Blade Runner 2049
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, November 23, 2017 14:19
VIEWED: 9606
PAGE 1 of 3
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently it had a disappointing opening Box Office.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Didn't K only terminate replicants which killed humans?
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
Quote: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.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by second:Quote: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.
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?
Quote:Deserve how? Weren't they merely defending their way of existence?
In contrast, every replicant Harrison Ford killed in the first Blade Runner richly deserved it.
Quote: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.Quote: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.
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?
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
So please tell us: which Jews are the manufactured, soulless production units - the Sephardic, or the Ashkenazi?
Quote:Well, looks like we agree that replicants are not human, and Joi is not human.
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.
I'm not sure if you and I saw the same film.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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'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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:which replicants have a soul?
Originally posted by second:Quote: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.
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'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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:could you put spoiler alert in appropriate places?
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 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
You seemed so certain replicants had souls. Now you seem less sure.
Backpedalling?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME