|
Do they even try to explain how she grabbed the egg?
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Do they even try to explain how she grabbed the egg? Imagine four replicants at the edge of a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:10
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:You can't just force yourself to have an opinion, lol. The film has to evoke it. Cinema has sinned once again!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
fr0id posted:As has been said, it’s a central mystery of the movie, Is it, really? I honestly think a lot of the opposition to the Replicant issue is that it's pretty out of left field and I reckon most folks learn about or figure it out away from the film itself (do people really watch the director's cuts and go "Wait-- the unicorn... oh my god, Deckard's a replicant! He was a replicant this whole time!"?). Even Rachel's "Have you ever taken the test yourself?" really comes off to me like she's questioning the validity of the test and Deckard's methods, and Gaff's "Are you sure you are a man?" a rhetorical existential question. The replicant thing feels like a bit of trivia that tries to answer a question the movie itself doesn't ask beyond philosophical concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:Is it, really? I honestly think a lot of the opposition to the Replicant issue is that it's pretty out of left field and I reckon most folks learn about or figure it out away from the film itself (do people really watch the director's cuts and go "Wait-- the unicorn... oh my god, Deckard's a replicant! He was a replicant this whole time!"?). When the DC first dropped in the early 90s there were absolutely people who did that because there's so much memory implant conversation in the first half of the movie. But keep in mind also that that version of the movie was a little rushed in its own way. There are some unintentional continuity things in the theatrical and DC versions that, with the added unicorn scene in the DC, suddenly mostly fit if Deckard is an actual replicant rather than it just being a thing to think about. Like in those older cuts they didn't have a way to shine a light on Sean Young's eyes without hitting Harrison Ford in the same shot too. So even though the glowing eyes thing was meant as something only the audience sees and not the characters, at that point people took it as a more literal indicator. There's also a conversation Deckard has with Bryant about how many replicants are left where Bryant correct Deckard on the number, meaning there was an extra replicant still, which people take to mean was Deckard. This is where the "the police caught Deckard and reprogrammed him to think he's a Blade Runner" theories came from. The dialogue was done very early on when there were going to be six escaped replicants (the other two were to be named Mary and Hodge IIRC) instead of four. They re-recorded the dialogue correctly but then hosed up and used the older version in both the theatrical and DC versions so it creates this continuity error. So depending on what version you watch, their conversation doesn't jive with how many were fried in the initial attempt to infiltrate the Tyrell building vs. how many have been killed by the time Deckard and Bryant speak again. In the Final Cut the scene's tone and placement makes it much easier to read the scene as Bryant referring to Rachael as someone Deckard intentionally left out of his count imo. That reminds me of the other only really egregious continuity thing to me, if Holden is a good Blade Runner and was briefed on how there are these four replicants still out there on earth, why does he not just immediately recognize Leon? But it's also a holdover from an earlier version of the script that took into account how in the book it's more common for there to be replicants that are a 1:1 copy of a real person, and that for [technobabble IIRC] reasons replicants have a much easier time disguising their appearance and such. The theatrical release's voice over from Deckard talks about this a bit. But it just makes you think even more, like, who names the replicants? Is "Leon Kowalski" an identity this guy stole? But I love all this poo poo and it somehow works for me because it just adds to having all this stuff that isn't quite 100% resolvable in a "canon" way but still just, like, fits together. I really get blown away by how it's such a visually and aurally dense movie that still lets your imagination go crazy with what's going on in it. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
I've never really even understood the desire to have there be ambiguity about Deckard's humanity. The whole structure of Blade Runner is set up to draw a dichotomy between Deckard as a fallible, morally weak human vs. the Replicants who are physically superior and, at the very least, justified in their revolt against their oppression. I don't see how any aspect of the film is improved if Deckard, basically the only major human character who is a foil for the Replicants, is also an android. The whole point of the film collapses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:That reminds me of the other only really egregious continuity thing to me, if Holden is a good Blade Runner and was briefed on how there are these four replicants still out there on earth, why does he not just immediately recognize Leon? But it's also a holdover from an earlier version of the script that took into account how in the book it's more common for there to be replicants that are a 1:1 copy of a real person, and that for [technobabble IIRC] reasons replicants have a much easier time disguising their appearance and such. The theatrical release's voice over from Deckard talks about this a bit. But it just makes you think even more, like, who names the replicants? Is "Leon Kowalski" an identity this guy stole? I always assumed Holden knew exactly who Leon was the whole time, and either A) there was some legal requirement to V-K subjects in non-exigent circumstances to make sure you're not retiring a human by mistake, or B) being a "good cop" does not preclude playing lovely mind games with someone you're about to shoot in cold blood, just for the fun of it. We know Deckard has seen the images of all the replicants prior to encountering any of them, so why does he harass Zhora after her performance? Primarily, because he's a creep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Mike N Eich posted:I've never really even understood the desire to have there be ambiguity about Deckard's humanity. The whole structure of Blade Runner is set up to draw a dichotomy between Deckard as a fallible, morally weak human vs. the Replicants who are physically superior and, at the very least, justified in their revolt against their oppression. I don't see how any aspect of the film is improved if Deckard, basically the only major human character who is a foil for the Replicants, is also an android. The whole point of the film collapses. I don't think the suggestion undermines anything. What struck me about the BR setting in general is the purposeless-ness of it all. Earth is a decaying ghost town, presumably because anyone with any means or goals has already fled off-world. Those who remain just kind of exist, immersed in artificial amusements as they wait out the clock. The film tells us Replicants are physically superior, but mostly they seem philosophically superior because their truncated lifespans give them a clarity of purpose that humans wasting away on Earth don't have. The key difference between the forgotten humans living like cockroaches and the Replicants with 4-year lifespans is how aware they are of the ways they've been dehumanized and disempowered by the power structure as it is. That's the part where I read significance into the "possibility" Deckard is a Replicant. It's not that interesting that he is or isn't one, because it wouldn't actually change anything about his situation. He's still a mostly-powerless functionary stuck on a dying planet, with no purpose but his job and nothing to soothe his dread or ennui but a bunch of fake garbage and flashing lights. But by the end of the story, he's been infected with a kind of existential awareness...politically, it's as if he's now a Replicant because he's no longer compliant, no longer following his program. The literal fact of whether or not he's synthetic doesn't seem to matter. Obviously, these are recurring themes in BR2049, though Westworld really runs with the idea, as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I don't think the suggestion undermines anything. The book emphasizes this a lot, that on some level everyone still living on earth is some combination of loser/creep/major weirdo. Interestingly I sometimes see (I think I posted about this earlier sorry) Deckard becoming a replicant philosophically, as something one can use as evidence that he's a replicant lol because every replicant in the movie does the opposite of their programming. But in the end Deckard being a replicant or a human being unresolvable has always been a philosophical point like the glowing eyes effect and not something where he sees the unicorn and instantly knows he is a replicant or a human. But it's great for creating infinite discussion of this film. Like the in-movie solution is that "it doesn't matter" and 2049 really drives that home but that's not the same as what we take away from it. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jan 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
Painful to see this fall to the second page, isn't it. What do people think of Blade Runner 2049's soundtrack? Obviously it was the right direction to not try to imitate Vangelis 1:1 outside of some homage that was appropriately placed to me. I feel like Zimmer and Wallfisch's score is overall really good and I dig it. They really got keeping it slow to points to try to have that sense of danger/dread going on for much of the movie (how much the rest of the movie maintains that is debatable, but I can see it being difficult given the wider scope/ramifications of 2049's plot compared to how very personal the original is). Overall good work sound like "Blade Runner music" while not sounding like they just cloned Vangelis' work. There's definitely some weak parts imo like some of the action scenes (except the sea wall) but good effort. Jóhann Jóhannsson was originally picked to do the soundtrack, he had worked with Villeneuve on Sicario. I can see why he was initially picked for it, "Wait! Sebastian..." I like Jóhann Jóhannsson's stuff a lot, RIP, it'd be interesting to have heard what direction he would have taken it in but I don't think he actually completed any work for it before he left 2049. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jan 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Don't worry, Johannsson’s estate is ensuring that you can listen to his Blade Runner 2049 work as an NFT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 23:03
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Don't worry, Johannsson’s estate is ensuring that you can listen to his Blade Runner 2049 work as an NFT. First against the loving wall once I become President of Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
I've heard rumors that some of Jóhannsson's work for BR2049 is available on some other non-NFT release from his estate, but I'm skeptical. I'd also love to hear what he came up with but not badly enough to buy a goddamn NFT. But yes, the Zimmer/Wallfisch score does kick rear end. RIP to the Arclight Hollywood, where I saw 2049 a couple times, and the sonic experience of that movie was next-level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
The score for 2049 is tremendous. The part during the sea wall end fight? Astounding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:The score for 2049 is tremendous. The part during the sea wall end fight? Astounding. The entire soundscape of that part ruled, was very glad to see that in a theater.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
Blade Runner has this amazing soft floaty dreamlike score. I caught 2049 at an IMAX theatre when it launched and that score is just this oppresive nightmare, its brilliant. Tears In Rain at the end of 2049 still hosed me up like it does in the original.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 12:48
|
|
|
The soundscape and music in several parts of the theatrical experience of 2049 were mind blowing. The opening blare of synths over the solar farms. The oppressive drums and… revving engines (?) when entering LA, the afore mentioned sea wall. Villeneuve tends to have some of the best sonic experiences in cinema and 2049 was no exception. And yeah, the music did a good job of evoking elements of the original while reflecting the more brutal tone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:The oppressive drums and… revving engines (?) when entering LA This part confused me at first but very quickly grew on me as some incredible sound design. I loved the score, it paid tribute to Vangelis with those soaring synth pads, but carved out its own incredibly crushing soundscape, with those cityscape revving sounds, the formant throat-singing that added a disquiet to the warm tones of Wallace's scenes... and the music over the credits literally had me gurning in my seat with twisty neuro growls that would put Noisia to shame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:That reminds me of the other only really egregious continuity thing to me, if Holden is a good Blade Runner and was briefed on how there are these four replicants still out there on earth, why does he not just immediately recognize Leon? But it's also a holdover from an earlier version of the script that took into account how in the book it's more common for there to be replicants that are a 1:1 copy of a real person, and that for [technobabble IIRC] reasons replicants have a much easier time disguising their appearance and such. The theatrical release's voice over from Deckard talks about this a bit. But it just makes you think even more, like, who names the replicants? Is "Leon Kowalski" an identity this guy stole? To me it always seemed like Holden knew who he was talking to and just got cocky, and/or mistakenly thought Tyrell Corp would screen for bazooka pistols on their employees at the door.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
The first 20 minutes of Blade Runner 2049 are the most terrifying vision of the post climate change future ever put on film. Endless sterile solar power plants, dead trees and ashes, protein vats, misery, and violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
This is probably a dumb question but since (IIRC) Blade Runners are part of the LAPD, do other jurisdictions have their own? Are there Blade Runners off-world, and if so who employs them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 10:36
|
|
|
According to the TTRPG, the Rep-Detect unit that we saw in both films has a jurisdiction of Los Angeles, which spans from San Francisco to San Diego. It and other megacities are considered self-sustaining municipalities and Blade Runners would not have jurisdiction outside of their cities. The scope of Rep-Detect's authority covers all replicant-related crime, and here's the general description of the unit from the book:  I would imagine that any police force would would have a Rep-Detect unit by 2049, but the Off-World Colonies are kept pretty vague in all of the official material. But as the Off-World Colonies are "colonies" it implies that they report to some government authority on Earth, and would thus have similarly-structured police departments. It gets a little more complicated because replicants were banned on Earth at different points in time, and in the Off-World Colonies they would have been legal during that same timeframe. But seeing as how every colonist is given their own personal enslaved replicant when they move off-world, I'd imagine that there would be a need for other police jurisdictions to have Rep-Detect units as well. The comics are the only official material to depict the Off-World Colonies, but they're pretty mediocre and I don't really remember what they established about Blade Runners jurisdiction off-world. I seem to remember that the only that takes place off-world isn't offically-sanctioned Rep-Detect business, but more of a personal vendetta. But also, all of this is just some spin-off nonsense which gives too much credit to the idea of "canon." The comics were co-written by Michael Green so they have some pedigree to them, but Ridley could just decide to do something else in Blade Runner 2099 if it ever gets made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
I got the impression that the off-world colonies are corporate owned/managed and while those are technically under various governments' rule they don't really give af what goes on as long as money+resources === goes up. Like in 2049 the Wallace HQ is on Earth but Wallace wants to take Deckard offworld where they have the legal authority to torture him. Plus the constant advertising in 2019. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
What was the point of Leto’s character again in 49?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
Fascinating stuff, thanks. What's K's story then, at what point did the UN start using replicants as blade runners? And how do they (and he) not know his origin? Like isn't his whole personal motivation in BR2049 that he thinks he might be the natural birth? I really should rewatch the movie, as I'm sure it answers some of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 04:09
|
|
|
Deckard is not a Replican't he's a RepliCAN!Neo Rasa posted:Spoiler for Blade Runner 2's premise, Deckard retired a human by mistake, the human in question is Pris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHE WAS HUMAN THE WHOLE TIME! Oh my GAWD AHAHAHAHA!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:What was the point of Leto’s character again in 49? He wanted Deckard to see what made him special that he could knock up a skin job. He dug up Rachael's corpse so between that and Deckard he could create reps that could reproduce naturally rather than having to run the production factories to make new ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
MLSM posted:And the plot of 2049 doesn’t even work if Deckard is human. If you can accept that a machine that's nigh indistinguishable from humans to the point you need to perform some ridiculous behavioral test on them because apparently checking their blood or DNA won't even work can get pregnant in the first place, why is it such a leap to think it could get pregnant from a human? I mean I know you can't respond but I'm just saying
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
Replicants aren’t even really robots in any traditional sense. They’re just lab grown humans essentially and have nearly identical biology. Just fake memories and short life spans and strong muscles. I read the book a long time ago so I can’t remember if it was the same way in that, but a human impregnating a replicant doesn’t really seem all the weird beyond the story telling us it is. (I might be very off the mark about all of this but it’s what I remember.) MokBa fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jan 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 05:11
|
|
|
Yeah it didn't strike me as weird at all. They're "robots" in the enslaved/seen as less than human sense not in the literal circuitry sense. Plus it's obvious Rachael was specifically made that way as figuring out how is Wallace's entire point of being involved in the story at all. It was always the intention that they were more grown than built and that some models like Roy would be built with some improved stuff for their purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 05:16
|
|
|
MokBa posted:Replicants aren’t even really robots in any traditional sense. They’re just lab grown humans essentially and have nearly identical biology. Just fake memories and short life spans and strong muscles. I read the book a long time ago so I can’t remember if it was the same way in that, but a human impregnating a replicant doesn’t really seem all the weird beyond the story telling us it is. Re: the book I'm not sure about the replicants but I recall the artificial animals at least had like gears and mechanical innards and the like. In the movies I reckon the idea of the replicants being thought of "machines" or "androids" as opposed to clones or organisms comes from their body parts being made separately ("I just do eyes!") and then are later assembled somehow into a full body, so the replicants are literally made and not grown/"born." You'd think if that were the case it'd be easy to construct them in a way that's easily identifiable but I suppose we're just not meant to think about that too hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 05:33
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:Re: the book I'm not sure about the replicants but I recall the artificial animals at least had like gears and mechanical innards and the like. That reminds of how sad it is when Sebastian's like "There's some of me in you!" with some pride after we learn he's like 25 and ages super fast. Tyrell's motto is "more human than human" so making them too identifiable wasn't there goal so I get that part. The 100% way to do it in the movies is you take a DNA sample and put it under a scanner that shows the serial number built into how the cells are grown. In the book the 100% way is to like take a bone marrow sample from them and then send it to a lab.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
Chu is a generic designer. My understanding is that he designs eyes, he doesn't manufacture them. The replicants aren't assembled, they're grown. Different parts of their DNA is just designed by different specialists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 05:54
|
|
|
You may be right, I have no way to argue against that aside from my belief that it makes for a more compelling and consistent film for the replicants to be assembled. We "grow" things like crops and livestock, things we already consider to be alive. We "manufacture" machines, which have the additional hurdle of not even being considered alive, let alone sapient. I feel like Blade Runner is about "what if we made living machines" more than it is "what if a cow could talk," so I'll personally lean as far into the replicants' nature being as mechanical as the movie allows me to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 07:30
|
|
|
You can grow brain or heart tissue in a lab these days, it's not a stretch to think they could grow an eye for testing or transplant if they wanted to
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
Chu was growing eyes right there in his lab. Leon puts a few on him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Some some odd thoughts. If Deckard was retired, what did he do all day? Was he living on a pension?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Some some odd thoughts. Continually trying to order the Decca Bowl but with four fish instead of two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Continually trying to order the Decca Bowl but with four fish instead of two. This was not called execution. It was called retirement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Some some odd thoughts. Listened to 1990's classic rap albums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 15:08
|
|
