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

[Darth Richard II]

Blade Runner hasn't opened in the Asian markets yet. If you've seen any scifi anime from the last, or, 30 years or so, you know how much the Japanese love Blade Runner. I don't think this film is in danger of losing any money.

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Blade Runner hasn't opened in the Asian markets yet. If you've seen any scifi anime from the last, or, 30 years or so, you know how much the Japanese love Blade Runner. I don't think this film is in danger of losing any money.

It opened in South Korea. It didn't do very well.

[Kalbear]

11 hours ago, boojam said:

Man! I too missed that. That is clever. Also Steeline is a sub contractor for the Wallace Corp!

I'm a bit annoyed since I put it in at the literal beginning of this topic

[boojam]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm a bit annoyed since I put it in at the literal beginning of this topic

I see, had to go back an read all those entries, I had to synthesize those to see it. This seems an important plot point , but very subtle, have not seem much talk about it.

Had you read the 'leaked' info about Sean Young having come to New York to film secret scenes? That was not until like only a few days before the film opened. Seems she signed a non disclosure agreement and stuck to covering it.* Her involvement  is still a bit mysterious . I understand she was a coach for the stand-in, but there is a hint she did ADR for the voice, but that still not clear. Two things, there is a short video clip of Young from the first film , that probably legally warrants a credit, also the CGI** image of her may be also , now days, means , I thing, a legal commitment to a credit. (I went and looked on IMDB at Rogue One to see if Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher get credit , and they do.I think there are rules these days on 'image' use and am guessing that Cushing's estate and Fisher got paid , something.)

*Edward James Olmos had also signed a non disclosure , but someone leaked his appearance and he seemed irritated about it but confirmed that he would be in the film. It was interesting that it was Olmos who insisted that he not speak 'City-Speak' in his appearance ... I think only fans of the first film would know about that.)

 

** By the by that CGI 'replacement' image on the stand in was incredible! Much better than they did for Rogue One and better than they did for Lena Headey's 'walk'.

 

[Werthead]

Quote

 

By the by that CGI 'replacement' image on the stand in was incredible!

 

I was certain it wasn't CG, that there was a scene cut from the original BR they used and matted into the scene. There's actually a few that Scott has held back and never released, so that's possible.

[Werthead]

Double post.

[boojam]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I was certain it wasn't CG, that there was a scene cut from the original BR they used and matted into the scene. There's actually a few that Scott has held back and never released, so that's possible.

They did use a very short piece of video from the first when Deckard is talking to Wallace, but further in that scene they have a 're-created' Rachel. I am sure they took her face from the original film, but , now that I have seen it twice, the CGI for Sean Young's face is uncanny.

Here is a story about it:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-blade-runner-2049-resurrected-that-character-f/1100-6453912/

[Darth Richard II]

16 hours ago, polishgenius said:

It opened in South Korea. It didn't do very well.

I was thinking of China and Japan mostly. Which will teach me to just use blanket terms like Asia.

[Kalbear]

Also, per that article above and the internet - Rachael's eye color was brown, not green. Deckard straight up lied.

[boojam]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Also, per that article above and the internet - Rachael's eye color was brown, not green. Deckard straight up lied.

if Wallace had a video of Rachel why didn't he know that?

[Darth Richard II]

1 minute ago, boojam said:

if Wallace had a video of Rachel why didn't he know that?

I think maybe he did, that's hwy he got so pissy when Deckard said that.

[boojam]

On 10/17/2017 at 6:45 PM, Darth Richard II said:

I think maybe he did, that's hwy he got so pissy when Deckard said that.

I like that! Both Deckard and Wallace knew it , so twisty!

[Darth Richard II]

51 minutes ago, boojam said:

I like that! Both Deckard and Wallace knew it , so twisty!

Or his memories were wrong. Considering the whole movie about memories it makes you wonder. Also holy shit I need to go see this again.

[James Arryn]

Saw it yesterday here in Oxford, my gf went back in Toronto. My take before reading others;

 

Loved it. Brilliant sequel.

 

Best decision was K's belief in being The Child being not only untrue, but common. Going the other way was dissapointing, but I'd resolved myself to it in that 'movie's gonna movie' way, and so was pleasantly surprised when it was turned around. Although it also occurred to me that...one eyed woman?...might be a plant or charlatan or simply selling a story to fuel the rebellion. 

Another interesting dynamic was the 'who do you root for'question when it was Deckard vs. K, not just in the fighting sense, but in the conversation afterwards. We think we know something Deckard doesn't, and so our sympathies play alongside K and we're wondering why Deckard isn't making the connection and continues to be suspicious and hostile; in retrospect we realize that he knew something we didn't, and that being true of course he's wondering wtf K wants/is. Really nice bit of psychodrama there.

Gosling's single best moment was the face he pulls at the end when Deckard asks 'why? What am I to you?' In a flicker we get pain, broken hope, wry self-mockery, and a kind of defeated but not dead admission in the unspoken answer of 'father' that he knows is untrue, but as with Joi we know he's willing to roll with that at least some way. 

The sex scene...the sex itself got kinda pedestrian, but the beginnng, the kissing, the constant blurring of one to the other, Gosling's conflicted emotions, Joi's desperation...that was very moving and very visually remarkable. It felt like something new.

An interesting choice was to have Leto's character use movie-logic to fuel the plot; the reason Young and Ford were thrust together so much in the first was loosely explained as Tyrel's playful experimentation with her believability, but obviously was more due to the narrative need. Taking that and twisting it, even if only as a hypothetical, was a nice touch. Her reappearance was brilliant, but I'm unsure how I felt about it's resolution. We're we supposed to know he lied about the eye colour? Was it him rejecting the product for the experiential onnection? This question is reraised with the giant advertisement Joi later, especially when she calls him Joe. 

I assume we're not supposed to think this is K's first experience with that ad...presumably he was originally induced to buy via similar means...and so that offers bittersweet hindsight on their relationship. As with the Deckard/Rachel question, I wonder if the idea is that w/e the origins, common experience forms individual relationships, but there is also the question of wilfully turning a blind eye to questions/answers that leave you loveless, or without even the illusion of love. 

I think Luv will get a ton of fans, but I wasn't particularly among them. She was interesting at times, and in the beginnng I thought I'd really enjoy her...the murder of the forensic guy scene was really well done...but later she increasingly became a bit of a Bond villain to me. I really liked Wright in their confrontation scene; we know, as Luv doesn't, that she's doing it all, even willing to die not for some subordinate or some macho cop toughness, but because she thinks she is stopping a war, maybe The War. True heroism, even if based on a misapprehension. I liked Olmos' recap of his working relationship with Deckard. Ford himself was solid, convincing, unspectacular...pretty much Harrison Ford. 

The early scene, the farm confrontation, the landscape were pretty excellent establishments. For a flicker I wondered at an Oedipus tragedy, but it was thankfully less artful. The general tone was right, the environment careening even more off kilter felt right, the noir ambience was sustained and imo added to by the bleaching cold daylight noir that Scandinavian noir has made more of a thing. The real Child was very compelling in an undefinable wa. At first I thought it was sheer pathos because of her situation, then I thought she was almost pure but sincere empath (thus her profession) but in the end another answer was provided. It worked. 

Finally the death of K. I can see people hating this; it's a bit of an obvious dovetail with RH's finale, and in some respects breaks noir norms (the antihero doesn't get to put down hus burdens in the end, he just adds them to his knapsack and moves on) but to me it was really moving and felt real, especially following as it did Gosling's best moment as mentioned earlier. Slight ambiguity, definite sense of waste while at the same time a sense of fulfilment and acceptance. 

All in all, as I feel whenever a favourite is successfully resurrected, my first feeling is relief that they didn't fuck it up and taint the orgibal. But this brought me more than that, this was very much worth seeing in it's own right and successfully balanced that 'old or new audience' question that cuts down so many directors/writers.  

 

 

[Kalbear]

I really do have to say that this was an incredibly big lift in making a sequel actually work and enrich the first one. It didn't just riff off the first - it explained and enhanced the first, making it more compelling for both movies.

And the twists were, as @James Arryn says, really well done and excellent for making a rewatchable movie without making it feel cheesy or unearned. K's desire to be that one child, the special one, made him ignore all the plot points - and because we've been conditioned by so many bad cheesy movies we went along with him. Really great stuff. 

[Ran]

Mileage definitely varies, because I'm kind of so-so on the movie and don't think it enriches the original at all. The twists were indeed good, but the pacing was unnecessarily glacial (the original was much brisker without feeling rushed at all). I fear I kept looking at my watch, which... you know, first time ever doing an IMAX film, and one with such a visual team, and I guess I still feel a bit bewildered by the fact that it wasn't sweeping away. Maybe I came in with too-high expectations.

Can't fault the acting, production design, etc. Score, somewhat, those blasts of sound... eh.

[Corvinus85]

11 minutes ago, Ran said:

Mileage definitely varies, because I'm kind of so-so on the movie and don't think it enriches the original at all. The twists were indeed good, but the pacing was unnecessarily glacial (the original was much brisker without feeling rushed at all). I fear I kept looking at my watch, which... you know, first time ever doing an IMAX film, and one with such a visual team, and I guess I still feel a bit bewildered by the fact that it wasn't sweeping away. Maybe I came in with too-high expectations.

Can't fault the acting, production design, etc. Score, somewhat, those blasts of sound... eh.

Wow, I feel exactly opposite. I only ever managed to get through the original twice. Granted, I'm not willing to watch this one 50 times, but I think I'll enjoy a repeat of it.

[Darth Richard II]

I still can't decide if I love the soundtrack or hate it.

[Ran]

Given reports here, it sounds like the creative decision was made to make the music really, really loud everywhere -- I thought it was just an IMAX thing, showing off the sound system, but apparently not. But it made the sound almost painfully overwhelming at times. I'll have to listen to the sound track on Spotify at a more reasonable volume to see what I make of it, but I admit, I too do not understand why Vangelis wasn't asked to do it.

[Darth Richard II]

It's a moot point though, Vangelis stated he wouldn't have done it if asked.