that I love the syncing scene so much. Particularly given the ironies involved.

Totally agree that "is Joi a person?" is this film's "is Deckard a replicant"?

Ersatz fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Oct 7, 2017

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 22:13

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

AdmiralViscen posted:

Since when is there some universally acceptable length for movies? The movie was a wonderful experience.

If I had a nitpick it'd be that I can't see how making replicants get pregnant and then waiting 20 years for their children to reach adulthood could possibly be more time or resource efficient than just building them like they currently are. Seems like a replicant creating life would also create a stronger likelihood of them rebelling or complicating their programming.

But I accept it as a macguffin

I think that what Wallace had in mind was to simply seed an untold number of far-away planets with reproducing replicants, since he could only produce so many, and the time that would be involved in that process wouldn't really matter for the end goal of ensuring the survival and propagation of a version of humanity (not to mention the ridiculous travel times, which is presumably why standard issue humans couldn't make the trips).

^^^Yep.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 22:41

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Serf posted:

Boy I sure hope not. It would be a really hosed up thing to say.

Why? Do you feel bad about turning off your computer? Should you? Why not? What if it was a fancy computer? How fancy would it have to be?

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 01:06

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Steve2911 posted:

Ooh gently caress. The audio in my screening was weirdly echoey. I think it's because they have an IMAX size screen/room but lack the audio equipment to fill it properly. But I totally misheard Leto's speech near the beginning and thought he revealed himself to be a Replicant with the aim of reproducing the species in order to wipe out humans. So I was really loving confused when the Resistance showed up.

I should rewatch this movie...

My understanding of his motivations is also informed by the pre-release short featuring Wallace. I'd recommend that to anyone interested in seeing the movie, since it makes him much easier to understand and relate to.

^^^Wallace wanted to make replicants capable of reproduction, so that the could populate far-away planets with them. Joshi (K's boss) wanted the daughter kept a secret, since the possibility of replicant reproduction implies that they're closer to humanity than most humans had assumed, and would undermine the slave state..

Ersatz fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Oct 8, 2017

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 01:16

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Serf posted:

I would feel very bad about turning off my computer that is functionally indistinguishable from a person with person emotions and experiences.

How do you know that it has emotions and experiences, and isn't simply an excellent simulacrum of a person?

Academics are turning out chatbots now that pass the Turing test/fake out people in experiments. I still wouldn't hesitate to turn off the computer running one, since that in no way implies consciousness.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 01:17

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Serf posted:

I mean how do I know I'm not a simulacrum of a person? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Presumably, you can tell yourself "I think therefore I am." If you're capable of that, you're self-conscious/have personhood.

(I'm aware as I write this about disturbing edge cases of people in comas, etc..., but they're beside the point I'm making).

And no, I wouldn't consider a convincing animatronic waxwork voicing lines from a chatbot to be a real person.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 01:26

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Serf posted:

Is having a physical body the prime determinant of being a person?

It should be clear from my posts that I consider self-awareness (or at the every least the capacity for it) the most important determinant. Nothing in this film suggests that Joi is self-aware. There are, on the other hand, strong indicators that she's evolving according to an algorithm, so as to better please her owner.

Think of it this way. At the end of the first film, Roy showed compassion toward a hated enemy who had murdered his friends. This is pretty much the opposite of what you'd expect a robot designed to lead a "kick murder squad" to do. Joi on the other hand, is servile and self-sacrificing, and is eager to find new and better ways to be the best waifu ever for her specific owner. That sounds a lot like variation on the themes she was designed with.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 02:11

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

The REAL Goobusters posted:

Loved the movie

Yeah the literally says, "everything you want to see, everything you want to hear"

I think that spelled it out in a big way that it wasn't a real relationship at all. Especially the moment the ad says "you look like a joe. It shatters the illusion for him right then and there.

Yep, that was my impression as well.

The alternative also makes sense, and both are thematically appropriate in different ways.

Joe realizing that he was sold a cruel illusion in Joi might very well have pushed him to question what the resistance was selling, and to become his own man by saving Deckard. I think that fits better with his story.

The alternative, that he realized that his unique and real Joi was lost forever, and that this prompts him to better appreciate the fragility and beauty of life, would be an echo of Roy's arc.

Being a PKD fan, I very much appreciate the ambiguity here, and the darkly subversive presence of the first read, even for people who prefer the second.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 17:52

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

Bottom Liner posted:

We had a lot of talk earlier in the thread about all of the strong feminist messages and imagery in this film. If you don't see the obvious motherhood = power motif then that's on you.

It's also pretty clearly the case that the male gaze advertising, for example, contributes to the dystopia. It's supposed to be off-putting.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 20:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 13:51

Ersatz: Sep 17, 2005

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.

If you can't tell the difference between the lingering shots of the Joi that K loves and the towering Joi advertisement with zombie eyes I don't know what to say, other than that's not a problem with the film.

Also, heads up, the Joi/Mariette nudity in the scene you're complaining about was tasteful. The nudity in the scene with sex workers pressed against frosted glass in plain view of the street was not, which was kind of the point.

Ersatz fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Oct 8, 2017

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 22:11

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

«‹›3 »