Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
BLADE RUNNER 2049 - POST Release
#71
A[quote name="Bradito" url="/community/t/159680/blade-runner-2049-post-release/50#post_4377434"]It actually took weeks to shoot all those angles of Deckard's head about to go underwater.

I just hate finales where the hero basically just wins by using brute strength. I want him to be all but beaten and then use cunning and guile to overcome the bad guy.[/quote]

But 2049 is not that kind of movie and K isn't that kind of character.
Reply
#72
AI guess.
Reply
#73
AWhat were the bees about?

Why were there bees in a radioactive desert with no plant life?

Are replicant bees indestructible and just chilling in Vegas?
Reply
#74
ANot reading this thread yet because my Twitter feed seems to actually like this thing, which I had fairly low expectations for. I have frequently thought of the original as my very favorite movie (like in those situations where you're talking about your favorite movies, BR will often be the first one I mention, though part of that is because it's less obscure than some of my faves) so I may be getting fairly invested in and excited about the sequel. Which means this is the rare situation where I want to be as unspoiled as possible.
Reply
#75
AYeah, you should not be in here, dude.

I am so glad that I went into this film knowing nothing at all.
Reply
#76
A[quote name="ryoken" url="/community/t/159680/blade-runner-2049-post-release/30#post_4377194"]It is a sheep. Its a callback to the original Philiph K Dic story, Do androids dream of electric sheep?
[/quote]

Not only that - as in the original, each of Gaff's figures is a comment on either Deckard, or the scenario playing out.

First - a chicken. Deckard is trying to get out of doing his job, doesn't have the stomach for it anymore.

Second, the Erect Man - Deckard has the hots for Rachel.

Third - the Unicorn. Depends on which version you watch - either a commentary on Rachel/happiness in general being a rare find, or a direct comment on Deckard's nature.

Fourth - a Sheep. K is still doing LAPD's work without question, still following orders.
Reply
#77
AThe bees mean something about something

https://www.nytimes.com/video/movies/100...region=img
Reply
#78
A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


Not only that - as in the original, each of Gaff's figures is a comment on either Deckard, or the scenario playing out.

First - a chicken. Deckard is trying to get out of doing his job, doesn't have the stomach for it anymore.

Second, the Erect Man - Deckard has the hots for Rachel.

Third - the Unicorn. Depends on which version you watch - either a commentary on Rachel/happiness in general being a rare find, or a direct comment on Deckard's nature.

Fourth - a Sheep. K is still doing LAPD's work without question, still following orders.


The 'erect man', if I'm not mistaken, is done while searching Leon's apartment. i'm not seeing the Rachel connection.
Reply
#79
A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


If Deckard isn't one of the last remaining fertile Nexus-6 replicants, if he doesn't contain the key to making more in the cells of his body, than Leto doesn't need him for anything.


I'm still gonna see this a second time this weekend.

_



See, I truly love that I can still argue it both ways:

Deckard is Human: He's old and not super-strong. Wallace seems to only want him for his knowledge that would help him find his child. Like, he's not taking sperm samples or anything, he just wants the info. The One-Eyed Lady, when speaking of the miracle child, says "A child was born to ONE of us," which very specifically singles out the mother as being the important party here. She didn't say "A child of Replicants was born" or something similar. Gaff doesn't say "Yeah, I was his handler" which is definitely the impression you get when you watch either Director's or Final Cut.

Deckard is a Replicant: The Unicorn. He conceived a kid with a Replicant. He associated (seemingly only) with Replicants after he left LA with Rachel. Records were lost in the blackout so it's conceivable Wallace wouldn't have info on his model (though if they had a record on Rachel, who was a one-off, you'd think they'd have them on Deckard). K is a Replicant Blade Runner, implying that this is a profession they've been having Replicants do for a while - using Electric Cats to catch Electric Mice.

That it was left open is, as has been said, a fucking miracle.

Question on the daughter:

Did you all take away that she really and truly has an immunodeficiency syndrome? Or was telling her that she was sick and making her live in a bubble part of a lie to keep her safe and off Wallace/Tyrell's radar? I can read it either way (heh), and both work pretty well.
Reply
#80
A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post



Not only that - as in the original, each of Gaff's figures is a comment on either Deckard, or the scenario playing out.



First - a chicken. Deckard is trying to get out of doing his job, doesn't have the stomach for it anymore.



Second, the Erect Man - Deckard has the hots for Rachel.



Third - the Unicorn. Depends on which version you watch - either a commentary on Rachel/happiness in general being a rare find, or a direct comment on Deckard's nature.



Fourth - a Sheep. K is still doing LAPD's work without question, still following orders.


The 'erect man', if I'm not mistaken, is done while searching Leon's apartment. i'm not seeing the Rachel connection.


You're not wrong. Deckard meeting Rachel is the immediately preceding scene; it's the only interpretation of the Erect Man that seems to make any sense, given how on-the-nose the chicken was. Though Roy also tells Deckard he'd better get it up during the finale, so maybe Ridley just was really into hard-ons.
Reply
#81
Quote:

Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post

Did you all take away that she really and truly has an immunodeficiency syndrome? Or was telling her that she was sick and making her live in a bubble part of a lie to keep her safe and off Wallace/Tyrell's radar? I can read it either way (heh), and both work pretty well.


Yeah, that was pretty ambigious. I think it's highly likely she believes it. Odds on the whole building is set up to protect her and keep her safe. My instinct is that if she is immuno deficient, the whole concept of a breeding replicant is shot anyway, as the kids are either genetically broken or she won't be able to reproduce again safely, so I think it's more likely it's a ruse.

Reply
#82
ASo I skipped work for this.

I am not a good Joe.

Anyways, yeah, well...

I am as conflicted as I thought I'd be!

There was so much to love in this film. Too much. I loved the languid pace of the scenes, I thought it really elevated the tension, the atmosphere, the immersion. So many other films like this would have whiz-banged their way through the opening confrontation or Deckard's scene with Wallace in like half the time and the effect would have been lost that this film brings in spades.

But the length, to me, was not justified. And that's because there is just too much damn plot in this movie. I am having a hard time separating my dislike of the idea of a Blade Runner movie that is very much about twists and plot points and reveals and subversions from whether that is something this movie does poorly or if it does it well, it's just not what I want. And I do want to give credit. I think in terms of the mechanics of the plot, it works pretty well. I think some of the plot ideas are pretty interesting. I think pretty much every scene in this movie has something worth looking at and/or thinking about. But the whole does not feel focused enough to me. Again, it's not that I wanted some laser-tight construct or editing to this thing, that would have been the antithesis of what I wanted from Blade Runner. But the Her subplot and the "viva la resistance"--like, I get what those elements are contributing to the story and character development and so on, but there is definitely a cliched or artificial aspect to that type of plotting because we've seen this shit so many times before. I dunno, it's a replicant work then. Maybe that's part of the point. But I don't think Fancher, Green, and Villeneuve were necessarily going for that type of meta.

The sound design was phenomenal and I appreciated that many scenes had a sort of ominous quiet to them that allowed the sound design to shine (I also appreciated that because, well... the score is not Zimmer's best work. Not sure if my perception here is being colored by the fact that we all know he was a late replacement for JJ, but it just sounded rushed to me. Not bad--really good in spots, in fact--but perhaps a bit too overbearing here and there without having strong enough ideas to deserve to be overbearing. Someone called it "Vangelis soup" and I think that's fair).

Looking at some of the main critical blurbs about how this is one of the most intelligent, provocative pieces of science fiction ever made and a thinking man's blockbuster and all that jazz, I mean, gosh--people really need to read/watch more sci-fi or something. I felt the same way when critics were talking about how Ex Machina blew their minds conceptually and that shit. I mean, come on. Don't get me wrong, 2049 does double down on its sci-fi-ness. I mean, this thing is fucking fascinated with holograms. And there is some interesting stuff that comes out of the movie's ideas, especially when it is focusing on just communicating those ideas visually.

A lot has been made about Deakins' work here and, yeah, definitely, it's great. I wouldn't say it is his best work. I'm not even sure it's top 5. Part of it might just be the film's length and maybe there was some stuff shot second unit, but there are fat chunks of this movie that are kind of workman-like in their appearance, aside from all the design happening everywhere (yet somehow that design that never made it to Harrison Ford's t-shirt). As impressive as the look of the film is, I don't think it touches the original's velvety black and blue and amber and rusty bathtub grit. This is a bigger, more varied viewing experience. Which to me is a lesser thing, but I certainly understand where the praise is coming from.

The comparison I saw in one blurb to Tarkovsky is utterly ludicrous... but there is this one shot with a dog, walking towards a shattered window. Throughout the movie, there are these moments where Villeneuve and Deakins go for the poetic. The sparks flying into the dark. Any shots with eyes. The slow, light-shifting shots in Wallace's "heaven." The way blood is let in this movie. The way water crashes and sprinkles and moves throughout. I just wish there wasn't so much knotty, sorta conventional plotting connecting all those sublime moments.

A big issue I have with this film, and this might just be a personal thing, is this idea of special significance retroactively being applied to the characters of the original film. It's a quibble, but for me it is a quibble that is at the heart of the movie and one I was afraid was going to happen.

SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER

As the movie plays out you pretty soon realize that it's leading you to believe that Gosling's K is actually a Special K. And as you feel that tug from that plot, that early, you very quickly begin to suspect that he can't be a Special K, that would be too obvious.

But the movie does assign special significance to Deckard and Rachel. I kind of have an issue with that. I love how in the first film there isn't some grand plot or widespread ramification. It's just a blade runner trying to do his job and having his worldview changed in the process (oh yeah, and falling in love). But this central plot point of the significance of Deckard and Rachel in 2049 does lead to one of the film's more fascinating questions, as posed by Wallace. Was this a "miracle," or yet another manipulation by their oppressors, a triumph of human ingenuity and science? Or could it not be both?

There is a great movie somewhere in here. I was surprised by how much I felt for K by the time the film was winding down. But I also sort of felt a missed opportunity. Like, I could have been even more moved if the movie hadn't sort of lost the plot. Or, rather, if the plot hadn't sort of lost the heart of the movie, while it was busy trying to defy some expectations while playing into others.

Anyways, yeah... I'm happy for those who were affected by the K-Joi relationship, because if that had worked better for me it probably would have really enhanced the movie for me. The girl's performance didn't quite work for me (the other women in this movie were so great, though) and so many of the ideas felt like such lesser versions of similar ideas in Her, I couldn't help but compare it to that movie, and it doesn't hold up. But then again, how fair is that, cuz for my money Her is one of the best movies ever about an unorthodox relationship. I know it all is supposed to build to this scene with giant naked hologram Joi and that image of dehumanization pushing K to cast off his slave identity and yadda yadda yadda, but it just doesn't quite click for me, and I guess that's because I couldn't get into that part of the movie, that relationship. As much as the movie kind of needed something to show that K had some warmth and humanity to him.

Okay, I am gonna stop now because my comments are about to be longer than the movie, heh. Overall, I enjoyed it, and freed from associations with what I think Blade Runner should be and so on, I think it's a good flick, an 8 out of 10 type movie (but, wow, I can't imagine watching this movie without having seen the first one, some people are gonna be really lost or totally unengaged).
Reply
#83
AI'm really going to have to re-see this in earnest - What was everyone's takeaway on K's lifespan? Is he limited to 4 years? 10? You get the distinct impression from the opening crawl that they sure as hell ain't making no-limit Replicants anymore. That adds another layer of urgency to the "Is he Deckard's kid? Isn't he?" that they never touched on at all, not even in subtext unless I completely missed it.

If he were born a child, then he has a normal length life to look forward to, presumably. Getting it confirmed that he is in fact a manufactured Replicant means how many years does he have left?

Also, what does that mean as far as his free will? He simultaneously suggests he has none, and that he's a free agent, over the course of the film. More I think on it, the difference between his Work scenes and Home scenes suggests he absolutely has Free Will, but has gotten extremely good at not acting like it, because what's the point? Don't jump when they say jump and you just get retired. But thinking back on that first short, Wallace made a big deal out of showing that his new model Replicants would suicide themselves if ordered to, which certainly implies Free Will is not in the equation.

I think their get out of jail free card on that front was when Luv was interviewing the prospective customer and saying they could customize their Replicants to be "as human as you'd like." Either that or it's a "Life... um... Finds a Way..." kind of thing.


I think my favorite scene in the entire film was that first LAPD VK test on Agent K. Absolutely no set-up, no explanations, just fucking sci-fi bonkers awesome.
Reply
#84

I never thought about his lifespan.  But thinking about it now, based on Wallace's more reliable Replicant tech, it seems like lifespan isn't much of an issue?



I just don't recall the movie really suggesting much about it at all.




Kermode really loved it (he's a superfan of the original and mentions that he made a documentary about it for the BBC years ago):





Reply
#85
A[quote name="mcnooj82" url="/community/t/159680/blade-runner-2049-post-release/60#post_4377736"]I never thought about his lifespan.  But thinking about it now, based on Wallace's more reliable Replicant tech, it seems like lifespan isn't much of an issue?

I just don't recall the movie really suggesting much about it at all.


Kermode really loved it (he's a superfan of the original and mentions that he made a documentary about it for the BBC years ago):


 



[/quote]

But the opening text specifically calls out the Nexus 8's as something like "...the last with an unlimited lifespan," which is why they're being hunted down and retired.

And the fact that lifespan never comes up again, despite it being THE impetus for the entire original film, feels really really odd.
Reply
#86

but not having an unlimited lifespan doesn't mean the alternative is a 4 year lifespan, does it?



I didn't recall the info in the crawl very well, so good point about the Nexus 8s.  I see what you're saying now.




Which reminds me... Roy Batty was a Nexus 6 in the original.  Who was a Nexus 7?  Is the idea behind wiggly scott's statement that Deckard is a Nexus 7?

Reply
#87
ARachael was Nexus 7.

Duhhh.
Reply
#88

thanks brad!



were there any nexus 8s in the original film?

Reply
#89
ANo.

Deckard, who is not a Replicant, needed to be told what a Nexus 6 was.
Reply
#90
A
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post

 

Yeah, that was pretty ambigious. I think it's highly likely she believes it. Odds on the whole building is set up to protect her and keep her safe. My instinct is that if she is immuno deficient, the whole concept of a breeding replicant is shot anyway, as the kids are either genetically broken or she won't be able to reproduce again safely, so I think it's more likely it's a ruse.


Yeah, I figured the syndrome was part of the plot to keep her safe. The building is probably some research center or a hospital and not a set up per se. Maybe even funded by Wallace or something so she's hiding in plain sight.

Otherwise I thought it was pretty great, maybe 20-30 minutes too long but I have to think about it some more. Loved the sparse and ominous score. Even during action scenes the score was never an action movie score, just those same slow ominous sounds. Have to admire Villeneuve and Co for making such an uncompromising movie, not that the film is that rad or anything but it doesn't pander the audience too much which is always refreshing.
Reply
#91
AI think the text at the start said that the new replicants lifespan was open ended. I assumed it meant they could be 'retired' when not needed anymore. Hey everyone, been reading the site for years and finally joined up the other day!
Reply
#92
A[quote name="mcnooj82" url="/community/t/159680/blade-runner-2049-post-release/60#post_4377746"]but not having an unlimited lifespan doesn't mean the alternative is a 4 year lifespan, does it?

I didn't recall the info in the crawl very well, so good point about the Nexus 8s.  I see what you're saying now.


Which reminds me... Roy Batty was a Nexus 6 in the original.  Who was a Nexus 7?  Is the idea behind wiggly scott's statement that Deckard is a Nexus 7?
[/quote]

It just struck me as supremely weird to go out of the way in the set up to say "This old model were the LAST ONES to not have a limited life span," then immediately introduce your protagonist as a new model Replicant.... and not address his life span at all in the midst of the other issues you're discussing. It was a Chekhov's gun that never goes off.
Reply
#93
A[quote name="MrChinnery" url="/community/t/159680/blade-runner-2049-post-release/90#post_4377777"]I think the text at the start said that the new replicants lifespan was open ended. I assumed it meant they could be 'retired' when not needed anymore. Hey everyone, been reading the site for years and finally joined up the other day![/quote]

Welcome! Well if it said that then I'm misremembering pretty severely, since my memory was that the open-ended lifespan was the specific reason the Nexus 8's are still being hunted down.

Maybe my memory is an implant. Maybe yours is.
Reply
#94
AI don't recall the opening text saying the open-ended lifespan was the reason for Nexus 8s being hunted down - simply that they had open-ended lifespans and there were rebellions.
Reply
#95
A[quote name="The Dark Shape" url="/community/t/159680/blade-runner-2049-post-release/90#post_4377785"]I don't recall the opening text saying the open-ended lifespan was the reason for Nexus 8s being hunted down - simply that they had open-ended lifespans and there were rebellions.[/quote]

Guess we'll all have to watch it again. Rats.
Reply
#96
AThere was too much opening text. Never a good sign.
Reply
#97
A[quote name="Bradito" url="/community/t/159680/blade-runner-2049-post-release/90#post_4377788"]There was too much opening text. Never a good sign.[/quote]

*George Lucas nervously whistles*
Reply
#98
AHeroes on both sides?
Reply
#99
A[quote name="Bradito" url="/community/t/159680/blade-runner-2049-post-release/90#post_4377792"]Heroes on both sides?[/quote]

Some very good people.
Reply
AAnyway, this will probably be the first movie where I buy the score but not the Blu.
Reply
A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Anyway, this will probably be the first movie where I buy the score but not the Blu.


you liked that score, huh?

to me it kind of sounded like Zimmer binged a lot of Vangelis real quick and then banged this thing out in a weekend. while half of the sounds are from him slumped over unconscious on top of his keyboard.
Reply
Awhich kind of works! that's just how talented he is!

but, still, not my favorite thing by him. I think it pales compared to the stuff he's done recently with Nolan, for instance.
Reply
AThe speakers in my auditorium were getting a real workout.
Reply
A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

The speakers in my auditorium were getting a real workout.


yeah, this is pretty much the P90X of New Age-y synth scores.
Reply
AI liked the auditory overload.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)