the ink spots in the first one is one of the best parts though.
The ink spots?
the ink spots in the first one is one of the best parts though.
I'm not sure why she cried occasionally during the movie, but I thought her fight scene was unconvincing, she left K to die twice and it came back to bite her in the ass every time, and I suspected that she was covertly following her own agenda instead of just serving Leto's character
I typically hate when people say a movie was slow or boring but I think describing this movie as slow is warranted here. I love slow-paced movies. Kubrick is my favorite director. Barry Lyndon isn't slow. 2001 isn't slow to me either because there is always something interesting happening under the surface. Something about the slow, methodical pacing in this movie didn't sit well with me. Scenes of Gosling walking slowly seemed to go on endlessly and at times I wondered to myself why is this scene playing SO SLOW. What building mysterious thing is happening there that I'm missing? Maybe I was tired I don't know. But I did find that this movie was slow and the runtime got to me after a while.
I am still shocked how both this and Twin Peaks: The Return got near universal praise and acclaim.
This year is just on fire in terms of beloved franchise returns.
Philosophically we don't draw the line in the same place. I'm just not convinced Joi is a conscious entity. The threesome scene just reads like a computerized sex pal following its programming. But I suppose this is why we enjoy films like this, because they allow us to ponder and discuss the question of what consciousness is.
If consciousness is slippery, the concept of a soul (in the context of Blade Runner) seems even more elusive. I'd be unwilling to say that any of the replicants, or the androids in the novel for that matter, are distinguishable in any fundamental way from humans. To conjure up words like soul, it seems to me, is unhelpful.
And perhaps Joi is there to make us question deeper. Am I right to draw such a hard line between the nature of Joi and Joe? Joi is Turing's Imitation Game presented as a character in film. I don't know the answer. When philosophers talk about their concept of a zombie (p-zombie for short), I'm unable to decide whether or not I am a p-zombie.
mine did (largest one in Berlin). I never asked for thisCinemas put in breaks?
he'd have likely perished if it wasn't for the rebels, of which she had no knowledge of. The "still need him alive" thing is pure speculation, but I concede that you can reasonably come to this conclusionI thought she let him live because he was a "good dog", he was doing his detective job well and they could still have needed him to find the child. I mean he is the first person to find Deckard after 30 years. She had to hurt him to show who is the boss, but she needed him alive.
I can't get this movie's ending out of my head. The sadness in Ryan's eyes in the end, the moment of "peace" he has before his death coming to terms woth not being able to find humanity in himself, his soul so to say... I wanna rewatch the movie now jist so I can pay closer attention to his character arc.
Why was Deckard's daughter confined to that room again
he'd have likely perished if it wasn't for the rebels, of which she had no knowledge of. The "still need him alive" thing is pure speculation, but I concede that you can reasonably come to this conclusion
I found a bug on GAF?
If you click the post this poster quotes, it takes you to another thread from 2010...
Theres nothing wrong about a direct sequel.. but I wonder if this movie works without seeing the first. I love the original but the Deckard / Rachel / Daughter scenes still left me cold. I was way more interested in K and Joi.
IIRC immune disorder, which was why she could never go off-world. Which makes the replicants' hopes she would lead the revolution kinda ironic IMO.
Yeah this is the one thing everyone who hasn't seen the original yet will have to do it for. The Deckard/Rachel story is literally half the movie and I can't imagine enjoying it without being emotionally invested in it. My theater had a few people gasp when "she" showed up.I watched it without seeing the first. I didn't feel lost at all, but yeah you're right, I care a whole lot more for K and Joi than I did Deckard/rachel. Just a fascinating sci fi universe. We def need more movies like these and I hope we get something more in this universe.
Oh yeah, but his fatal wound wasn't caused by her but by the projectile from the explosion. We don't know if she knew about it. From her perspective she just beat him up.
She zoomed in on him and said "Get up and do your fucking job," it was pretty clear that she was trying to help him move forward.he'd have likely perished if it wasn't for the rebels, of which she had no knowledge of. The "still need him alive" thing is pure speculation, but I concede that you can reasonably come to this conclusion
I kinda felt that's what they told her so she'd stay put and be kept safe. Maybe I'm reaching.
True, but also at one point he thought he could be human, didn't he? That's why he had a breakdown when the Memory Maker told him he's having someone else's memories.I think the entire reason he helped Deckard at the end was to attain his humanity. As the film itself spells out, what could be more human?
She zoomed in on him and said "Get up and do your fucking job," it was pretty clear that she was trying to help him move forward.
I assumed it was an upgraded version of the tests deckard would do to determine if someone was human or replicant
True, but also at one point he thought he could be human, didn't he? That's why he had a breakdown when the Memory Maker told him he's having someone else's memories.
According to the New Yorker review the tests are based on the following fragment of verse from the 1962 novel Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov.
Cells interlinked within cells interlinked
Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct
Against the dark, a tall white fountain played.
Remember the Voight-Kampff test of the novel and the first film? That looked at physical reactions to shocking stimuli (in the context of a society in which birds, reptiles and mammals are nearly extinct and harming them is taboo) to measure the degree of empathy felt by the subject. Here the mechanism is probably similar, measuring response time, but they're testing a known replicant using the same standardised stimuli and responses, hence the baseline.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/blade-runner-2049-the-mysteries-deepen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Fire
The film was alright, story wasn't at all interesting for me but eh, don't have strong feelings either way. But my goodness, turn the sound dial down ffs, came out of the cinema with a headache from all the BWWWWWAAAARRRR sounds constantly.
I fucking loved this. Makes me wish I had seen it in IMAX.The film was alright, story wasn't at all interesting for me but eh, don't have strong feelings either way. But my goodness, turn the sound dial down ffs, came out of the cinema with a headache from all the BWWWWWAAAARRRR sounds constantly.
I simply adore the love scene, the projection of K's own desire and ideals upon an other person. Isn't that the description of what love is for many people? Reality and ideas and how they will never completely match up.
The film was alright, story wasn't at all interesting for me but eh, don't have strong feelings either way. But my goodness, turn the sound dial down ffs, came out of the cinema with a headache from all the BWWWWWAAAARRRR sounds constantly.
I think (her dialogue was very quiet on my screen) she said the disorder was discovered when her adopted family was tested for off-world readiness.
IIRC immune disorder, which was why she could never go off-world. Which makes the replicants' hopes she would lead the revolution kinda ironic IMO.
I agree, the natural born replicant storyline wasn't that interesting and Joe's/Joi's scenes were some of the best in the film.
Also, whenever a replicant was killed in the original, the film went out of its way to highlight the event's sadness. This did the same but I think they brush aside nu-Rachel's death way too quickly.
I think the entire reason he helped Deckard at the end was to attain his humanity. As the film itself spells out, what could be more human?
Ah, that makes more sense.that was when the car crashed near the orphanage, before he found Deckard. We're talking about the scene where Deckard tries to flee with his car and it's blown up, and she takes out K from behind after the shot the goons
Edit: I'll check tomorrow at work, but I think there's like a 4k/8k version of this on the WB press site.
That's right. She is told that she has a compromised immune system.
nu-Rachel's death is treated like nothing, because she is a fake. She's a soulless replicant, one that could be manufactured again. So, her death is meaningless, and treated as such.
Also, Ana de Armas was BRILLIANT in this movie. Like holy shit.
This is 100% right. The Replicants wanted K to KILL Deckard, so that he would not lead Wallace and his people to the child.
Instead, K died fighting for what he wanted, his mission, to unite Deckard with his daughter. It was a brilliant twist and character moment, and it made the fight in the submerged vehicle much more impactful, because I did not know if K wanted to kill Deckard or save him.
Yeah. Saw it in an Imax and the score was pissing me off. Hans Zimmer just doesn't fit in the Blade Runner universe, it was so distracting and annoying. Really brought down the whole experience for me.The film was alright, story wasn't at all interesting for me but eh, don't have strong feelings either way. But my goodness, turn the sound dial down ffs, came out of the cinema with a headache from all the BWWWWWAAAARRRR sounds constantly.
There are two (or more) people in a human relationship, and they converge to accommodate one another. Joi's lack of autonomy is fairly pronounced, and this is signalled somewhat by the fifties clichés in some of the projected imagery. She's just not there. It's all in Joe's mind.
Which is a Very Bad Thing when you're supposed to care about replicant/natural-born human relations, yet the most emotionally-resonant scenes revolve around a toy. It's all terribly tone-deaf (the scenes were nicely done, but yeesh).I agree, the natural born replicant storyline wasn't that interesting and Joe's/Joi's scenes were some of the best in the film.
The sound mix was seriously bizarre. Turning up the volume of those classic moody themes isn't going to magically turn them into dramatic action score.The film was alright, story wasn't at all interesting for me but eh, don't have strong feelings either way. But my goodness, turn the sound dial down ffs, came out of the cinema with a headache from all the BWWWWWAAAARRRR sounds constantly.
There's no such thing as a soulless replicant. That had more to do with her being a gimmick and not a character.nu-Rachel's death is treated like nothing, because she is a fake. She's a soulless replicant, one that could be manufactured again. So, her death is meaningless, and treated as such.
I need to see this again
There's no such thing as a soulless replicant. That had more to do with her being a gimmick and not a character.
Exactly. The idea of any replicants being disposable (from an audience POV) goes completely against what the films are about. While nu-Rachel served her purpose well, it did come across as a short gimmick.
I kinda felt that's what they told her so she'd stay put and be kept safe. Maybe I'm reaching.
Exactly. The idea of any replicants being disposable (from an audience POV) goes completely against what the films are about. While nu-Rachel served her purpose well, it did come across as a short gimmick.
Which is a Very Bad Thing™ when you're supposed to care about replicant/natural-born human relations, yet the most emotionally-resonant scenes revolve around a toy. It's all terribly tone-deaf (the scenes were nicely done, but yeesh).
The sound mix was seriously bizarre. Turning up the volume of those classic moody themes isn't going to magically turn them into dramatic action score.
There's no such thing as a soulless replicant. That had more to do with her being a gimmick and not a character.
Exactly. The idea of any replicants being disposable (from an audience POV) goes completely against what the films are about. While nu-Rachel served her purpose well, it did come across as a short gimmick.
the audience isn't supposed to see the replicants as soulless, it's showing that wallace treats them that way, no?
Which is a Very Bad Thing™ when you're supposed to care about replicant/natural-born human relations, yet the most emotionally-resonant scenes revolve around a toy. It's all terribly tone-deaf (the scenes were nicely done, but yeesh).
Holy fuck Wallace was creepy.
I thought it was brilliant. The most human characters were both artificial.
What was Wallace tempting Deckard with exactly by reanimating Rachel?