Blade Runner 2049 - more human than human [Spoilers!]

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, AndrewJ said:

Actually... I think she says it precisely after hearing the distinctive Joi "ring-tone". (The same one that earlier prompted Luv to say to K "ahhh... I see you're a customer of ours, as well".)

She did from my recollection.

[Crazydog7]

I have a policy now with movies I REALLY want to go see in the theater (which isn’t often anymore) until I see it complete internet blackout no Rotten Tomatoes or other bullshit.  That way at least after I see a film I know how I feel about it and not how I am supposed to feel about it.  I absolutely loved this film like I haven’t loved a film in many years. 

What I say is this all of those retrograde classics that were supposed to recapture the sprit of the original are more often then not a massive disappointment the Blade Runner 2049 is not and in 20 years it will be regarded as a classic there is just something about it that sets it apart from a lot of the other misfires.

Given current trends we are probably never going to see anything like it again much more in the vein of Marvel and DC sometimes fun, sometimes clever but not a lot of depth.  People say they want movies that are different then what they are currently offered give them something a little different and they don’t go to see them.  This is simultaneously completely understandable and extremely tragic.  I get it that people don't want to be challenged to think when they go to the movies but it would be nice if they did. 

[PetyrPunkinhead]

Was anyone else thinking to themselves in the theater during the love scene with K, Joi, & the replicant prostitute that they've seen this exact scenario in another film recently? It was driving me crazy and when I got home I finally googled a bit and found I was right. Spike Jonze did something similar with Portia Doubleday & Joaquin Phoenix in HER. I should've thought of it earlier because a lot of Joi and K mirrored the relationship in HER. 

But there wasn't a lot of new ground plot wise or thematically in Blade Runner 2049 to begin with. The Battlestar Galactica reboot gave us four seasons exploring AI, sentience, and what it means to be "human." West World also had a great season with the same concepts.

But despite not breaking any thematic new ground, I really enjoyed BR2049. It's sum is greater than it's parts, and it was much more enjoyable than I expected it to be. I saw it in IMAX and will probably see it again in 3D before it leaves theater.

On 10/6/2017 at 3:20 PM, Kalbear said:

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS SO MUCH...

• Deckard had a daughter. No other children.
• That child grew up in that shitty orphanage, and had the memory of the wooden horse - the only thing Deckard gave her.
• Presumably because of the weird genetics she grew up with major immunocompromised
• She became a memory author and inserted her memory of the horse into many of the Nexus 9 series, including K (but not all)
• All (or at least a good chunk) of the Nexus 9 who were rebelling had this memory, including the prostitute that K sleeps with (who sees the horse and says 'the dream' at his apartment).
• K is not a clone of the daughter. K was not meant to throw off the scent. K was not meant to even know anything about anything. 

Is that all correct so far? Everyone with me?

Also, one of the biggest, oddest spoilers is that Sean Young got a credit for acting in the movie, but this wasn't revealed until the end. My theory (answering what @Werthead rightly called the single most incredible special effect ever) is that they actually mocapped the real Sean Young and then artificially de-aged her directly via CGI. You'll be happy to know that the uncanny valley that you didn't see was totally right on - my son, who hasn't watched the original, had no idea that she was anything other than a normal human actress. He could tell in Rogue one right away, but he was legitimately shocked when I told him. 

I agree with all of those bullet points except for the third one. I think the autoimmune disease is a cover to keep her protected from humans like Madame and Wallace. I also agree the CGI in this was amazing, especially Sean Young's Rachel. 

On 10/6/2017 at 3:37 PM, Kalbear said:

Also, in talking it over with my wife, we felt like the weakest part was the ending.

I couldn't get over how K would just take Deckard to Stelline afterwards in his cop car. How is this not being tracked? How are the LAPD or Wallace not all over this? I don't care if they think Deckard's dead (why would they?) but K still kind of totally matters. But that was the suspension of disbelief part.

The real thing is that I felt it betrayed the noir ending...

But is BR2049 really noir? I don't think so. At least not in the same way the original was. I thought the end of the film was all about emotion. I agree it was a kind of weak ending seeing as it was obviously leaving things open for a sequel. And I probably would've like the last shot to have been of K or Deckard's daughter. But I guess if you look at both Blade Runner films as Deckard's story then that last shot works.

[Dolorous Gabe]

I thoroughly enjoyed it. It really is extremely good.

My only nitpick is one little thing in comparison with the original. One thing I adore about the the original (The Director's Cut, not the version with the badly tacked on voice-over) is how dialogue is sparse and lyrical, and how that serves the film's poetic ambiguity. The dialogue is fairly sparse in 2049 but I didn't note any quotable lines. Just a nitpick though, especially as 2049 is a different film and may not have suited the kind of dialogue in the original.

Really impressed with Dave Bautista! I liked him in the short his character was in too. Would have liked more of him.

[polishgenius]

43 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

Really impressed with Dave Bautista! I liked him in the short his character was in too. Would have liked more of him.

Gotta be honest, if you'd told me a few years ago that out of all the WWE stars who try their hand at acting, Bautista would be the one who I see is in a film and think 'yeah, he's probably going to improve this' I'd have been very confused. But he is.

[Dolorous Gabe]

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Gotta be honest, if you'd told me a few years ago that out of all the WWE stars who try their hand at acting, Bautista would be the one who I see is in a film and think 'yeah, he's probably going to improve this' I'd have been very confused. But he is.

As someone who doesn't follow WWE, I didn't know he had been a wrestler. I didn't even recognise him as the same guy that played Drax, the only other role I know him from. I'm clearly terrible with faces haha!

 

Thinking further about the film, I might have liked it to include Mercerism from the book. It could have been on the rise since the Nexus 8s were released and tensions were raised. The box office issue may result in no further revisits to the BR cinematic world but if it there were to be it could have been an interesting element going forward. I do think the original film was right to cut it from the story but the more complex story it would be in now might have a use for it.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

Was anyone else thinking to themselves in the theater during the love scene with K, Joi, & the replicant prostitute that they've seen this exact scenario in another film recently? It was driving me crazy and when I got home I finally googled a bit and found I was right. Spike Jonze did something similar with Portia Doubleday & Joaquin Phoenix in HER. I should've thought of it earlier because a lot of Joi and K mirrored the relationship in HER. 

 

There's that, but also the very weird scene in Ghost that came to mind as well.

[williamjm]

19 hours ago, Crazydog7 said:

Given current trends we are probably never going to see anything like it again much more in the vein of Marvel and DC sometimes fun, sometimes clever but not a lot of depth.

I'm definitely intrigued to see what Villeneuve does with Dune. I'm still a bit sceptical that it's possible to do justice to the story in a single film, but after Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 I'm certainly willing to see whether Villeneuve can pull it off.

11 hours ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

I thoroughly enjoyed it. It really is extremely good.

My only nitpick is one little thing in comparison with the original. One thing I adore about the the original (The Director's Cut, not the version with the badly tacked on voice-over) is how dialogue is sparse and lyrical, and how that serves the film's poetic ambiguity. The dialogue is fairly sparse in 2049 but I didn't note any quotable lines. Just a nitpick though, especially as 2049 is a different film and may not have suited the kind of dialogue in the original.

Really impressed with Dave Bautista! I liked him in the short his character was in too. Would have liked more of him.

I think one area where it is slightly lacking compared to the first film is that there isn't any character quite as charismatic as Rutger Hauer's portrayal of Roy Batty in the original, there's not really an equivalent of the 'Tears in Rain' speech.

I agree Bautista was surprisingly good, it's nice to see has range beyond the comic timing he showed in the GotG films.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I think one area where it is slightly lacking compared to the first film is that there isn't any character quite as charismatic as Rutger Hauer's portrayal of Roy Batty in the original, there's not really an equivalent of the 'Tears in Rain' speech.

There's definitely no tears in rain speech - but I think you're selling Gosling short. 2049 is kind of retelling the entire story but from Roy Batty's point of view, and he does a very good job with extremely limited chances to do so. It's downright remarkable how much the movie hinges on his hope that he's not just a replicant, and how that disappointment translates into the ending. I love the amount of self-delusion that drives him, why he makes his final decision to bring Deckard to his daughter (even if it is an objectively stupid thing to do), and just the incredible lack of others in his life. It's one of the better stories about someone other that I've seen; to me it brings to mind those who are on the spectrum and their difficulty in being understood.

I saw it Thursday night and I've been thinking about it for the last 3 days. It's very affecting. Arrival did that as well, but for very different reasons. 

Whatever else, I will be lining up to see any Villeneuve movie. 

 

[PetyrPunkinhead]

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

There's that, but also the very weird scene in Ghost that came to mind as well.

Of course! That's an even better comparison.

Molly, urine danger, gurl.

[williamjm]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There's definitely no tears in rain speech - but I think you're selling Gosling short. 2049 is kind of retelling the entire story but from Roy Batty's point of view, and he does a very good job with extremely limited chances to do so. It's downright remarkable how much the movie hinges on his hope that he's not just a replicant, and how that disappointment translates into the ending. I love the amount of self-delusion that drives him, why he makes his final decision to bring Deckard to his daughter (even if it is an objectively stupid thing to do), and just the incredible lack of others in his life. It's one of the better stories about someone other that I've seen; to me it brings to mind those who are on the spectrum and their difficulty in being understood

I do think Gosling is excellent in the role (and better than Harrison Ford was in the original), and I do agree he is to some extent replicating [*] Roy Batty's motivation from the original it's a more subtle piece of characterisation - that's not necessarily inferior but it does mean that we're missing some of Batty's more memorable moments. I guess it is consistent with the 'light that burns half as long burns twice as bright' concept from the original that a replicant with an indefinite lifecycle should be more restrained than Batty was.

[*] no pun intended, I just realised what I wrote there...

[Spring Bass]

I enjoyed most of it. The only part that left me cold was Los Angeles 2049 - we've been here before, and Los Angeles 2019 felt like a city that was still living and breathing even as it spiraled downwards (it's all but stated in the first film that most healthy young adults have left for the off-world colonies, and we basically never see any children in that film). Los Angeles 2049 (thirty years in the future and following a massive multi-day blackout) is . . . just the same thing, except not as good-looking or distinctive as LA 2019. It was kind of boring even if some of the holographic advertisements looked good. 

[boojam]

7 hours ago, Summer Bass said:

I enjoyed most of it. The only part that left me cold was Los Angeles 2049 - we've been here before, and Los Angeles 2019 felt like a city that was still living and breathing even as it spiraled downwards (it's all but stated in the first film that most healthy young adults have left for the off-world colonies, and we basically never see any children in that film). Los Angeles 2049 (thirty years in the future and following a massive multi-day blackout) is . . . just the same thing, except not as good-looking or distinctive as LA 2019. It was kind of boring even if some of the holographic advertisements looked good. 

Yeah, for me, compared to BR1 the story is more interesting than the milieu. The setting of the first film trumped the story. It's the same attention to production design , well even more so, than the first film, and it looks good, but as you say it is not as engaging. It is probably a logical development from 2019* , but so murky. Also I can buy the murk but don't think the over population take is logical, population should have declined.

 

*Some whimping out on date-of-story, BR1's 2019 'look' is not here , it might look like that in 2049 but I am guessing not. I really don't understand why holliwood has such a problem with setting date to close to the present. BR1 and BR2 seem to be taking place in an alternate universe.

 

[Theda Baratheon]

On 10/9/2017 at 1:14 PM, polishgenius said:

Gotta be honest, if you'd told me a few years ago that out of all the WWE stars who try their hand at acting, Bautista would be the one who I see is in a film and think 'yeah, he's probably going to improve this' I'd have been very confused. But he is.

I'm starting to absolutely love him 

[Theda Baratheon]

9 hours ago, Summer Bass said:

I enjoyed most of it. The only part that left me cold was Los Angeles 2049 - we've been here before, and Los Angeles 2019 felt like a city that was still living and breathing even as it spiraled downwards (it's all but stated in the first film that most healthy young adults have left for the off-world colonies, and we basically never see any children in that film). Los Angeles 2049 (thirty years in the future and following a massive multi-day blackout) is . . . just the same thing, except not as good-looking or distinctive as LA 2019. It was kind of boring even if some of the holographic advertisements looked good. 

I didn't mind the city and I liked that it was a brave move not to try to make the city a character like it was in the first film. There was other ground to cover here.  I think it looked like 30 years after the original would. A higher population and larger but much the same. That isn't a bad thing.  

 

[boojam]

I found this comment on Wired, I totally agree with this:

Brian Raftery: Villeneuve certainly takes his time lingering in the world of Blade Runner 2049, but I didn't mind the extended stay, as the movie takes place in the kind of glittery, pricey big-screen fantasia that few moviemakers (and even fewer studio execs) have the patience or resources to create anymore. Like the first film, 2049 just feels so different than anything I've seen before, and that alone justified the occasionally laggy third act. But there's more to 2049 than just sensual visuals: I loved the characters' complicated pact with technology—the way their machines both liberated and limited them—and found the movie's scattered but intense moments of violence to be brutally effective. Also great? Ford's weary performance; the spare, chilly score; and pretty much all of the clothes, from Gosling's Hoth-cool jacket to Luv's (Sylvia Hoeks) numerous Kubrick-on-the-runway get-ups.

Still, even if Blade Runner 2049 represents luxe filmmaking at its finest, maybe that's not enough for moviegoers in 2017—or, then again, maybe it's too much. The new Blade Runner is an immersive experience, the kind that requires you to put down your phone and get lost in a big, bewildering world for hours on end. That doesn't seem like a huge sacrifice in the binge-era, when people are capable of shotgunning an entire season of a TV show in a weekend, and certainly, smashes like Titanic and Avatar were just as lengthy. But those movies promised the spectacle of romance, and vice versa. Blade Runner 2049 offers something a little stranger and chillier, and in a year already ruled by fear, maybe that's too much to ask of audiences. That said, I hope more people catch up with 2049 before 2017 is over. We don't get big-studio movies this smart and audacious too often, and we should enjoy them now, lest they be relegated to the off-worlds forever.

[Theda Baratheon]

Can I just say how much I fucking LOVED the Vegas sequence.  I've been playing fallout new Vegas nonstop recently and I had SUCH a weird moment in the theater where I briefly felt I was watching a new Vegas movie. Haha I LOVED it. 

[boojam]

5 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I'm starting to absolutely love him 

I keep looking for the 'prelude sequence' what was a 'trailer' with Bautista , "No Where to Run", but it wasn't there. I guess that was just cut from the film, or never made it. Too bad that sequence had a great flavor to it , and gee with the pacing, it could of been used instead of some some of the slow beats. Maybe it made Bautista seem like too sympathetic a character?

[Corvinus85]

13 minutes ago, boojam said:

I keep looking for the 'prelude sequence' what was a 'trailer' with Bautista , "No Where to Run", but it wasn't there. I guess that was just cut from the film, or never made it. Too bad that sequence had a great flavor to it , and gee with the pacing, it could of been used instead of some some of the slow beats. Maybe it made Bautista seem like too sympathetic a character?

That was a short made by a different director. It takes place in 2048. 

[boojam]

9 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

That was a short made by a different director. It takes place in 2048. 

I see , curious thing, they seem to use exactly the same milieu as the film, am guessing they did.

It would have been a nice fit to have included it.