Blade Runner 2049
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, November 23, 2017 14:19
VIEWED: 9606
PAGE 2 of 3
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: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.
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?
The first rock solid story:
The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secret of eternal lifeNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This being FFF, should we say Hologram Hooker?
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.
SGGQuote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Apparently it had a disappointing opening Box Office.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 allSelect 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.
SGGQuote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote: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.
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?
The first rock solid story:
The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secrNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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: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.
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
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 upr
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I may not agree with the lead, but the body of that has merit. Comparing to Arrival and Ex Machina is most appropriate.
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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME