-
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]
- Thread starter Mr. Sam
- Start date
Heckler456
Banned
He does unsubtle things, but in all of his movies, there's more going on than what's on the surface too.
Curious Puppy
Banned
Already at that point in the backlash cycle where people like you not only insult the director but imply part of his audience is stupid. For no reason.
Don't get me wrong -- Villenueve is an unsubtle director, and that's precisely what I love about him. His films don't just take on the structure of epics and myths, but fully embrace them and subvert them with modernist twists.
For fuck's sake, the protagonist is literally named Joe K. and quotes Pale Fire lol
Since when was subtlety a prerequisite for quality?
I'm not insulting Villenueve or the audience at all. Movies don't have to be subtle.
afternoon delight
Member
Curious Puppy
Banned
Implying he isnt subtle implies his themes are obvious upon first viewing, which I completely disagree with. They need time to digest and to be thought about.
And this is just wrong.
Which part of Enemy is subtle? The whole thing is packed to the brim with nightmarish Freudian psychosexual fuckery! That's what's great about it!
The word I'd use to describe Villenueve is restrained more so than subtle. (Though he can dial up the volume when need be). But I've always found he his themes, ideas, influences, etc. on his sleeve in his films.
That's fine. I'm a huge Villenueve fan but I don't agree, though, I also don't think that's a problem.
I like him (and so does Dave Chen) but it is kind of funny how many of his movies it applies to, at least at a stretch. Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, Blade Runner.
I realized I posted this in the wrong thread.
One visual difference I noticed between this and the original is the lack of fans. They were very prominent in the original.
It's not a knock against it. And as others pointed out in the other thread the climate appears to have changed. I just found it an interesting point given the prominence of fans of all types in the original.
One visual difference I noticed between this and the original is the lack of fans. They were very prominent in the original.
It's not a knock against it. And as others pointed out in the other thread the climate appears to have changed. I just found it an interesting point given the prominence of fans of all types in the original.
Curious Puppy
Banned
A stretch of extreme reductionism.
which is one of the many ways to make a joke
Heckler456
Banned
Curious Puppy
Banned
I must have missed where the joke is. Comedy is rooted in honesty, that tweet had almost none.
Posted this in the BO thread by mistake
One thing that jumped at me more in the second viewing was Luv's behavior. There's a lot of repressed emotion going on there. There were two moments where she teared up iirc but I can't remember the exact context. One is in the scene where Wallace looks at the new model, but I'm not sure why she teared up exactly.
One thing that jumped at me more in the second viewing was Luv's behavior. There's a lot of repressed emotion going on there. There were two moments where she teared up iirc but I can't remember the exact context. One is in the scene where Wallace looks at the new model, but I'm not sure why she teared up exactly.
Heckler456
Banned
Fear for not living up to Wallace's expectations?
She also shed tears when she murdered Madam.
Theodoricos
Member
I completely missed that. Man, stuff like this is why I need to see this film again.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
I have to agree. Just because you see the themes very clearly doesn't mean the general public can. There are articles that have missed the criticisms the movie rises towards society and take the movie as if it were male gaze to the max.
Yeah that's what I thought because I think Wallace derided her earlier.
She was also so joyful when she thought she beat K on that fight.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Its practically Space Chinatown, jesus.
I dont see how, its a journey of self discovery
Theodoricos
Member
You'd think at least that would be clear to the viewer, but after seeing someone in this thread express their distaste towards Her and Ex Machina of all things because of "romanticized hyperobjectification", I suppose anything is possible.
So I definitely agree that how subtle a film can be is also partially affected by a person's knowledge and understanding of film language and history.
Atraveller
Banned
2049 literally couldn't be a fanfiction. It was penned by the same screenwriter, Ridley was going to direct until Denis was signed on.
Loved the movie, just saw it on IMAX. Liked it more than the first, but I think they are quite different anyway.
Visually arresting, Gosling was great as was his character story, the soundtrack was beautiful, and I liked the pacing..it was slow but every scene was interesting..if anything the last 10 minutes or so were a bit rushed for me.
Only thing that pissed me of was basically Harrison Ford. His role was exactly the same as in Force Awakens, an old wise-ass man...he was basically Han Solo and not how I imagined reclusive old Deckard. Just didn't suit the movie imo.
Visually arresting, Gosling was great as was his character story, the soundtrack was beautiful, and I liked the pacing..it was slow but every scene was interesting..if anything the last 10 minutes or so were a bit rushed for me.
Only thing that pissed me of was basically Harrison Ford. His role was exactly the same as in Force Awakens, an old wise-ass man...he was basically Han Solo and not how I imagined reclusive old Deckard. Just didn't suit the movie imo.
This is more in relation to her and Wallace, but she also gives K a pec on the lips like she saw Wallace did with the replicant he kills.
tonysidaway
Member
I watched the DVD of Arrival this evening. It's the best suspense thriller film about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis I've ever seen. But seriously, bravo!
Denis Villeneuve tells a story well. The script itself seems to be very pared down, as if to reduce unnecessary clutter, and everything about the direction seems to follow from that simplicity in content.
I liked the score, too.
Denis Villeneuve tells a story well. The script itself seems to be very pared down, as if to reduce unnecessary clutter, and everything about the direction seems to follow from that simplicity in content.
I liked the score, too.
s_mirage
Member
IMO, that's the more confusing one for trying to read what emotions she was experiencing. While the argument could be made that the tears are of regret for carrying out orders to kill someone, there are a couple of things that seem inconsistent with that: Firstly, Luv claims that she'll tell Wallace that Joshi drew a gun first and had to be killed in self defence, which suggests that the killing is Luv's own choice which she has to find an excuse for. Secondly, the breaking of the glass in Joshi's hand seems like a rather sadistic method of trying to extract information, and doesn't seem like the action of someone acting reluctantly. That's not her only action that seems sadistic either; the only purpose of the destruction of Joi seems to be to inflict pain on K, and it's possible to speculate that she doesn't kill K outright when she has the chance in order to let him suffer more, let him appreciate his failure and her victory.
She's an interesting character. She could be doing everything reluctantly out of a desire to feel special, to feel wanted, but the cruel elements of her methods would lean to it not being that simple.
RuinerPrime
Member
I mean, I love the world and its exploration, so I would love more content too. But as a movie consumed the way movies are often consumed, this one could have been tighter.
She did beat him.
Illogically NOT killing him was just weird.
Fuck, I completely forgot about that. She basically kissed then gutted K just like how Wallace kissed and gutted his imperfect new replicant. It'd also explain why she didn't finish him off, she tried to let him bleed out just like the other.
Luv not killing K at the climax? It was because she was worried about Deckard drowning.
She 'liked' K seemingly.
Shit, I didn't think even make that connection LOL. While I was watching the movie Luv's desire to be the best was clear enough but I didn't think of how else this is shown. The film didn't even need Luv to say that line about being the best.
tonysidaway
Member
K's serial number KD6-3·7 is apparently a tribute to Philip K Dick, but in the film he's often addressed as K. Joi says he needs a real name, and calls him Joe. Josef K is the protagonist of Franz Kafka's novel The Trial.
Pale Fire is a 1962 novel by Vladimir Nabokov. It's the source of the text K selects as his baseline test, and it's the only book shown in his sparsely furnished flat. The novel take the form of an autobiographical poem with added annotations by a friend and colleague of the deceased author, who believes that the poem is really about himself.
The title is from a line in Shakespeare's Timon of Athens: The moon's an arrant thief, And her pale fire she snatches from the sun.
Heckler456
Banned
Holy shit. Yeah, that explains that.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
She liked him.
Maybe this is the kind of film that improves upon rewatch, much like the original, but upon initial viewing I thought the film was middling at best. The pacing and the acting were the two low-points, but there were some neat (albeit well-trodden) sci-fi concepts and ideas.
That's my evaluation of the film on its own merits. As a Blade Runner sequel? Not even close to the original. This didn't have the film noir motifs, the vibrant use of color (lots of gray and brown and black in this one), the sense of wonderment at the world (in spite of the grime and squalor), or the gorgeous soundtrack.
One other thing: I've noticed that the a lot of modern sci-fi, if not a lot of modern storytelling in general, hinges on plot twists. So much of this movie is a build-up to twists. Compare that to the original film. It had a single plot twist that is so subtle and non-essential that many viewers miss it entirely. The original is enjoyable from the first dazzling opening shot and musical chord. I'm soaking the world in the entire time, not waiting for the next plot point to happen. The sequel lacked that. I was bored, frequently. And baffled at how sterile and dull the movie looked and sounded, because if there's one thing that nearly everyone appreciates about the original, it's the visuals and sound.
I liked last year's Arrival quite a bit, and 2049 is actually stylistically closer to that than Blade Runner, which makes sense I suppose. But I think Arrival benefited from a leaner budget and scope.
That's my evaluation of the film on its own merits. As a Blade Runner sequel? Not even close to the original. This didn't have the film noir motifs, the vibrant use of color (lots of gray and brown and black in this one), the sense of wonderment at the world (in spite of the grime and squalor), or the gorgeous soundtrack.
One other thing: I've noticed that the a lot of modern sci-fi, if not a lot of modern storytelling in general, hinges on plot twists. So much of this movie is a build-up to twists. Compare that to the original film. It had a single plot twist that is so subtle and non-essential that many viewers miss it entirely. The original is enjoyable from the first dazzling opening shot and musical chord. I'm soaking the world in the entire time, not waiting for the next plot point to happen. The sequel lacked that. I was bored, frequently. And baffled at how sterile and dull the movie looked and sounded, because if there's one thing that nearly everyone appreciates about the original, it's the visuals and sound.
I liked last year's Arrival quite a bit, and 2049 is actually stylistically closer to that than Blade Runner, which makes sense I suppose. But I think Arrival benefited from a leaner budget and scope.
Heckler456
Banned
Really? There was plenty of vibrant color. Just look at my new avatar.
Not so much, comedy is rooted in truth not honesty. If it rings true for people, they will find it funny.
Seductivpancakes
Member
That roof time rain scene made me feel feels. Could have turned into a romance movie, and I would have been fine with it.
jellies_two
Member
minor questions have been bugging me
why did Luv have tears when she killed the police chief
and what was the point of wallace slicing open the uterus of the new replicant ready for inspection while monologuing his frustration at not having the key.
what was the purpose of sticking a chip on his neck and the elaborate case of other chips, he couldn't wirelessly get information inside his own office?
why did Luv have tears when she killed the police chief
and what was the point of wallace slicing open the uterus of the new replicant ready for inspection while monologuing his frustration at not having the key.
what was the purpose of sticking a chip on his neck and the elaborate case of other chips, he couldn't wirelessly get information inside his own office?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll