CINEMA

Blade Runner 2049

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, November 23, 2017 04:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1558
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, October 6, 2017 9:26 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


There was good and some not so much.
I'll try to avoid spoilers.

First the not so good.
Although the Sound FX were partly copied from Arrival, the saturation gets a bit grating, unless you're into saturation and avoid Max Headroom.
Robin Wright was cast. If you are annoyed by this, she had way too many scenes.
Not sure I get the flying cars. Looked about the same as Deckard's, but so clunky and clumsy. And what is with the windshield wipers from the 80s?


I enjoyed this film. Likely one of my 10 favorites for this year. Although less extravagant than Valerian, unfortunately Valerian was not as complete a package as BRMMXLIX. I might still like Dark Tower better.
An involved story, with mystery, riddle, puzzle, redemption, and quest for self-awareness. I could not tell whether it was just the story, or also the Direction, but the result seemed smooth and engrossing.

I liked much of the cast, other than Wright.
The memory Dr. I last saw in Brimstone, earlier this year - another top film.
I did like Ana de Armas more as brunette - she could pull off Audrey Hepburn. This is the most reserved role I think I've seen from her. Also, from the trailers the role I thought was played by MacKensie Davis was actually Ana. I expect this is her highest profile film, and should launch her further.
Gosling played steady and mature, a bit like his Drive and Place In The Pines. His scenes never deflated the suspension of disbelief for me.
The double playing Rachael was pretty close to the original.

I can say that the story is quite focused, one thing leads to another. Some films throw in scenes which are corollary or side story but show another facet of the character - but here there were no tangential scenes.

The original Blade Runner had enough in it that you could find gems in it after several viewings. But the sequel may have it all absorbable in one showing.
Some scenes were shot with a wide view, but not much filling the frame - not sure if they will show well on a smaller screen. Not sure if there were scenes which actually filled the widescreen with action.

Select to view spoiler:


The irony of Wallace's search was kinda cute


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 10, 2017 6:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Apparently it had a disappointing opening Box Office.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2017 6:19 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Most of the killing in Blade Runner 2049 makes sense only in a movie. Killing in Blade Runner [1982] made perfect sense in both a real world and a movie. That is huge difference between those two films.

In the 1982 Blade Runner, the replicants are illegally in LA to live longer than 4 years. To learn the secret of how to extend their lives, they kill employees of the Tyrell Corp. The Blade Runner, Harrison Ford, kills the replicants one by one. He is especially motivated to kill when the replicants try to kill him. All the killing has powerful real world motivations, the world we live in. On the other hand, most of the killings in Blade Runner 2049 don’t have a reasonable motivation outside of a movie. It is killing to make a rhetorical point or to entertain the audience. For example, every time that industrialist Wallace kills one of his replicants, he is killing to make a point to someone he is talking to. It is never because the replicant deserves to die.

The following scene didn’t make it into the movie, but it shows Wallace again killing a replicant to make a point with an audience. Wallace treats the replicant as if it had no more value than a piece of toilet paper. Remember Tyrell, the replicant builder from the first Blade Runner? Tyrell talked to his replicants. He answered their questions with care. He didn’t kill them to score a point in a movie. He treated his replicants as if they were valuable, at least monetarily, exactly how a real industrialist would treat his products in the real world. Wallace was as unreal as a villain in a stupidly violent comic book, killing for the dumbest reasons of Hollywood movies.



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Most of the killing in Blade Runner 2049 makes sense only in a movie. Killing in Blade Runner [1982] made perfect sense in both a real world and a movie. That is huge difference between those two films.

In the 1982 Blade Runner, the replicants are illegally in LA to live longer than 4 years. To learn the secret of how to extend their lives, they kill employees of the Tyrell Corp. The Blade Runner, Harrison Ford, kills the replicants one by one. He is especially motivated to kill when the replicants try to kill him. All the killing has powerful real world motivations, the world we live in. On the other hand, most of the killings in Blade Runner 2049 don’t have a reasonable motivation outside of a movie. It is killing to make a rhetorical point or to entertain the audience. For example, every time that industrialist Wallace kills one of his replicants, he is killing to make a point to someone he is talking to. It is never because the replicant deserves to die.

The following scene didn’t make it into the movie, but it shows Wallace again killing a replicant to make a point with an audience. Wallace treats the replicant as if it had no more value than a piece of toilet paper. Remember Tyrell, the replicant builder from the first Blade Runner? Tyrell talked to his replicants. He answered their questions with care. He didn’t kill them to score a point in a movie. He treated his replicants as if they were valuable, at least monetarily, exactly how a real industrialist would treat his products in the real world. Wallace was as unreal as a villain in a stupidly violent comic book, killing for the dumbest reasons of Hollywood movies.

Didn't K only terminate replicants which killed humans?
Wasn't one of the points of Blade runner that terminating a replicants was not considered "killing" anyhow?

About every scene with Wallace or his minions seemed to underline that he was despicable. Not sure how his treatment of his production units changes that.

Select to view spoiler:


Did you feel terminating replicants was different than killing Joi?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2017 7:55 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Didn't K only terminate replicants which killed humans?
Wasn't one of the points of Blade runner that terminating a replicants was not considered "killing" anyhow?

K’s first kill in the movie was a farmer who had been peacefully living in the same location, working a job, for 29 years. K beat the farmer without mercy, ignored his famous last words about never seeing a miracle, shot him twice, then cut out his eyeball for identification. Later, K looks at the farmer’s police record. The farmer’s only crime was being a runaway slave. In contrast, every replicant Harrison Ford killed in the first Blade Runner richly deserved it.
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

About every scene with Wallace or his minions seemed to underline that he was despicable. Not sure how his treatment of his production units changes that. Did you feel terminating replicants was different than killing Joi?

Wallace reminded me of The Joker, the Batman comic character that kills because he can kill, for no purpose other than giving a comic book movie audience a little thrill, which is probably why Wallace was played by the same actor who was The Joker in other movies. Wallace’s killings were pure Hollywood or pure comic book, unconnected to any real world reasons for killing such as money, justice, war, fear, revenge. Wallace’s killings happened because a movie audience is watching. Wallace has no depth. He is a villain without any of our real world motivations for killing.

Replicants and humans are indistinguishable, except to experts. The difference is at the same level as Ashkenazi versus Sephardi.
www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/understanding-the-sephard_b_541033
.html


But Joi is not a human. Joi is a hologram or, latter in the movie, a flickering semisolid. Joi was turned off permanently, but that is not killing Joi. She was never alive. She is broken electronics recycled at Best Buy.

I came across a chart today titled "HUMAN MORALITY MADE SIMPLE" Even simple enough for a Hollywood movie:
http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2014/11/human-moralit
y-made-simple.html

"There's been a lot of confusion recently about moral behavior. It's actually a matter of one simple rule: The more a living being is like you, the nicer, you must be to it. Carry around this handy chart, consult it as you come across organisms, and act accordingly."

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Didn't K only terminate replicants which killed humans?
Wasn't one of the points of Blade runner that terminating a replicants was not considered "killing" anyhow?

K’s first kill in the movie was a farmer who had been peacefully living in the same location, working a job, for 29 years. K beat the farmer without mercy, ignored his famous last words about never seeing a miracle, shot him twice, then cut out his eyeball for identification. Later, K looks at the farmer’s police record. The farmer’s only crime was being a runaway slave.

i'm sorry. I must have misunderstood most of the film. I thought Sapper Morton and Freysa with the rest had killed humans, plus the other things too spoilery to mention.
Quote:

In contrast, every replicant Harrison Ford killed in the first Blade Runner richly deserved it.
Deserve how? Weren't they merely defending their way of existence?
Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
About every scene with Wallace or his minions seemed to underline that he was despicable. Not sure how his treatment of his production units changes that. Did you feel terminating replicants was different than killing Joi?

Wallace reminded me of The Joker, the Batman comic character that kills because he can kill, for no purpose other than giving a comic book movie audience a little thrill, which is probably why Wallace was played by the same actor who was The Joker in other movies. Wallace’s killings were pure Hollywood or pure comic book, unconnected to any real world reasons for killing such as money, justice, war, fear, revenge. Wallace’s killings happened because a movie audience is watching. Wallace has no depth. He is a villain without any of our real world motivations for killing.

Replicants and humans are indistinguishable, except to experts. The difference is at the same level as Ashkenazi versus Sephardi.
www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/understanding-the-sephard_b_541033
.html


Ah, yes. The penultimate authority on Science Fiction concepts, or even Science: HuffPost. Plus morality and philosophy - from a Divorcee. At least now I have learned that India and Spain are Arab Muslim.
So please tell us: which Jews are the manufactured, soulless production units - the Sephardic, or the Ashkenazi?
Quote:

But Joi is not a human. Joi is a hologram or, latter in the movie, a flickering semisolid.

Select to view spoiler:


Joi was turned off permanently, but that is not killing Joi. She was never alive.

She is broken electronics recycled at Best Buy.

Well, looks like we agree that replicants are not human, and Joi is not human.
I'm not sure if you and I saw the same film.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2017 7:12 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Well, looks like we agree that replicants are not human, and Joi is not human.
I'm not sure if you and I saw the same film.

I not only saw the film, I have a copy of it, so I think I've got a huge advantage over you about what the film is about. I can look at any scene as many times as I want. And we do NOT agree about replicants. They are NOT "soulless units". At least not all replicants. And some humans are soulless, Wallace for one example. How those humans ruined themselves is always a dramatic story. I know more than a few real humans that are missing some essential parts of their soul. That is one of the points that Philip K Dick was making in his writing career -- not every human holds on to their humanity.

I'll add that the film deserves all the admiration it has received. Now if it could have put different words in the actors' mouths, it would have been a greater movie. There is an interesting article about the various titles the movie could have had. Choosing the right words makes all the difference in the world.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/blade-runner-2049-was-almost-called-something-
much-muc-1819400590


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2017 7:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Well, looks like we agree that replicants are not human, and Joi is not human.
I'm not sure if you and I saw the same film.

I not only saw the film, I have a copy of it, so I think I've got a huge advantage over you about what the film is about. I can look at any scene as many times as I want. And we do NOT agree about replicants. They are NOT "soulless units". At least not all replicants. And some humans are soulless, Wallace for one example. How those humans ruined themselves is always a dramatic story. I know more than a few real humans that are missing some essential parts of their soul. That is one of the points that Philip K Dick was making in his writing career -- not every human holds on to their humanity.

I'll add that the film deserves all the admiration it has received. Now if it could have put different words in the actors' mouths, it would have been a greater movie. There is an interesting article about the various titles the movie could have had. Choosing the right words makes all the difference in the world.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/blade-runner-2049-was-almost-called-something-
much-muc-1819400590


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?





SPOILER ALERT!!


The next post has unannounced SPOILERS.

The onset.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

A
L
E
R
T


SPOILER ALERT!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 13, 2017 7:37 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?

I can't answer any of those questions because the movie is completely imaginary (no scientist from our world can get inside the movie and run experiments). All your questions have flexible answers, depending on who answers them, but there certainly are two rock solid stories in the two Blade Runner movies, stories that are cast in concrete, at least until the directors issue alternative cuts. The first Blade Runner is on version 7. The second Blade Runner might get an alternate cut, some day.

The first rock solid story:

The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secret of eternal life, the replicants kill employees of the company that built them, Tyrell Corp. Eventually the replicants kill Mr. Tyrell in frustration that he, their Maker, can't extend their lives past 4 years. In pretty straight forward story telling, Harrison Ford kills replicants because they are murderers. Every killing makes sense. There is no killing just to be killing. I think everyone can agree on what I wrote without throwing in speculation about whether or not replicants have human souls.

Mister Tyrell seems to be a sharp guy, but he made a very bad design mistake: only experts can tell a replicant from a human. There would not be a movie if Tyrell had built his replicants to be easily identifiable. Tyrell could have given replicants a T shaped head, T for Tyrell. The replicants would look like hammerhead sharks, but you could tell them from humans a mile away. There would be no way for replicants to blend in with the human, no way for replicants to run free on Earth. And no need for experts to identify replicants – no Blade Runners.

The second rock solid story:

The second Blade Runner movie cannot have Mister Tyrell return because he was murdered. His replacement is the industrialist Wallace. Wallace is still making replicants that look exactly human, except to an expert. Wallace learned nothing from Tyrell’s murder, other than to have lots and lots of bodyguards to protect himself from runaway replicants who still look exactly like humans. Tyrell had no bodyguards because he was sane. Wallace, played by the actor who was The Joker, is as crazy as The Joker, who had plenty of henchmen to protect himself. There are plenty of murders in the second Blade Runner, all because Wallace is nuts.

The second Blade Runner movie forgot to explain why replicants built by Mister Tyrell with a 4 year life are secretly living on Earth to be 30 years old. I guess it is because Ryan Gosling, the second blade runner, needs targets to kill. It doesn't make sense that Tyrell's replicants are old men, but the scriptwriters need somebody for Gosling to kill before he starts killing Wallace's very obedient, newer replicants, which only kill on Wallace's commands.

The ending the movie needed was Harrison Ford killing Wallace. Maybe that will be in the Director's cut. I'd pay for a ticket to see Wallace dead.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 13, 2017 7:05 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?

I can't answer any of those questions because the movie is completely imaginary (no scientist from our world can get inside the movie and run experiments). All your questions have flexible answers, depending on who answers them, but there certainly are two rock solid stories in the two Blade Runner movies, stories that are cast in concrete, at least until the directors issue alternative cuts. The first Blade Runner is on version 7. The second Blade Runner might get an alternate cut, some day.

The first rock solid story:

The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secret of eternal life, the replicants kill employees of the company that built them, Tyrell Corp. Eventually the replicants kill Mr. Tyrell in frustration that he, their Maker, can't extend their lives past 4 years. In pretty straight forward story telling, Harrison Ford kills replicants because they are murderers. Every killing makes sense. There is no killing just to be killing. I think everyone can agree on what I wrote without throwing in speculation about whether or not replicants have human souls.

Mister Tyrell seems to be a sharp guy, but he made a very bad design mistake: only experts can tell a replicant from a human. There would not be a movie if Tyrell had built his replicants to be easily identifiable. Tyrell could have given replicants a T shaped head, T for Tyrell. The replicants would look like hammerhead sharks, but you could tell them from humans a mile away. There would be no way for replicants to blend in with the human, no way for replicants to run free on Earth. And no need for experts to identify replicants – no Blade Runners.

The second rock solid story:

The second Blade Runner movie cannot have Mister Tyrell return because he was murdered. His replacement is the industrialist Wallace. Wallace is still making replicants that look exactly human, except to an expert. Wallace learned nothing from Tyrell’s murder, other than to have lots and lots of bodyguards to protect himself from runaway replicants who still look exactly like humans. Tyrell had no bodyguards because he was sane. Wallace, played by the actor who was The Joker, is as crazy as The Joker, who had plenty of henchmen to protect himself. There are plenty of murders in the second Blade Runner, all because Wallace is nuts.

The second Blade Runner movie forgot to explain why replicants built by Mister Tyrell with a 4 year life are secretly living on Earth to be 30 years old. I guess it is because Ryan Gosling, the second blade runner, needs targets to kill. It doesn't make sense that Tyrell's replicants are old men, but the scriptwriters need somebody for Gosling to kill before he starts killing Wallace's very obedient, newer replicants, which only kill on Wallace's commands.

The ending the movie needed was Harrison Ford killing Wallace. Maybe that will be in the Director's cut. I'd pay for a ticket to see Wallace dead.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

could you put spoiler alert in appropriate places?

You seemed so certain replicants had souls. Now you seem less sure.
Backpedalling?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 16, 2017 3:56 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I just saw the film this afternoon (Sunday) and I found it interesting, but somewhat of a letdown in terms of overall story. I think that the premise of this movie was the question of the existence of the soul; but not just in replicants, but in humans and A.I.

K's investigation and tracking down of the "miracle child," but also other replicants brought into question: Do you need a soul to love or to hunt down and kill sentient beings? Do you need to be human to exhibit human characteristics? JOI with her caring for K, who seemed to be in total obedience to Madam; mainly because he was programmed to be. But was he totally obedient?

Select to view spoiler:


Set aside the irrational killings that took place (the movie's one main flaw was the behavior of Wallace toward his creations - that part for me was somewhat unclear; I thought at one time that he took over Tyrell's corporation as a business investment, but he did speak of creating millions of replicants that were more to his liking. He was both psychotic madman and forward thinking businessman)



To me, Wallace, as a villain, went too far over the top for there to be any soulsearching (pun intended) on the part of the audience as to his motives within that world, while on the other hand, we did care about K's "feelings" about his role in all of this (within the world depicted on the screen). I got more from his interactions with Joi and Madam, than at any other point in the film.

Select to view spoiler:


Madam wanted to keep "order" and demanded obedience from K; which kind of confused me a bit because he was programmed to be obedient. Was there history between these two regarding "following orders?" That seemed to be hinted at with every meeting she had with K



Wallace was a soulless, evil bastard; a madman.

Select to view spoiler:


The film suggested that perhaps he lacked very thing that both K and Joi had: empathy, which connotes having a soul, or a thinking feeling being. Both Wallace and his Killer Girl Bot "Luv" the soulless creatures; while Joi and K represented the more human-like beings in the film. At least the Killer Bot Girl had a reason why she was killing - she was under orders. Although she did seem to enjoy her work - the look on her face when she terminated Joi said it all



Select to view spoiler:


I was also left wanting regarding this supposed war between the "old" replicants and the newer models. To me, there seemed to be a disconnect with the background plot and the main plot - finding this "miracle child" - to what purpose? I know that the police lieutenant wanted her "retired" to prevent a panic among the humans; but I wasn't sure of Wallace's motives to find the child.



The film posed some serious questions as to human behavior and what constitutes the makings of a soul. But I agree, better writing would have delivered a masterpiece - like the near miss in Arrival. That was a much better movie, IMHO.


SGG



Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?

I can't answer any of those questions because the movie is completely imaginary (no scientist from our world can get inside the movie and run experiments). All your questions have flexible answers, depending on who answers them, but there certainly are two rock solid stories in the two Blade Runner movies, stories that are cast in concrete, at least until the directors issue alternative cuts. The first Blade Runner is on version 7. The second Blade Runner might get an alternate cut, some day.

The first rock solid story:

The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secret of eternal life, the replicants kill employees of the company that built them, Tyrell Corp. Eventually the replicants kill Mr. Tyrell in frustration that he, their Maker, can't extend their lives past 4 years. In pretty straight forward story telling, Harrison Ford kills replicants because they are murderers. Every killing makes sense. There is no killing just to be killing. I think everyone can agree on what I wrote without throwing in speculation about whether or not replicants have human souls.

Mister Tyrell seems to be a sharp guy, but he made a very bad design mistake: only experts can tell a replicant from a human. There would not be a movie if Tyrell had built his replicants to be easily identifiable. Tyrell could have given replicants a T shaped head, T for Tyrell. The replicants would look like hammerhead sharks, but you could tell them from humans a mile away. There would be no way for replicants to blend in with the human, no way for replicants to run free on Earth. And no need for experts to identify replicants – no Blade Runners.

The second rock solid story:

The second Blade Runner movie cannot have Mister Tyrell return because he was murdered. His replacement is the industrialist Wallace. Wallace is still making replicants that look exactly human, except to an expert. Wallace learned nothing from Tyrell’s murder, other than to have lots and lots of bodyguards to protect himself from runaway replicants who still look exactly like humans. Tyrell had no bodyguards because he was sane. Wallace, played by the actor who was The Joker, is as crazy as The Joker, who had plenty of henchmen to protect himself. There are plenty of murders in the second Blade Runner, all because Wallace is nuts.

The second Blade Runner movie forgot to explain why replicants built by Mister Tyrell with a 4 year life are secretly living on Earth to be 30 years old. I guess it is because Ryan Gosling, the second blade runner, needs targets to kill. It doesn't make sense that Tyrell's replicants are old men, but the scriptwriters need somebody for Gosling to kill before he starts killing Wallace's very obedient, newer replicants, which only kill on Wallace's commands.

The ending the movie needed was Harrison Ford killing Wallace. Maybe that will be in the Director's cut. I'd pay for a ticket to see Wallace dead.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

could you put spoiler alert in appropriate places?

You seemed so certain replicants had souls. Now you seem less sure.
Backpedalling?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 16, 2017 4:52 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


It's at the break-even stage ($150M Budget); it's made $158.6M worldwide -
Domestic: $60.6M
Foreign: $98M

In 10 days time since it's release. My guess is that the running time, 2 hours 45 minutes might have something to do with it. I found it overly long, it could have been a 1/2 hour shorter. And, it could have been better written as far as dialogue goes.

The best work came from the actress who played Joi (Ana De Armas) she was totally captivating and engrossing as the hologram with the heart of gold.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Apparently it had a disappointing opening Box Office.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 16, 2017 5:15 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

could you put spoiler alert in appropriate places?

You seemed so certain replicants had souls. Now you seem less sure.
Backpedalling?

You're not really spoiled, are you? If a movie is spoiled for certain other delicate souls, they should only read www.metacritic.com/movie/blade-runner-2049

And don't watch the trailers at metacritic, either. Those give away too much.

I going to go all metacritic on Blade Runner 2049. The writers had 35 years to imagine a sequel, and this is the script that gets made? Everyone else on this movie did excellent work (actors, set designers, FX, camera, music, editing, etc) and those excellent workers should gang up on the writers and kick the shit out of them to remind the writers to do better on the next Blade Runner. Even the number name on this script is shitty.

When 2001, a movie with a number for a name, was in the drive-in theaters back in 1968, it was imaginable that by the year 2001 there would be a settlement on the moon as there is in movie 2001. But that possibility was murdered by Nixon in 1972. www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/351/moon.retreat.pdf

When the movie Blade Runner 2049 comes out on Blu-ray in 2017, it is impossible that by the year 2049 there would be big settlements in other star systems as there are in movie 2049.

The movie could have been named Blade Runner 2. Or roman numeral II for extra classiness. Hollywood writers, producers, and directors should never have allowed in a movie the idea of interstellar travel by the real year 2049 and keep their movies in the fantasy realm when naming them. No dates in movie names, unless it is 2249 or 2349. By then interstellar travel may be possible.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 1:41 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
It's at the break-even stage ($150M Budget); it's made $158.6M worldwide -
Domestic: $60.6M
Foreign: $98M

In 10 days time since it's release. My guess is that the running time, 2 hours 45 minutes might have something to do with it. I found it overly long, it could have been a 1/2 hour shorter. And, it could have been better written as far as dialogue goes.

The best work came from the actress who played Joi (Ana De Armas) she was totally captivating and engrossing as the hologram with the heart of gold.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Apparently it had a disappointing opening Box Office.


This being FFF, should we say Hologram Hooker?
I agree Ana had the most likable character, but for K to play true, Ryan did need to be truculent, reserved - which I felt he did well. Not showboating.
Through much of the film I was thinking that this might be the first film of Ana's that I've seen her keep her clothes on. But then...

In the era of the original BR Box Office, it was longer than most other films then - one of it's endearing qualities.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:03 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I just saw the film this afternoon (Sunday) and I found it interesting, but somewhat of a letdown in terms of overall story. I think that the premise of this movie was the question of the existence of the soul; but not just in replicants, but in humans and A.I.

K's investigation and tracking down of the "miracle child," but also other replicants brought into question: Do you need a soul to love or to hunt down and kill sentient beings? Do you need to be human to exhibit human characteristics? JOI with her caring for K, who seemed to be in total obedience to Madam; mainly because he was programmed to be. But was he totally obedient?

Select to view spoiler:


Set aside the irrational killings that took place (the movie's one main flaw was the behavior of Wallace toward his creations - that part for me was somewhat unclear; I thought at one time that he took over Tyrell's corporation as a business investment, but he did speak of creating millions of replicants that were more to his liking. He was both psychotic madman and forward thinking businessman)

To me, Wallace, as a villain, went too far over the top for there to be any soulsearching (pun intended) on the part of the audience as to his motives within that world, while on the other hand, we did care about K's "feelings" about his role in all of this (within the world depicted on the screen). I got more from his interactions with Joi and Madam, than at any other point in the film.

Select to view spoiler:


Madam wanted to keep "order" and demanded obedience from K; which kind of confused me a bit because he was programmed to be obedient. Was there history between these two regarding "following orders?" That seemed to be hinted at with every meeting she had with K

Wallace was a soulless, evil bastard; a madman.

Select to view spoiler:


The film suggested that perhaps he lacked very thing that both K and Joi had: empathy, which connotes having a soul, or a thinking feeling being. Both Wallace and his Killer Girl Bot "Luv" the soulless creatures; while Joi and K represented the more human-like beings in the film. At least the Killer Bot Girl had a reason why she was killing - she was under orders. Although she did seem to enjoy her work - the look on her face when she terminated Joi said it all


Select to view spoiler:


I was also left wanting regarding this supposed war between the "old" replicants and the newer models. To me, there seemed to be a disconnect with the background plot and the main plot - finding this "miracle child" - to what purpose? I know that the police lieutenant wanted her "retired" to prevent a panic among the humans; but I wasn't sure of Wallace's motives to find the child.

The film posed some serious questions as to human behavior and what constitutes the makings of a soul. But I agree, better writing would have delivered a masterpiece - like the near miss in Arrival. That was a much better movie, IMHO.

SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?

I can't answer any of those questions because the movie is completely imaginary (no scientist from our world can get inside the movie and run experiments). All your questions have flexible answers, depending on who answers them, but there certainly are two rock solid stories in the two Blade Runner movies, stories that are cast in concrete, at least until the directors issue alternative cuts. The first Blade Runner is on version 7. The second Blade Runner might get an alternate cut, some day.

The first rock solid story:

The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secret of eternal life, the replicants kill employees of the company that built them, Tyrell Corp. Eventually the replicants kill Mr. Tyrell in frustration that he, their Maker, can't extend their lives past 4 years. In pretty straight forward story telling, Harrison Ford kills replicants because they are murderers. Every killing makes sense. There is no killing just to be killing. I think everyone can agree on what I wrote without throwing in speculation about whether or not replicants have human souls.

Mister Tyrell seems to be a sharp guy, but he made a very bad design mistake: only experts can tell a replicant from a human. There would not be a movie if Tyrell had built his replicants to be easily identifiable. Tyrell could have given replicants a T shaped head, T for Tyrell. The replicants would look like hammerhead sharks, but you could tell them from humans a mile away. There would be no way for replicants to blend in with the human, no way for replicants to run free on Earth. And no need for experts to identify replicants – no Blade Runners.

The second rock solid story:

The second Blade Runner movie cannot have Mister Tyrell return because he was murdered. His replacement is the industrialist Wallace. Wallace is still making replicants that look exactly human, except to an expert. Wallace learned nothing from Tyrell’s murder, other than to have lots and lots of bodyguards to protect himself from runaway replicants who still look exactly like humans. Tyrell had no bodyguards because he was sane. Wallace, played by the actor who was The Joker, is as crazy as The Joker, who had plenty of henchmen to protect himself. There are plenty of murders in the second Blade Runner, all because Wallace is nuts.

The second Blade Runner movie forgot to explain why replicants built by Mister Tyrell with a 4 year life are secretly living on Earth to be 30 years old. I guess it is because Ryan Gosling, the second blade runner, needs targets to kill. It doesn't make sense that Tyrell's replicants are old men, but the scriptwriters need somebody for Gosling to kill before he starts killing Wallace's very obedient, newer replicants, which only kill on Wallace's commands.

could you put spoiler alert in appropriate places?

You seemed so certain replicants had souls. Now you seem less sure.
Backpedalling?


Don't you think the primary purpose of this story was for empathy with K to help understand the conundrum of this:

Select to view spoiler:


Like Deckard, and Rachel, they did not know if they were human or replicants - but each had the impression they were human. Copying the reversal of Terminator -> T2, now the impression of K is that he is replicant, but the story implores us to conjure whether he truly is or not, if he might be the missing piece of the puzzle.

The director did well to not spoon feed us. SGG, you indicated you were originally disappointed with Arrival because it was not what you expected. Have you considered that, again with BR2049 the Director has slipped past you a more subtle storytelling than you had expected? Should you be more open to what the Director is gifting you?

Wallace's motive:

Select to view spoiler:


in finding the heretofore unknown miracle child, born from a human impregnated replicant - or assumed human.
Wallace's could not produce enough replicants, fast enough for the demand on the other 10 worlds he was already colonizing. He had manufacturing limitations. He needed the replicants to self-replicate, or reproduce AFTER landing on the other worlds, to self-multiply. He could not conjure how to accomplish what Tyrell did - to manufacture a replicant capable of birth. Even if the female replicant was dull, a drone, and required human semen for fertilization, a stable of 270 females per male human would produce a birth per day per male. He thought he could unlock the secret if he had the child, the genetic carrier of the birth-capable replicant.

Not sure I've sussed out Wallace's replicants killing humans. Wasn't authorized killing of humans reserved for humans only, in the original?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:54 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Movies aren't novels, but Ridley Scott stripped mined the original novel for images and left the ideas of the novel in the dirt.

What if a human should develop empathy for a replicant? That’s the dilemma Deckard suffers in Philip K Dick’s novel. He’s only human, and he comes to love a replicant named Rachel. She’s an advanced model, a Nexus 6, and true to her replicant nature, she uses his love against him to imperil his ability to kill replicants. She feels no empathy for him, however much he feels for her. That’s what makes life sacred for Dick—the feeling that it is.
www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/10/23/life-after-empathy-on-blade-run
ner-2049
/

Or does Deckard feel? Rereleases of Blade Runner (seven total, but Ridley Scott had artistic control only over The Final Cut of 2007), clarify a decisive departure from Dick’s narrative: Deckard, too, is a replicant. Blade Runners kill for a living, making it hard to defend their humanity (Dick’s point). Hollywood, contradicting the novel’s reason for existing, decided, “Why not make them replicants?” At the end of the original Blade Runner, Deckard departs with Rachel snuggled up in his hover car for a great green beyond where, in defiance of Dick’s novel, they might live happily ever after. In Blade Runner 2049, Ridley Scott with absolutely determination to further profit off an old movie of his making, continues to fuck the ideas in the novel for money, only keeping the surface elements that can be photographed and throwing away everything else that gave the novel some depth.

If Ridley Scott wanted to do something original, he should have gone all the way with re-imagining the novel and made Wallace, the villainous industrialist, a soulless replicant instead of a human. Then Scott's Blade Runner 2049 would be a cinematic example of how Elon Musk's A.I. destroys mankind.
www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-st
op-ai-space-x



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 25, 2017 4:15 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Don't you think the primary purpose of this story was for empathy with K to help understand the conundrum of this:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:


Like Deckard, and Rachel, they did not know if they were human or replicants - but each had the impression they were human. Copying the reversal of Terminator -> T2, now the impression of K is that he is replicant, but the story implores us to conjure whether he truly is or not, if he might be the missing piece of the puzzle.



My response:

Select to view spoiler:


My thought about the story was what makes us human, what constitutes the soul. K was a replicant, that much I understood as the story unfolded. His reactions to human, especially in the BR precinct, and his interactions with the Lieutenant gave me the impression that he knew that much himself. He was conditioned to act and react as a replicant. But then came the existence of the Miracle Child and his thoughts went to "could I be?"

It was, for my taste, a very subtle suggestion that affected his investigation and reactions throughout the film. An interesting concept and way to adjust the audience's focus. Yes, empathy...a human trait, that rarely escapes some of us. The ability to feel for others. K was just that type of replicant, and so Villeneuve put forth the question and dangled the thought of a replicant with human traits and the possibility that he, K, may be the Golden Child. He held out hope that maybe, just maybe he was the one.
So yes, the film took into account the theme of the first and the director conjured a story to further the original's concept of AI adaptation to being human, but also of not knowing for sure.



Oops...

Select to view spoiler:


Perhaps upon a second and third look I will come to appreciate the subtleties Villeneuve wove into BR2049. Somehow I got the notion that this was a noirish and slightly askew "Pinocchio" - the puppet who wanted to be a little boy; with Deckard as "Poppa Geppetto."




Quote:

The director did well to not spoon feed us. SGG, you indicated you were originally disappointed with Arrival because it was not what you expected. Have you considered that, again with BR2049 the Director has slipped past you a more subtle storytelling than you had expected? Should you be more open to what the Director is gifting you?



In giving this film more thought, perhaps I should hold judgement until I've seen it a few more times. But I think you have a point, because there were so many subtle moments and motifs sprinkled throughout the film (the main reason why I was excited to see this movie once I knew Villeneuve was involved). His direction and vision in Arrival, and in this film, had a very visceral and ethereal quality to it. Like a thin veil over a woman's face; you could just about percieve the outline of her face, but not quite. He drops breadcrumbs along the way, and you never quite know which way he'll scamper. I like that, but just enough to keep our interest otherwise we'll tire and give up the hunt.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 25, 2017 11:52 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Second: films are not books or graphic novels. I was talking about the cinematic storytelling experience of the movies. Many more people are more familiar with at least one of the films than the book.

Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Don't you think the primary purpose of this story was for empathy with K to help understand the conundrum of this:

Select to view spoiler:


Like Deckard, and Rachel, they did not know if they were human or replicants - but each had the impression they were human. Copying the reversal of Terminator -> T2, now the impression of K is that he is replicant, but the story implores us to conjure whether he truly is or not, if he might be the missing piece of the puzzle.



My response:

Select to view spoiler:


My thought about the story was what makes us human, what constitutes the soul. K was a replicant, that much I understood as the story unfolded. His reactions to human, especially in the BR precinct, and his interactions with the Lieutenant gave me the impression that he knew that much himself. He was conditioned to act and react as a replicant. But then came the existence of the Miracle Child and his thoughts went to "could I be?"

It was, for my taste, a very subtle suggestion that affected his investigation and reactions throughout the film. An interesting concept and way to adjust the audience's focus. Yes, empathy...a human trait, that rarely escapes some of us. The ability to feel for others. K was just that type of replicant, and so Villeneuve put forth the question and dangled the thought of a replicant with human traits and the possibility that he, K, may be the Golden Child. He held out hope that maybe, just maybe he was the one.
So yes, the film took into account the theme of the first and the director conjured a story to further the original's concept of AI adaptation to being human, but also of not knowing for sure.


Oops...

Select to view spoiler:


Perhaps upon a second and third look I will come to appreciate the subtleties Villeneuve wove into BR2049. Somehow I got the notion that this was a noirish and slightly askew "Pinocchio" - the puppet who wanted to be a little boy; with Deckard as "Poppa Geppetto."


Quote:

The director did well to not spoon feed us. SGG, you indicated you were originally disappointed with Arrival because it was not what you expected. Have you considered that, again with BR2049 the Director has slipped past you a more subtle storytelling than you had expected? Should you be more open to what the Director is gifting you?

In giving this film more thought, perhaps I should hold judgement until I've seen it a few more times. But I think you have a point, because there were so many subtle moments and motifs sprinkled throughout the film (the main reason why I was excited to see this movie once I knew Villeneuve was involved). His direction and vision in Arrival, and in this film, had a very visceral and ethereal quality to it. Like a thin veil over a woman's face; you could just about percieve the outline of her face, but not quite. He drops breadcrumbs along the way, and you never quite know which way he'll scamper. I like that, but just enough to keep our interest otherwise we'll tire and give up the hunt.

SGG

Thanks for reconsidering your earlier dismissal. It likely took less time to reconsider for this go-round because Arrival was our first experience with this underwhelmed sensation.
In fact, that may be the most common denominator - our being underwhelmed compared to what we expected - for both films. Not in a bad way. I did not see this until reading your post.

I think you are stepping back for perspective. You didn't say this exactly, but I think that

Select to view spoiler:


the very visceral portrayal of K's thoughts - could I be human offspring? Am I human? Was I born? Are my memories not really implants, but real? - are the very thing the humans like Madam are afraid of. What if an army of replicants thought this way? How to control that uprising?

You are analyzing emotions and thoughts as human or human-like, but I don't recall any character of replicant or human discussing these, other than are they real, or implanted? Are these thoughts natural byproducts of being born, or programmed for the manufacturing process of me? Joi may have been an exception here, I don't recall.
I now more clearly see Joi as "another level" of virtual existence, or AI experience. Much like Inception had many levels, and those on that level may not be aware which level they are on, or if there is a level above them, closer to reality.

My OP says that it could be all absorbed in one viewing. I may have been wrong about that. I have not changed the wording I used, and I'm glad I used a less certain phrasing there.

And I finally recognise the familiar ending. The possible replicant has a Time To Die scene, and the possible human has a future new life to pursue.
.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:14 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Has Blade Runner 2049's failure killed off the smart sci-fi blockbuster?

www.theguardian.com/film/2017/nov/14/blade-runner-2049-killed-the-smar
t-sci-fi-blockbuster-denis-villeneuve


Despite fantastic reviews, Denis Villeneuve’s brainy, big-budget sequel has not made enough money to launch a new universe at the multiplex.

Unfortunately, reports that Blade Runner rights holder Alcon Entertainment could lose up to $80m on Villeneuve’s epic don’t bode well for the prospect of follow-up films. BR 2049 has so far racked up $240.6m at the global box office, a long way short of the $400m it apparently requires to break even, once marketing costs are taken into consideration. The news comes as a shock, because when a tentpole genre movie is as well reviewed as Villeneuve’s film, we expect it to do good business. The three most critically acclaimed science fiction and fantasy movies of 2017 so far are Wonder Woman, Thor: Ragnarok and Logan, all of which performed well at cinemas.

The obvious difference here is that Blade Runner 2049 is a muscular-yet-cerebral science-fiction thriller rather than a superhero flick, which perhaps explains its disappointing reach. There has been very little like it in multiplexes since Alex Garland’s Ex Machina in 2014 or Villeneuve’s own Arrival last year (and neither of those cost even a third of BR 2049’s staggering $155m budget).

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves quite why BR 2049 cost so much to make when TV shows such as Westworld and Humans are meeting the needs of smart sci-fi fans on the small screen for a fraction of the cost.

Villeneuve and screenwriters Hampton Fancher and Michael Green have been hoping to answer all questions raised by Blade Runner 2049 in future instalments. Certainly BR 2049, despite being relatively self-contained, would have made an enticing first instalment in an eventual trilogy. Both Fancher and Green have admitted dreaming of sequels to answer questions such as: What do the off-world colonies look like? Are replicants the next stage in human evolution, or merely useful gifts for the 21st-century sociopath who has everything?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:42 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Has Blade Runner 2049's failure killed off the smart sci-fi blockbuster?

www.theguardian.com/film/2017/nov/14/blade-runner-2049-killed-the-smar
t-sci-fi-blockbuster-denis-villeneuve


Despite fantastic reviews, Denis Villeneuve’s brainy, big-budget sequel has not made enough money to launch a new universe at the multiplex.

Unfortunately, reports that Blade Runner rights holder Alcon Entertainment could lose up to $80m on Villeneuve’s epic don’t bode well for the prospect of follow-up films. BR 2049 has so far racked up $240.6m at the global box office, a long way short of the $400m it apparently requires to break even, once marketing costs are taken into consideration. The news comes as a shock, because when a tentpole genre movie is as well reviewed as Villeneuve’s film, we expect it to do good business. The three most critically acclaimed science fiction and fantasy movies of 2017 so far are Wonder Woman, Thor: Ragnarok and Logan, all of which performed well at cinemas.

The obvious difference here is that Blade Runner 2049 is a muscular-yet-cerebral science-fiction thriller rather than a superhero flick, which perhaps explains its disappointing reach. There has been very little like it in multiplexes since Alex Garland’s Ex Machina in 2014 or Villeneuve’s own Arrival last year (and neither of those cost even a third of BR 2049’s staggering $155m budget).

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves quite why BR 2049 cost so much to make when TV shows such as Westworld and Humans are meeting the needs of smart sci-fi fans on the small screen for a fraction of the cost.

Villeneuve and screenwriters Hampton Fancher and Michael Green have been hoping to answer all questions raised by Blade Runner 2049 in future instalments. Certainly BR 2049, despite being relatively self-contained, would have made an enticing first instalment in an eventual trilogy. Both Fancher and Green have admitted dreaming of sequels to answer questions such as: What do the off-world colonies look like? Are replicants the next stage in human evolution, or merely useful gifts for the 21st-century sociopath who has everything?hi

I may not agree with the lead, but the body of that has merit. Comparing to Arrival and Ex Machina is most appropriate.
But why BR 2049 cost so much? Too in love with gadgets? Way too much screen time spent on goofy cars.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2017 4:19 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Don't you think the primary purpose of this story was for empathy with K to help understand the conundrum of this:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:


Like Deckard, and Rachel, they did not know if they were human or replicants - but each had the impression they were human. Copying the reversal of Terminator -> T2, now the impression of K is that he is replicant, but the story implores us to conjure whether he truly is or not, if he might be the missing piece of the puzzle.



My response:

Select to view spoiler:


My thought about the story was what makes us human, what constitutes the soul. K was a replicant, that much I understood as the story unfolded. His reactions to human, especially in the BR precinct, and his interactions with the Lieutenant gave me the impression that he knew that much himself. He was conditioned to act and react as a replicant. But then came the existence of the Miracle Child and his thoughts went to "could I be?"

It was, for my taste, a very subtle suggestion that affected his investigation and reactions throughout the film. An interesting concept and way to adjust the audience's focus. Yes, empathy...a human trait, that rarely escapes some of us. The ability to feel for others. K was just that type of replicant, and so Villeneuve put forth the question and dangled the thought of a replicant with human traits and the possibility that he, K, may be the Golden Child. He held out hope that maybe, just maybe he was the one.
So yes, the film took into account the theme of the first and the director conjured a story to further the original's concept of AI adaptation to being human, but also of not knowing for sure.



Oops...

Select to view spoiler:


Perhaps upon a second and third look I will come to appreciate the subtleties Villeneuve wove into BR2049. Somehow I got the notion that this was a noirish and slightly askew "Pinocchio" - the puppet who wanted to be a little boy; with Deckard as "Poppa Geppetto."




Quote:

The director did well to not spoon feed us. SGG, you indicated you were originally disappointed with Arrival because it was not what you expected. Have you considered that, again with BR2049 the Director has slipped past you a more subtle storytelling than you had expected? Should you be more open to what the Director is gifting you?



In giving this film more thought, perhaps I should hold judgement until I've seen it a few more times. But I think you have a point, because there were so many subtle moments and motifs sprinkled throughout the film (the main reason why I was excited to see this movie once I knew Villeneuve was involved). His direction and vision in Arrival, and in this film, had a very visceral and ethereal quality to it. Like a thin veil over a woman's face; you could just about percieve the outline of her face, but not quite. He drops breadcrumbs along the way, and you never quite know which way he'll scamper. I like that, but just enough to keep our interest otherwise we'll tire and give up the hunt.

SGG

Have you seen his film Sicario, with Emily Blunt? She was a draw for me, but the subject repelled me. Now I think I'll watch it.
Emily's husband is Krasinski from 13 Hours, right? They're both hitting deep in action roles.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Last Jedi
Sun, December 17, 2017 09:43 - 2 posts
Golden Globes 2018
Sun, December 17, 2017 07:51 - 6 posts
Films of Mistaken Self Awareness
Tue, December 12, 2017 10:44 - 7 posts
The Shape of Water
Sun, December 10, 2017 20:29 - 15 posts
What Are Your Must-See Films - 2017?
Sun, December 10, 2017 09:30 - 68 posts
Oscar Suggestions
Sun, December 10, 2017 06:31 - 19 posts
Discussion of Wind River
Fri, December 8, 2017 12:04 - 26 posts
3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Thu, November 30, 2017 06:36 - 8 posts
What Are Your Must-See Films For 2018?
Sat, November 25, 2017 03:20 - 5 posts
Wind River
Sat, November 25, 2017 01:12 - 40 posts
Blade Runner 2049
Thu, November 23, 2017 04:19 - 21 posts
Justice League
Tue, November 21, 2017 17:15 - 12 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL