• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Blade Runner 2049 |OT| Do Androids Dream of Electric Boogaloo? [Unmarked Spoilers]

NewDust

Member
Ok, just saw this. Probably shouldn't have though as I haven't seen the original so many things didn't mean much to me or I just didn't understand it. So because of that I don't think the movie is great and therefore was a waste of time and money for me to see it. Also from all the hype and advertising I thought Harrison Ford and Ryan gosling were the two main players in the film but Harrison was hardly in it at all.

What annoyed me most though is what happened to the dog? For whatever reason the writers decided to have one that lived with Harrison ford's character, and it followed him around. Thankfully they then show it survived the explosion on the building and was still shown when Ryan gosling's character was rescued from there, but then I didn't see it anymore. Did those other people who rescued Ryan rescue the dog too? Did they leave the dog behind? Why wasn't Harrison ford's character shown wanting to get the dog back by the end? I just don't know why they bothered to include a dog in the film but don't show where it ended up.

Deckard doesn't care... Neither do those that rescued K.

I assume the dog is a stray replicant, hence Deckard doesn't care when he pours the dog alcohol isntead of other liquids/food. Unfortunately this movie does not they eyes thing except for Wallace.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
I'm saying it's unnecessary, there is already a plot about this with humans and replicants.

I think the word "unnecessary" is really odd when talking about media like this. Was Joi necessary? No. Did Blade Runner need a sequel? No.

Joi, and the themes she brings into the movie, are ones that made the movie better and didn't distract with the plot and other themes, so I don't see how it was a negative.

[edit]

Also, your version of what Joi should be is the type of thing a less experienced director would put that would lead us to see that they didn't get the franchise.
 
The digital girlfriend is the single worst thing about the movie. You could delete it, rework some scenes around it to cover some of the same territory, and lose nothing but running time, which would be a blessing.

It is to this movie what the v/o was to the theatrical cut of the original: hammy and unnecessary.
 

jett

D-Member
Thinking about trailers and the movie's initial box office numbers, I wonder what was the friggin' point of hiding K's Replicant nature, when it's revealed pretty much immediately. What if the trailers had sold the movie from a more personal POV from K, showing some of his struggles of fitting into human society, maybe people would have found that more intriguing. Anyway, it's kind of ridiculous to hide something like this while simultaneously showing nearly every set-piece and location in the movie.

Just a guess. Someone could kinda bullshit that the device is able to project through K's clothing but there were too many angles that she was projected at independent of K's position for that to explain it.

I guess it's as good as any explanation. For me, just like the Replicants themselves, it's technology that's beyond our current understanding. Maybe people in this universe have learned how to manipulate light particles somehow.
 

Jarmel

Banned
Joi’s character gives the film additional layers of thematic depth and motivates K’s character thoughout the entire film, even after her ‘death’.
 

Seesaw15

Member
Ok, just saw this. Probably shouldn't have though as I haven't seen the original so many things didn't mean much to me or I just didn't understand it. So because of that I don't think the movie is great and therefore was a waste of time and money for me to see it. Also from all the hype and advertising I thought Harrison Ford and Ryan gosling were the two main players in the film but Harrison was hardly in it at all.

What annoyed me most though is what happened to the dog? For whatever reason the writers decided to have one that lived with Harrison ford's character, and it followed him around. Thankfully they then show it survived the explosion on the building and was still shown when Ryan gosling's character was rescued from there, but then I didn't see it anymore. Did those other people who rescued Ryan rescue the dog too? Did they leave the dog behind? Why wasn't Harrison ford's character shown wanting to get the dog back by the end? I just don't know why they bothered to include a dog in the film but don't show where it ended up.
I like a dog as much as the next person but
ipKS3tB.gif


This is Honest Trailers/Cinema Sins level film complaint.
 
I guess it's as good as any explanation. For me, just like the Replicants themselves, it's technology that's beyond our current understanding. Maybe people in this universe have learned how to manipulate light particles somehow.
This future mastered space travel to the point of having galactic freighters, has off-world colonies, has brain implants,
 
Ok, just saw this. Probably shouldn't have though as I haven't seen the original so many things didn't mean much to me or I just didn't understand it. So because of that I don't think the movie is great and therefore was a waste of time and money for me to see it. Also from all the hype and advertising I thought Harrison Ford and Ryan gosling were the two main players in the film but Harrison was hardly in it at all.

What annoyed me most though is what happened to the dog? For whatever reason the writers decided to have one that lived with Harrison ford's character, and it followed him around. Thankfully they then show it survived the explosion on the building and was still shown when Ryan gosling's character was rescued from there, but then I didn't see it anymore. Did those other people who rescued Ryan rescue the dog too? Did they leave the dog behind? Why wasn't Harrison ford's character shown wanting to get the dog back by the end? I just don't know why they bothered to include a dog in the film but don't show where it ended up.

The resistance people probably scooped the dog up, I wish they showed it though.
 

Moonkid

Member
Thinking about trailers and the movie's initial box office numbers, I wonder what was the friggin' point of hiding K's Replicant nature, when it's revealed pretty much immediately. What if the trailers had sold the movie from a more personal POV from K, showing some of his struggles of fitting into human society, maybe people would have found that more intriguing. Anyway, it's kind of ridiculous to hide something like this while simultaneously showing nearly every set-piece and location in the movie.
Having seen the trailers now I have to agree. They emphasized the broader plot of the setting when the main drive of the film is K's journey.
 
This movie was good at everything but being entertaining. No kidding, I'm pretty sure 5-10% of the audience fell asleep and didn't catch the ending. Not my kind of movie at all unfortunately.
 
Joi's character gives the film additional layers of thematic depth and motivates K's character thoughout the entire film, even after her ‘death'.
Except ... it doesn't, not really. She's a way of spelling out his thoughts and feelings about the world in big bright letters, just as the v/o was. Then she gets fridged. Apart from the scene near the end where the talking ad blares out the moral choice he's already made, Joi disappears from every other character's memory, because she was irrelevant and a boring waste of time.

Just like the original's v/o, Joi is what happens when writers, producers, execs, et al. are worried that the main character's interiority will be lost on the viewer, so they contrive a way to make it clear to us. K didn't need a companion or a foil, and he has more interesting sexual dynamics with both Madam and Luv. If you really want to cover the "what does it mean for a robot to love? for a robot to fuck?!" territory, expand the role of the Daryl Hannah lookalike and draw her into the movie a little more. Joi is a crutch.

It doesn't help that it was the worst acting performance in the film.
 
Thankfully they then show it survived the explosion on the building and was still shown when Ryan gosling's character was rescued from there, but then I didn't see it anymore. Did those other people who rescued Ryan rescue the dog too? Did they leave the dog behind? Why wasn't Harrison ford's character shown wanting to get the dog back by the end? I just don't know why they bothered to include a dog in the film but don't show where it ended up.

WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE DOG?

The film wasn't about dogs.
 

Bulby

Member
Ok, just saw this. Probably shouldn't have though as I haven't seen the original so many things didn't mean much to me or I just didn't understand it. So because of that I don't think the movie is great and therefore was a waste of time and money for me to see it. Also from all the hype and advertising I thought Harrison Ford and Ryan gosling were the two main players in the film but Harrison was hardly in it at all.

What annoyed me most though is what happened to the dog? For whatever reason the writers decided to have one that lived with Harrison ford's character, and it followed him around. Thankfully they then show it survived the explosion on the building and was still shown when Ryan gosling's character was rescued from there, but then I didn't see it anymore. Did those other people who rescued Ryan rescue the dog too? Did they leave the dog behind? Why wasn't Harrison ford's character shown wanting to get the dog back by the end? I just don't know why they bothered to include a dog in the film but don't show where it ended up.

First of all, its kinda bizzare after THAT movie, this is one of your first thoughts.

Secondly, and you wouldnt know if you didnt know anything about the universe before, but most animals are artificial so I took it that Deckard wasnt really that attatched to it.
 

Poona

Member
I like a dog as much as the next person but
ipKS3tB.gif


This is Honest Trailers/Cinema Sins level film complaint.

Look I know it was a hardly significant thing in the whole film but I just thought why bother to include a dog and give some interesting scenes to it if you don't show us where it ended up (unless we're just to assume it's now left to die in that building alone where we last saw it).

The rest of the film didn't mean much to me as I had no prior knowledge of it all so seeing a dog and the only animal shown in the whole film I think just held my interest a bit more rather than stuff I didn't understand.

First of all, its kinda bizzare after THAT movie, this is one of your first thoughts.

Secondly, and you wouldnt know if you didnt know anything about the universe before, but most animals are artificial so I took it that Deckard wasnt really that attatched to it.

Ahhh.. Ok well that might make things better. Didn't know the animals were fake.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
The digital girlfriend is the single worst thing about the movie. You could delete it, rework some scenes around it to cover some of the same territory, and lose nothing but running time, which would be a blessing.

It is to this movie what the v/o was to the theatrical cut of the original: hammy and unnecessary.

When K gets in his apartment and it teases us about whether there's a real person or not, I thought it was good, a bit of comic relief. Her proposing a book, him saying she hates, then her saying ok no I don't like it, good again. He's a replicant, he gives no fuck, that made sense to me. But I seriously thought when he told her he had a present and opened the box, he had something to terminate her, like "Here is a present for you. I got a new model. Bye.". Would have fit with his character; he's a fake person, and gives no fuck about the AI.

Would have made his eventual discovery of empathy more gradual to make him not care about Siri and straight up delete her.

Thinking about trailers and the movie's initial box office numbers, I wonder what was the friggin' point of hiding K's Replicant nature, when it's revealed pretty much immediately. What if the trailers had sold the movie from a more personal POV from K, showing some of his struggles of fitting into human society, maybe people would have found that more intriguing. Anyway, it's kind of ridiculous to hide something like this while simultaneously showing nearly every set-piece and location in the movie.



I guess it's as good as any explanation. For me, just like the Replicants themselves, it's technology that's beyond our current understanding. Maybe people in this universe have learned how to manipulate light particles somehow.

Very little covers his struggle to fit in humanity in the movie anyway, it doesn't really go that route. You have a bit of it when the cops yell at him or when he goes home, which again is great like most of the start of the movie. Then, nope, that's essentially left aside.
 
Joi is probably my favorite AI-related plot in any medium since SOMA. It works so well within the story here, simultaneously acting as its own subplot, as further development for K, and as a means of delving deeper into the question of what is human

Would have fit with his character; he's a fake person, and gives no fuck about the AI.

Would have made his eventually discovery of empathy more gradual to make him not care about Siri and straight up delete her.
If you can say that, I don’t think you picked up the right messages from Blade Runner or Blade Runner 2049
 

Arulan

Member
Joi is probably my favorite AI-related plot in any medium since SOMA. It works so well within the story here, simultaneously acting as its own subplot, as further development for K, and as a mean of delving deeper into the question of what is human

If's the last thing I expected coming out of the film, but I was very pleasantly surprised.
 
Joi is probably my favorite AI-related plot in any medium since SOMA. It works so well within the story here, simultaneously acting as its own subplot, as further development for K, and as a mean of delving deeper into the question of what is human

The more I think about it, the more I realize how much I love love love this movie. It's been on my mind since Thursday night. I'm constantly thinking about it.

I'm definitely seeing it again next Tuesday. In IMAX, this time.
 
Joi is probably my favorite AI-related plot in any medium since SOMA. It works so well within the story here, simultaneously acting as its own subplot, as further development for K, and as a mean of delving deeper into the question of what is human
Blade Runner doesn't need subplots. She doesn't develop K in any way that couldn't have been achieved through the other characters in the movie. And I don't think it delves deeper into K's humanity at all. It covers the same ground as everything else while padding the movie's running time, which is already too long. That sex scene is interminable! The more I think about it, the more it annoys me that Joi made it in there. I'd already seen and hated Her.
 
The is he or isn't he dead debate is giving me flashbacks to the end of Homeland S5, and all the crow that had to be eaten just one year later.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
If you can say that, I don't think you picked up the right messages from Blade Runner or Blade Runner 2049

Yeah, what? The whole point is that they're "real" even though they're "fake" and they DO give a fuck. They give so many fucks that they have to create a whole group of people to go after them. How would it fit K's character to delete her and get a new one? He loved her.
 

Protome

Member
The digital girlfriend is the single worst thing about the movie. You could delete it, rework some scenes around it to cover some of the same territory, and lose nothing but running time, which would be a blessing.

It is to this movie what the v/o was to the theatrical cut of the original: hammy and unnecessary.
I disagree. The hologram girlfriend helped build up K's uniqueness and specialness, then shatter it away again as we learn that's exactly what she is created to do.

The most useless part of the film was the Replicant army. Utterly pointless piece of fluff beyond showing that the current crop of Blade Runners are very bad at their jobs.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Joi is probably my favorite AI-related plot in any medium since SOMA. It works so well within the story here, simultaneously acting as its own subplot, as further development for K, and as a means of delving deeper into the question of what is human


If you can say that, I don't think you picked up the right messages from Blade Runner or Blade Runner 2049

He's a fake person as in, that's what he is at this point in the movie; he's there to take orders and kill replicants, not jerk off.

I like the barrage of "you didn't understand the plot" whenever someone doesn't like how it turned out while the original is one of my top three best movies ever.
 
Thinking about trailers and the movie's initial box office numbers, I wonder what was the friggin' point of hiding K's Replicant nature, when it's revealed pretty much immediately. What if the trailers had sold the movie from a more personal POV from K, showing some of his struggles of fitting into human society, maybe people would have found that more intriguing. Anyway, it's kind of ridiculous to hide something like this while simultaneously showing nearly every set-piece and location in the movie.

I wasn't aware until today that the trailers didn't show that Joe is an android. It's mentioned in many reviews, but general viewers are probably more likely to form their decisions on which films to see by looking at posters and trailers, and then you always get a few reviewers who are scared to write anything specific about characters and plot.

I think it's evident that the marketing for this film has failed comprehensively, but I'm not sure it's clear why. I'm not ready to say turning this film into a human interest piece about the life of a mid-twenty-first century genetically designed slave would have drawn in the crowds.

It's definitely clear to me that even among NeoGAF readers the consensus is that the film is slow. I didn't notice that, in fact I think a faster film might have lost me, but extrapolating from this often-stated view perhaps most audiences are also looking for much faster pacing and somehow were not convinced that this film would provide it.
 

Bulby

Member
Blade Runner doesn't need subplots. She doesn't develop K in any way that couldn't have been achieved through the other characters in the movie. And I don't think it delves deeper into K's humanity at all. It covers the same ground as everything else while padding the movie's running time, which is already too long. That sex scene is interminable! The more I think about it, the more it annoys me that Joi made it in there. I'd already seen and hated Her.

I think you just have to take this as a loss man. Most people have loved her inclusion in the film and feel completely opposite to you about what she brought.

Same with the sex scene.
 
Since OG replicants have a lifespan of only 4 years and the final cut of BR1 heavily implies Deckard is a replicant, how come he's still alive 30 years later? Probably been answered a billion times but I'm curious.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Yeah, what? The whole point is that they're "real" even though they're "fake" and they DO give a fuck. They give so many fucks that they have to create a whole group of people to go after them. How would it fit K's character to delete her and get a new one? He loved her.

HE doesn't give a fuck because at this point in the story he is supposed to still be on the line, like his checkup repeatedly confirms. He is a machine taking orders. It would only make sense for him to not give a fuck about some AI JOI program as much as he doesn't give a fuck about killing a replicant just because it's not the same model as himself.
 
Top Bottom