Blade Runner 2049 is an upcoming American neo-noir science fiction film directed by Denis Villeneuve and written by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green. It is the sequel to Blade Runner, starring Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, who is reprising his role as Rick Deckard, with Ana de Armas, Jared Leto, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James and Dave Bautista in supporting roles. The film is set for release in the United States on October 6, 2017 wiki
35 years after the legendary Bladerunner we will (finally) get a sequel. The official trailer dropped today and it looks promising. What do you guys think?
i think its really cool that the original Blade Runner was set in 2018 and we're almost there. All those failed predictions about amazing space travel capabilities in the 1970s are giving the flat earthers something of a victory.
Will in all likelyhood not be be able to even remotely touch the first one but I'll definately watch, should be atleast a visually interesting blockbuster
On May 09 2017 06:48 AngryMag wrote: Will in all likelyhood not be be able to even remotely touch the first one but I'll definately watch, should be atleast a visually interesting blockbuster
i think one of the things that made Blade Runner stand out and develop a cult following in its era is that it was so different in theme and tone from your standard big budget sci-fi movie. In that era it was all hugs, kisses and happy endings with a crystal clear vision of good and evil.
To me Blade Runner feels like one of those films that very much doesn't need any kind of sequel. The film is eerie and asks more questions than gives direct answers. I don't think there's much to add to it without somehow tainting the original in the process. I'd love to have thoughtful scifi in the spirit of the original, but looks like they're building a very direct sequel with Harrison Ford and all. Jared Leto doing another seemingly weird/mysterious character doesn't seem too original either.
The trailer doesn't look awful even if a little overblown in action, but I find it very hard to get excited about this nevertheless.
lots of interesting predictions of future technology in the original but they didn't see the whole anti-smoking thing sweeping through every level of government from municipal to state to federal.
On May 09 2017 17:08 Bacillus wrote: I don't think there's much to add to it without somehow tainting the original in the process. I'd love to have thoughtful scifi in the spirit of the original, but looks like they're building a very direct sequel with Harrison Ford and all.
when you say "original" do you mean the version released to theatres in 1982 that had Harrison Ford narrating? or 1 of the several altered endings that came out 10+ years later on special DVD revisions of the 1982 movie?
i think the decades long war over "artistic vision" going on between Ridley Scott and whoever the executive producers were has already tainted the original.
Personally i don't quite understand why people are always against sequels/more stories in the same universe. You can totally tell a lot of interesting stories in the same one, it's all about the quality of the writing.
if Harrison Ford as Deckard is still alive in 2049 then i guess he is not a replicant. in 1 of the alternate endings it is strongly suggested he is. i think Ridley Scott wanted him to be a replicant.
if you look at how campy and totally fucking crap detectives were in that era with guys like "Lieutenant Columbo", "Magnum PI", and "Jim Rockford" i'd say this movie is as innovative to the detective story as Led Zeppelin was to 60s hearts-and-flowers free-love formulaic-Beatles music.
The war between Ridley Scott and his employers gave the Blade Runner mythos an extra dimension over several decades that can't be manufactured.
how many Hollywood movies made before 1982 has 2 guys engaged in a deep kiss?
"is this testing whether i'm a Replicant ... or a lesbian Mr. Deckard"
On May 09 2017 17:08 Bacillus wrote: I don't think there's much to add to it without somehow tainting the original in the process. I'd love to have thoughtful scifi in the spirit of the original, but looks like they're building a very direct sequel with Harrison Ford and all.
when you say "original" do you mean the version released to theatres in 1982 that had Harrison Ford narrating? or 1 of the several altered endings that came out 10+ years later on special DVD revisions of the 1982 movie?
i think the decades long war over "artistic vision" going on between Ridley Scott and whoever the executive producers were has already tainted the original.
Yeah. You have a point in some way. I've been quite fortunate to only see the final cut. Nevertheless, there's still a big difference between slight variations of a cut and building around a totally new storyline in addition to the original.
On May 09 2017 22:12 The_Red_Viper wrote: Personally i don't quite understand why people are always against sequels/more stories in the same universe. You can totally tell a lot of interesting stories in the same one, it's all about the quality of the writing.
Many movies are just fine with sequels. Star Wars and even Indiana Jones are suited for that kind of stuff just fine. Meanwhile Blade Runner was left vague on purpose and it works better because of that.
I'd be totally fine with another film set in Blade Runner universe. There's plenty of interesting stuff to explore. Meanwhile the story of Deckard is exactly where it should be at the end of Blade Runner, it's very hard to see what kind of meaningful thing they could add to it without breaking the intentionally undisclosed storylines in multiple places.
Quality writing can stand just fine on its own too. Meanwhile a sequel to a film that very much doesn't need one reeks of lack of creativity in many ways. I do hope I'm wrong, but at this point it's kind of like Led Zeppelin suddenly released Stairway to Heaven part 2.
i don't think the variation between the 1982 theatrical release and the final cut can be considered "slight". its a substantial departure from the original.
in the theatrical release Deckard is not a replicant. in 1 of the various DVD DIrector's Cuts Deckard is a replicant. specifically the line by Rachel "have you ever taken that test yourself" never appears in the theatrical version. Also, in the theatrical release Deckard/Ford narrates throughout the movie. It changes the movie substantially.
of course, constantly teasing an alternate ending that shows Deckard as a replicant drives up DVD sales and causes lots of activity among the cult following the movie/franchise has.
On May 10 2017 09:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i don't think the variation between the 1982 theatrical release and the final cut can be considered "slight". its a substantial departure from the original.
in the theatrical release Deckard is not a replicant. in 1 of the various DVD DIrector's Cuts Deckard is a replicant. specifically the line by Rachel "have you ever taken that test yourself" never appears in the theatrical version. Also, in the theatrical release Deckard/Ford narrates throughout the movie. It changes the movie substantially.
of course, constantly teasing an alternate ending that shows Deckard as a replicant drives up DVD sales and causes lots of activity among the cult following the movie/franchise has.
Fair enough. I'm very much grasping the straws without having seen the different cuts.
Is it actually implied in the theater cut that Deckard isn't a replicant? The cut I've seen has quite strong suggestion of him being one through the unicorn connection at least, but even there it's never confirmed all the way.
In the book he isn't, as far as I've understood. I do wonder what kind of canon the new film has.
Director Denis Villeneuve has been very ambiguous about which version of Blade Runner (1982) is used as canon for his sequel
Yeah not pissing fans off is more important nowadays than creative clear writing <.<
I agree to Bacillus, I vastly prefer new stories set in an interesting settings over sequels to told stories. You don't need to retcon, you don't need to make a modern movie with old characters. The problem with Rogue one was the execution of the characters and story, not that the setting didn't work.
I get that people like characters and want to see them again, but Deckard was more of a blank identification character anyways. Telling a shadow runner-esque story in the setting could definitely work f.e..
I also dislike a sequel for the things that are associated with blade runner, the old movie has asked it's questions about sentient AI. I'm not sure how you do a philosophical story in the same setting without replicating it.
Animated short which is supposed to be between original and new. It's directed by the same guy who directed Cowboy Bebop, so there's that. Blade Runner 2022 If the movie will be of similar quality, I'm not sure how worth it it'll be.
it was a super gorgeous movie that had a lot in common with the original and carried a great atmosphere. however i just can't picture deckard's character ever having a child and i feel that they created this relationship between him and rachel out of thin air
Didn't watch it yet (hopefully soon!) but all the reviews are really positive so far. The ones i trust most also seem to agree that it's a really good movie, i am hyped!
Gorgeous movie with evocative shots and does a great job of building a dystopia where life is eroding away. The city presents itself with all the neon signs in Asian languages and holograms advertising as you expect. I thought the performances were great, but the plot left a lot more to desire. Wallace didn't feel like a complete character who had a proper end, and just why does K have the memories of Deckard's daughter?
The ending wasn't like the first BR, which left long-lingering questions about the characters. In this one, I was just wondering why it felt like such sequel bait with the revolution left hanging and Wallace's fate. I enjoyed it as a visual spectacle, but I didn't feel so enthusiastic about the narrative.
Gorgeous movie with evocative shots and does a great job of building a dystopia where life is eroding away. The city presents itself with all the neon signs in Asian languages and holograms advertising as you expect. I thought the performances were great, but the plot left a lot more to desire. Wallace didn't feel like a complete character who had a proper end, and just why does K have the memories of Deckard's daughter?
The ending wasn't like the first BR, which left long-lingering questions about the characters. In this one, I was just wondering why it felt like such sequel bait with the revolution left hanging and Wallace's fate. I enjoyed it as a visual spectacle, but I didn't feel so enthusiastic about the narrative.
K has the memories of deckard’s daughter because she was unintentionally creating them for K. She alluded to this when she was explaining the creator always puts a bit of themselves in to it.
Wallace was awfully wordy in both of his scenes (I only counted 2 in a 3 hour movie) and would’ve been better having said nothing
I don’t think it’s sequel bait because the revolution isn’t interesting and, more importantly, it doesn’t fit bladerunner storytelling. It’s the same reason the first matrix movie is the only good one. The revolution itself isn’t interesting, it’s the psych / social issues with replicants that are cool and unique. Also walllace isn’t a character so they can’t build a sequel off him.
I think the narrative was decidedly straight forward because the original was decidedly straight forward. Seemed like a homage choice to me. The only difference this time was the flashbacks / reminding us over and over again of key points... but that’s a Hollywood movie for you nowadays. I think they do the original justice in keeping deckard’s identity ambiguous, cause the “miracle” works either way.
Also, in restrospect, the ending makes K a really interesting character because he is quite literally nobody in the grand scheme of things. it’s easy to forget because he is the focal character, but it actually makes the whole story a lot more complex if you think of the implications for how an entire society of similar beings could act (as he is one of many) and it turns out there is nothing unique about him (he’s not the “miracle” child). I actually think the little glimpses we get of the revolutionaries weakens this impact and it would’ve been better left as rumor or alluded to.
Overall, I think it is a good sci fi film and a great homage to the original. It’s weakened by a bad villain and some “spell-it-out-to-them-cause-it’s-2017-and-they’re-stupid”-style narrative flashbacks.
This movie was a joy to watch. It blends in with the first one quite seamlessly (both in terms of visuals and mood) and like its predecessor it poses a lot of questions without actually providing any answers. And the questions it asks are not trivial ones either.
Gorgeous movie with evocative shots and does a great job of building a dystopia where life is eroding away. The city presents itself with all the neon signs in Asian languages and holograms advertising as you expect. I thought the performances were great, but the plot left a lot more to desire. Wallace didn't feel like a complete character who had a proper end, and just why does K have the memories of Deckard's daughter?
The ending wasn't like the first BR, which left long-lingering questions about the characters. In this one, I was just wondering why it felt like such sequel bait with the revolution left hanging and Wallace's fate. I enjoyed it as a visual spectacle, but I didn't feel so enthusiastic about the narrative.
K has the memories of deckard’s daughter because she was unintentionally creating them for K. She alluded to this when she was explaining the creator always puts a bit of themselves in to it.
Wallace was awfully wordy in both of his scenes (I only counted 2 in a 3 hour movie) and would’ve been better having said nothing
I don’t think it’s sequel bait because the revolution isn’t interesting and, more importantly, it doesn’t fit bladerunner storytelling. It’s the same reason the first matrix movie is the only good one. The revolution itself isn’t interesting, it’s the psych / social issues with replicants that are cool and unique. Also walllace isn’t a character so they can’t build a sequel off him.
I think the narrative was decidedly straight forward because the original was decidedly straight forward. Seemed like a homage choice to me. The only difference this time was the flashbacks / reminding us over and over again of key points... but that’s a Hollywood movie for you nowadays. I think they do the original justice in keeping deckard’s identity ambiguous, cause the “miracle” works either way.
Also, in restrospect, the ending makes K a really interesting character because he is quite literally nobody in the grand scheme of things. it’s easy to forget because he is the focal character, but it actually makes the whole story a lot more complex if you think of the implications for how an entire society of similar beings could act (as he is one of many) and it turns out there is nothing unique about him (he’s not the “miracle” child). I actually think the little glimpses we get of the revolutionaries weakens this impact and it would’ve been better left as rumor or alluded to.
Overall, I think it is a good sci fi film and a great homage to the original. It’s weakened by a bad villain and some “spell-it-out-to-them-cause-it’s-2017-and-they’re-stupid”-style narrative flashbacks.
On one hand, I wouldn't have understood some of these points without the "spelled out flashback", maybe later but certainly not on the spot. I'm pretty dense about that. For all these people watching the movie, making sure they make the connections and get the point is pretty important. On the other hand, I can't help but think the movie would be better, more elegant, without them. So it's a bit of the classic artsy question "do you want your movie to be understood by the people who're going to be exposed to it, or do you want to keep it 'purer' if less accessible?" I think I'd rather they didn't spell it out and I'd just have to get it explained to me later.
I'm with you on K's role in the ending. I didn't really see it that way before I saw you mention it, though. The part where he reappropriates the motto "what's the most human thing we can do if not sacrifice ourselves to a cause?" from "Deckard would agree to die to protect us and our revolution" to "K is ready to die to allow Deckard to meet his daughter" was pretty apparent; same with the reasoning he gets from Joi's avatar that makes him value "true" connections and ties with real beings, hence his "devotion" to that cause of Deckard. But I hadn't reframed it as K being a nobody.
The point about AIs and engineered feelings and non-people felt pretty ham-fisted, though. It's there as a counterpoint to the flesh and blood relationship between Deckart and his daughter, and that kind of love that doesn't need proximity or being spelt out, so I understand it in a way. But it kind of felt like they developed the theme of whether an artificial intelligence can develop and experience feelings too, in parallel of whether an artifical human can, only to stamp it out during that bridge scene, as if they'd built it up to strengthen their ultimate denial of it. In the end the theme felt more alluded to than really fleshed out—which makes sense considering the expressed opinion about it, but it got the short end of the stick regardless.
Points I disliked were Wallace, and Deckart being the father of Rachel's child. Wallace seemed to be written as the philosophical/intellectuel villain there to spout words and seem charismatic, but came out as vain in a way that undermined anything he was supposed to express. Not that his points were great obviously, but I didn't even need a villain in the movie, so getting one dressed up specifically as such, and not much else, was a bit of waste, and an unteresting character. "Rachel" having a defect rather than seeing Deckart's reaction to her and potentially making another point regarding engineered/artificial people (especially before the AI one, by pointing that such people could be mass-produced just the same) would have been more interesting imo. And the point about Deckart being a father in a relationship with Rachel was already laid out. I'd add that the movie definitely pushes the idea of him as a replicant though, be it the "engineered role" speech from Wallace, the allusions by the revolutionaries about how things went, etc.
The final "fight" felt sluggish, and not in a good way. The scene was too long, and aside from pointing how durable replicants are I didn't get much for all that fighting after they both take a bullet (K in the belly, Luv in the torso iirc). The ending felt like a succession of scenes at times, and that one being so long didn't help it. I don't need Luv to be The Terminator for her to illustrate a point about devoted servants. One thing I didn't get though was Luv's kiss to K. I see her comment "I am the best one" a pertaining to their confrontation in general rather then the fight just concluded, and her being obedient while he's going against what's been asked of him. Was it to mock emotions and feelings that are generally attached to kisses?
As others have said, the visuals are excellent and really lay out an atmosphere for the movie, while also being a callback to the original. I'm not going to say I'm very fond of the OST, but the music did well in its background parts; it was too noisy at times (which detracted from the scenes because of the sudden volume differences) but that may be coming from the cinema I watched it at.
Blade Runner 2049 was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Nearly three hours of nothing but blaring music. I actually fell asleep in the theater for a bit, which is something I've never done before. Both my wife and I hated it, and agreed that this movie (a sequel) did not do the original any justice whatsoever. It was as dead and emotionless as Ryan Gosling's face.
Just now I'm learning that it was a box office flop. Not at all surprising.
On October 09 2017 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blade Runner 2049 was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Nearly three hours of nothing but blaring music. I actually fell asleep in the theater for a bit, which is something I've never done before. Both my wife and I hated it, and agreed that this movie (a sequel) did not do the original any justice whatsoever. It was as dead and emotionless as Ryan Gosling's face.
Just now I'm learning that it was a box office flop. Not at all surprising.
First one was a huge box office flop too.
Edit:
I think that this movie is a bit ahead of its curve. Just like the first one. It took some time for people to realize what it actually was and appreciate it. It's not a true Hollywood movie. The amount of intricacies weaved into it are amazing. It's a multi-layered spectacle and I keep discovering more and more about it. Even freaking release date is meaningful for this movie. Time will tell.
Still, the best movie this year has to be Dunkirk. This one could be there as well but some minor flaws prevent it from achieving stellar status.
Blade runner is an awesome movie. To each his or her own right? You like it or you don't right? No, not really, some movies are art, they change cinema.. change the world...
i don't judge people saying they did not like it, they just don't know better and that's fine. That's the particularity with old stuff, seeing it 30 years later completely out of context makes no sense, you have to relate to who was meant to see it (kind of like a job with hardship and mostly hits and misses). Go see silent Chaplin movies (which are art), be convinced that you could not possibly see how important those movies are and then go back to look at stuff you loved, stuff you hated.. you will possibly enjoy this drive down memory lane and maybe you will still like movies and want to decipher/feel movies and rate them from then on, maybe not.
Movies are usually a laxative to people, nothing more. They wish to feel "other", feel good, have fun (whatever) but not really be hurt, be changed by the experience. While most movies are sh t, some are not, some are even masterpieces and change the world.
i hate the idea to sequel a great movie, but that is based on stupid notions i have and i know it. i will gladly watch this movie (the sequel) which is not meant for me. Yes, i'm too old to appreciate movies made in 2016, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The ideas you get from a movie, the feelings you feel after seeing a great movie is like a memory you are fond of from way back.. so far back that you change that memory year after year (convincing yourself more and more of what you want to feel/know), you love it / hate it and change it to allow yourself a "stable" introspective self comfort.
We change stuff and stuff changes us.
Ridley scott is a good director and sometimes a great one. What happens after he's done with a movie is inconsequential, you love that movie or hate it and it becomes yours. That there is a market for a sequel is as inconsequential.
i freely admit that it will be "harder" for me to invest in the sequel, i'm afraid it will change the fondness i have for this memory/feeling/invented life the first movie made exist. Maybe it will elevate the movie, maybe ruin it.. funny thing is it has more to do with the rest of my life (feeling good or bad, being wounded, being overflowed with anguish about the mountain of things i'm involved in etc) and the movie's task is obviously made harder for it.
i write stories and i feel there is important stuff to get out there, and bull sh t.. and possibly grey stuff in the middle sometimes. i got more and more sick with the movies in the last decade, how lame and empty they are, just how dumb/juvenile/apathetic the developers think their audiences are, worse just how lame the end products are (even with good directors at the helm). So i guess i'm doomed, i'll watch it on a comp screen and even if it is to my taste, i will probably search for all that is bad instead of giving it my all for it to succeed. While movies are meant to satisfy, they need their customer to allow themselves to be as open as they possibly can (that hardly ever happens really, but the will to do it is a start!).
By the way, so nice to have spoilers in place, thank you for people not spoiling the sequel like the teaser/trailers spoil stuff these days.
ps: if you have not seen blade runner, you should see it.
On October 09 2017 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blade Runner 2049 was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Nearly three hours of nothing but blaring music. I actually fell asleep in the theater for a bit, which is something I've never done before. Both my wife and I hated it, and agreed that this movie (a sequel) did not do the original any justice whatsoever. It was as dead and emotionless as Ryan Gosling's face.
Just now I'm learning that it was a box office flop. Not at all surprising.
First one was a huge box office flop too.
Edit:
I think that this movie is a bit ahead of its curve. Just like the first one. It took some time for people to realize what it actually was and appreciate it. It's not a true Hollywood movie. The amount of intricacies weaved into it are amazing. It's a multi-layered spectacle and I keep discovering more and more about it. Even freaking release date is meaningful for this movie. Time will tell.
Still, the best movie this year has to be Dunkirk. This one could be there as well but some minor flaws prevent it from achieving stellar status.
at a very basic level, BR2049 reminds me of inception but not dumbed down.
100% agreed on dunkirk though, i don't think i've ever been so invested in a movie.
On October 09 2017 17:00 fluidrone wrote: Blade runner is an awesome movie. To each his or her own right? You like it or you don't right? No, not really, some movies are art, they change cinema.. change the world...
i don't judge people saying they did not like it, they just don't know better and that's fine. That's the particularity with old stuff, seeing it 30 years later completely out of context makes no sense, you have to relate to who was meant to see it (kind of like a job with hardship and mostly hits and misses). Go see silent Chaplin movies (which are art), be convinced that you could not possibly see how important those movies are and then go back to look at stuff you loved, stuff you hated.. you will possibly enjoy this drive down memory lane and maybe you will still like movies and want to decipher/feel movies and rate them from then on, maybe not.
Movies are usually a laxative to people, nothing more. They wish to feel "other", feel good, have fun (whatever) but not really be hurt, be changed by the experience. While most movies are sh t, some are not, some are even masterpieces and change the world.
i hate the idea to sequel a great movie, but that is based on stupid notions i have and i know it. i will gladly watch this movie (the sequel) which is not meant for me. Yes, i'm too old to appreciate movies made in 2016, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The ideas you get from a movie, the feelings you feel after seeing a great movie is like a memory you are fond of from way back.. so far back that you change that memory year after year (convincing yourself more and more of what you want to feel/know), you love it / hate it and change it to allow yourself a "stable" introspective self comfort.
We change stuff and stuff changes us.
Ridley scott is a good director and sometimes a great one. What happens after he's done with a movie is inconsequential, you love that movie or hate it and it becomes yours. That there is a market for a sequel is as inconsequential.
i freely admit that it will be "harder" for me to invest in the sequel, i'm afraid it will change the fondness i have for this memory/feeling/invented life the first movie made exist. Maybe it will elevate the movie, maybe ruin it.. funny thing is it has more to do with the rest of my life (feeling good or bad, being wounded, being overflowed with anguish about the mountain of things i'm involved in etc) and the movie's task is obviously made harder for it.
i write stories and i feel there is important stuff to get out there, and bull sh t.. and possibly grey stuff in the middle sometimes. i got more and more sick with the movies in the last decade, how lame and empty they are, just how dumb/juvenile/apathetic the developers think their audiences are, worse just how lame the end products are (even with good directors at the helm). So i guess i'm doomed, i'll watch it on a comp screen and even if it is to my taste, i will probably search for all that is bad instead of giving it my all for it to succeed. While movies are meant to satisfy, they need their customer to allow themselves to be as open as they possibly can (that hardly ever happens really, but the will to do it is a start!).
By the way, so nice to have spoilers in place, thank you for people not spoiling the sequel like the teaser/trailers spoil stuff these days.
ps: if you have not seen blade runner, you should see it.
I loved the original Blade Runner even with all its flaws (it'a a beautiful movie but not very good one when it comes down to plot and pacing). I think this "sequel" is actually better than the original because it takes all the good parts from it and fixes all the bad parts. The attention to detail in it is quite astounding too.
I absolutely loved it. Funny how some people can say it was amazingly boring and long when to me I wish it went on even longer. I just loved the world it created. It also had a relatively simple story that was woven nicely and it left you with some stuff to think about. Really the only part I didn't like was Jared Leto being his typical annoying pretentious self.
If you can, see it in IMAX. This movie and Dunkirk are enhanced so much by having such an immersive experience.
Why the hell did the bad replicant lady leave K alive for after they took Deckard? I mean yeah maybe he was in bad shape and would have died without help, but leaving any sort of thread loose definitely wasnt her style
On October 10 2017 11:55 DannyJ wrote: I absolutely loved it. Funny how some people can say it was amazingly boring and long when to me I wish it went on even longer. I just loved the world it created. It also had a relatively simple story that was woven nicely and it left you with some stuff to think about. Really the only part I didn't like was Jared Leto being his typical annoying pretentious self.
If you can, see it in IMAX. This movie and Dunkirk are enhanced so much by having such an immersive experience.
Why the hell did the bad replicant lady leave K alive for after they took Deckard? I mean yeah maybe he was in bad shape and would have died without help, but leaving any sort of thread loose definitely wasnt her style
She went to save Deckard who was close to drowning. She needed him alive.
Edit: Oh, I thought you meant near the end, when they were fighting. Previously she left him because she didn't think he would make it I believe. She was also arrogant as hell so it fit her "Witness my glory!" attitude and character.
On October 10 2017 11:55 DannyJ wrote: I absolutely loved it. Funny how some people can say it was amazingly boring and long when to me I wish it went on even longer. I just loved the world it created. It also had a relatively simple story that was woven nicely and it left you with some stuff to think about. Really the only part I didn't like was Jared Leto being his typical annoying pretentious self.
If you can, see it in IMAX. This movie and Dunkirk are enhanced so much by having such an immersive experience.
Why the hell did the bad replicant lady leave K alive for after they took Deckard? I mean yeah maybe he was in bad shape and would have died without help, but leaving any sort of thread loose definitely wasnt her style
She went to save Deckard who was close to drowning. She needed him alive.
Edit: Oh, I thought you meant near the end, when they were fighting. Previously she left him because she didn't think he would make it I believe. She was also arrogant as hell so it fit her "Witness my glory!" attitude and character.
This goes back to their first meeting where he's searching for clues about rachel after the autopsy of the bones in the box. She tries to flirt with him, but he rejects her. She asks something personal, showing that she too is lonely, but i can remember what ecactly.
On October 13 2017 13:33 DucK- wrote: Do I need or should I watch the original before this movie?
2049 stands up pretty well on its own, but the original still greatly enhances the sequel through plot references and thematic parallels. It felt like 70-80% of 2049 was dealing with its own plot and characters, but the references to the original were nice when they popped up. I'd suggest getting a hold of The Final Cut version of the original if you watch it. Also, there are three official short films on Youtube that were released leading up to 2049, and they provide interesting but optional exposition and background to the movie.
I personally saw Blade Runner (The Final Cut) and the three short films right before heading to the theater to watch 2049. I thought that was a cool way to experience the franchise.
Saw it yesterday. I have to say it left me a bit underwhelmed, but I'm grasping a few things more now at least. The original definitely hit me harder at first, but we'll see whether this is a slower grower.
I saw it pretty tired and it was in 3D, so maybe I also missed interesting stuff. A few questions:
Was is ever explained why Wallace couldn't create reproducing replicants? I do somewhat understand using it as a setup for the questions about nature of humanity and all that, but from a scifi viewpoint it was pretty confusing. The replicants are superhuman in many ways already, how is the reproduction such a mystery?
What was the "her eyes were green" part about? I do understand again Deckart bluffing or being able to tell the difference, but how does the whole idea of cloning Rachael and then possibly getting that wrong or buying the bluff work?
Didn't K consider the wooden horse memory could've been implanted into his head from somewhere else despite it apparenlty being a genuine memory?
He instantly seemed to assume it's his memory since you're not supposed to use genuine memories as implants, but didn't he ever even consider some kind of foul play? Was it just that he wanted to believe in his own memory so much?
How do you feel about the water in the film? I think raindrops turning into unique snowflakes makes quite a lot of sense in themes of individuality and free will and all that. A body of water could be considered a faceless mass of individuals.
However, it's being used pretty liberally around Wallace and in the final convoy encouter. Does it have some additional significance I'm not grasping?
What was the "her eyes were green" part about? I do understand again Deckart bluffing or being able to tell the difference, but how does the whole idea of cloning Rachael and then possibly getting that wrong or buying the bluff work?
Didn't K consider the wooden horse memory could've been implanted into his head from somewhere else despite it apparenlty being a genuine memory?
He instantly seemed to assume it's his memory since you're not supposed to use genuine memories as implants, but didn't he ever even consider some kind of foul play? Was it just that he wanted to believe in his own memory so much?
2. I think Deckard was just implying that she could never be the same as his original.
3. I also felt he jumped to that conclusion far too quickly, seemed pretty obvious to me that it wasn't, with the way the scientist said it,
My opinion on the film in general is that it is best left standing on its own. Can it measure up to the first Blade Runner in any way? Hell no. Especially considering the external factors that made the first so great (the culture of the time it was released etc.) But it was a good movie. That is how people should watch it I feel. No need to worry about the original, just enjoy this movie for what it is.
What was the "her eyes were green" part about? I do understand again Deckart bluffing or being able to tell the difference, but how does the whole idea of cloning Rachael and then possibly getting that wrong or buying the bluff work?
Didn't K consider the wooden horse memory could've been implanted into his head from somewhere else despite it apparenlty being a genuine memory?
He instantly seemed to assume it's his memory since you're not supposed to use genuine memories as implants, but didn't he ever even consider some kind of foul play? Was it just that he wanted to believe in his own memory so much?
2. I think Deckard was just implying that she could never be the same as his original.
Yeah. I felt they could've referred to something about shared memories or something similar. For example the Joi storyline revolves a lot about bonding through shared experiences rather than just having the 'out of the store' version of her.
I can definitely think up motivations, but the exact words sort of confuse me there.
The movie was a beautiful experience audio-visually, but the story and characters were a mixed bag. I liked what they did with K (and with his virtual GF), but the two main villains were really cheesy (The female one was basically a cartoon character), and some of the side characters weren't that great either. It's also typical of highbrow Hollywood sci-fi in presenting some old played-out philosophy as though it was new and interesting.
Still well worth a watch for the experience - the interplay of colours, shot-composition, sounds effects, music, etc, was *really* good.
I agree with 95% of gravity's post. I thought Leto was good as a "villain" but could have been given more. If you don't watch the character shorts for 3 of the characters and the anime, it'll be a bit confusing. But if you watch those, it all makes sense when they are presented on screen. I felt like the additional content that was released prior to the movie being in theaters helps fill in some blanks that could have appeared.
Fantastic movie. It's really drastic how a well written piece of art can make the original Blade Runner seem even more shallow in hindsight. While the original is certainly restricted by the time it was made in, this is another instance where Ridley Scott comes off as a director who's simply too full of himself. He's such a hit or miss director. More misses, the older he gets.
Bladerunner 2049 doesn't have to hide behind Westworld. While Westworld had thrice the time to tell a deeper story, Blade Runner 2049 is filled with great ideas, actual depth instead of the nostalgic depth that fanboys contribute to the original Blade Runner, great visuals in CGI, costume and set design. Impressive audioexperience, good and interesting actors.
Gosling gets a lot of screentime, which is well deserved by a really good performance, but if i had to mention one criticism it is that i would have liked to seen some of the other roles being filled out a bit more with more screentime. Hell, Avon Barksdale was in it for a handful of seconds. What a pleasant surprise.
I think Blade Runner 2049 does a better job of exploring what it means to be alive (and even human) than Westworld does. The reason why is that Blade Runner 2049 is more about being a portrait of a replicant than anything else. The larger plot is almost entirely collateral except insofar as it delivers additional characters whom we can compare and contrast with K.
Really liked the movie, the look is incredible, Gosling and Ford play really well and it's close enough to the original to work but different enough that it still feels different. I also really liked the pacing, I agree that the story is more a pretense about being alive though, but that is a very interesting approach to storytelling imo. + Show Spoiler +
I didn't really like the giant Joy-scene at the end though. Joy was ambivalent before by design, I didnt like that they moved back on that ambivalence later on. Also the "rebellion" came a bit out of nowhere and didnt really have any influence outside of pushing him to the final scene that he might have done anyways.
On October 16 2017 20:58 Bacillus wrote: Saw it yesterday. I have to say it left me a bit underwhelmed, but I'm grasping a few things more now at least. The original definitely hit me harder at first, but we'll see whether this is a slower grower.
I saw it pretty tired and it was in 3D, so maybe I also missed interesting stuff. A few questions:
Was is ever explained why Wallace couldn't create reproducing replicants? I do somewhat understand using it as a setup for the questions about nature of humanity and all that, but from a scifi viewpoint it was pretty confusing. The replicants are superhuman in many ways already, how is the reproduction such a mystery?
How do you feel about the water in the film? I think raindrops turning into unique snowflakes makes quite a lot of sense in themes of individuality and free will and all that. A body of water could be considered a faceless mass of individuals.
However, it's being used pretty liberally around Wallace and in the final convoy encouter. Does it have some additional significance I'm not grasping?
I think the data was damaged because of the blackout and considering the replicants in BR1 I think their creator was rather experimental and created every model in an unique way.
I think water is often also about pressure and depression. The Joy-scene which gets referenced at the end is basically the only scene where getting wet was a sign of being alive/experiencing things.
On October 25 2017 06:14 Archeon wrote: Really liked the movie, the look is incredible, Gosling and Ford play really well and it's close enough to the original to work but different enough that it still feels different. I also really liked the pacing, I agree that the story is more a pretense about being alive though, but that is a very interesting approach to storytelling imo. + Show Spoiler +
I didn't really like the giant Joy-scene at the end though. Joy was ambivalent before by design, I didnt like that they moved back on that ambivalence later on. Also the "rebellion" came a bit out of nowhere and didnt really have any influence outside of pushing him to the final scene that he might have done anyways.
On October 16 2017 20:58 Bacillus wrote: Saw it yesterday. I have to say it left me a bit underwhelmed, but I'm grasping a few things more now at least. The original definitely hit me harder at first, but we'll see whether this is a slower grower.
I saw it pretty tired and it was in 3D, so maybe I also missed interesting stuff. A few questions:
Was is ever explained why Wallace couldn't create reproducing replicants? I do somewhat understand using it as a setup for the questions about nature of humanity and all that, but from a scifi viewpoint it was pretty confusing. The replicants are superhuman in many ways already, how is the reproduction such a mystery?
How do you feel about the water in the film? I think raindrops turning into unique snowflakes makes quite a lot of sense in themes of individuality and free will and all that. A body of water could be considered a faceless mass of individuals.
However, it's being used pretty liberally around Wallace and in the final convoy encouter. Does it have some additional significance I'm not grasping?
I think the data was damaged because of the blackout and considering the replicants in BR1 I think their creator was rather experimental and created every model in an unique way.
I think water is often also about pressure and depression. The Joy-scene which gets referenced at the end is basically the only scene where getting wet was a sign of being alive/experiencing things.
1. Hmmh... I guess it's possible... To me it makes very little sense to leave such a critical story element up to a guess. I do like when BR leaves open ends about certain questions, but the main story motivation isn't one of those. Also the replicants otherwise seem very effortlessly human, much more so than the Nexus 6(?) fellows in the first one.
As for the water bit, I just rewatched the final cut of original and realized there's a lingering wave lighting effect in Tyrrel's meeting room early on. It's pretty subtle there and mostly adds to the surreal feel and contrast to the streets, but BR2049 seems to take that effect and crank it up to max. I'm still not finding any coherent theme on it on 2049 though.
Just a wonderful cineastic experience. I cannot remember the last time I walked out of the cinema and was so void of criticism. This movie just clicked for me.
There is some minor plot-issues, but they don't interrupt the flow of the movie or made me feel angry at the writers.
On October 25 2017 06:14 Archeon wrote: Really liked the movie, the look is incredible, Gosling and Ford play really well and it's close enough to the original to work but different enough that it still feels different. I also really liked the pacing, I agree that the story is more a pretense about being alive though, but that is a very interesting approach to storytelling imo. + Show Spoiler +
I didn't really like the giant Joy-scene at the end though. Joy was ambivalent before by design, I didnt like that they moved back on that ambivalence later on. Also the "rebellion" came a bit out of nowhere and didnt really have any influence outside of pushing him to the final scene that he might have done anyways.
The Joi scene showed that Joi was just following her programming. She told K what he wanted to hear (you're a real boy!) which likely influenced his thinking. It also means that you may not want to consider her a person, as her emotions are just simulations.
The rebellion people were there to give K a mission (kill gramps). He then rejected that mission which showed both empathy and free will - both important to the 'is K a person or just a fancy android' question.
On October 25 2017 06:14 Archeon wrote: Really liked the movie, the look is incredible, Gosling and Ford play really well and it's close enough to the original to work but different enough that it still feels different. I also really liked the pacing, I agree that the story is more a pretense about being alive though, but that is a very interesting approach to storytelling imo. + Show Spoiler +
I didn't really like the giant Joy-scene at the end though. Joy was ambivalent before by design, I didnt like that they moved back on that ambivalence later on. Also the "rebellion" came a bit out of nowhere and didnt really have any influence outside of pushing him to the final scene that he might have done anyways.
The Joi scene showed that Joi was just following her programming. She told K what he wanted to hear (you're a real boy!) which likely influenced his thinking. It also means that you may not want to consider her a person, as her emotions are just simulations.
The rebellion people were there to give K a mission (kill gramps). He then rejected that mission which showed both empathy and free will - both important to the 'is K a person or just a fancy android' question.
Yeah that's precisely why I didn't like the Joi scene. If they can artificially create humans, it doesn't seem far fetched that Joi is an actual AI (standing in contrast with evil girl talking all the time about her as a product). She certainly seems irrational enough at times. But the giant Joi scene casually ruined that possibility, shutting the door on the real/virtual discussion, nulling her possible sacrifice by reducing her to a thing. Just to make K go into "nothing to loose"-mode.
I get that the rebellion furthered K's growth, but they could have had some further introduction. I would have been ok with "we are the guys who protect that child", but "we are a group of rebels" (including 20 extras for one scene) is quite the jump. Besides they do nothing all movie long. All they did was reveal the "plot twist" and ask K for something that was neither rationally nor emotionally sound.
I mean K is working for the police ffs, it would have been really easy to casually drop that there are terror bombings/unrest. The chief talks about stopping that the entire time.
I thought this movie was great. It also felt shorter in some ways than the original movie, despite being an hour or so longer. The only scene that I think might have needed trimming was + Show Spoiler +
Harrison Ford vs. Jared Leto, which was also the only scene where Ford didn't do a far better job than I expected of him.
On October 25 2017 06:14 Archeon wrote: Really liked the movie, the look is incredible, Gosling and Ford play really well and it's close enough to the original to work but different enough that it still feels different. I also really liked the pacing, I agree that the story is more a pretense about being alive though, but that is a very interesting approach to storytelling imo. + Show Spoiler +
I didn't really like the giant Joy-scene at the end though. Joy was ambivalent before by design, I didnt like that they moved back on that ambivalence later on. Also the "rebellion" came a bit out of nowhere and didnt really have any influence outside of pushing him to the final scene that he might have done anyways.
The Joi scene showed that Joi was just following her programming. She told K what he wanted to hear (you're a real boy!) which likely influenced his thinking. It also means that you may not want to consider her a person, as her emotions are just simulations.
The rebellion people were there to give K a mission (kill gramps). He then rejected that mission which showed both empathy and free will - both important to the 'is K a person or just a fancy android' question.
Yeah that's precisely why I didn't like the Joi scene. If they can artificially create humans, it doesn't seem far fetched that Joi is an actual AI (standing in contrast with evil girl talking all the time about her as a product). She certainly seems irrational enough at times. But the giant Joi scene casually ruined that possibility, shutting the door on the real/virtual discussion, nulling her possible sacrifice by reducing her to a thing. Just to make K go into "nothing to loose"-mode.
I get that the rebellion furthered K's growth, but they could have had some further introduction. I would have been ok with "we are the guys who protect that child", but "we are a group of rebels" (including 20 extras for one scene) is quite the jump. Besides they do nothing all movie long. All they did was reveal the "plot twist" and ask K for something that was neither rationally nor emotionally sound.
I mean K is working for the police ffs, it would have been really easy to casually drop that there are terror bombings/unrest. The chief talks about stopping that the entire time.
It was already pretty clear that joi was program to love K and do/say what he want, at least I assume so from the start when I watched the movie, I am pretty sure they say so in a scene early on. The question was to know if she "evolve" past it, there are clues to say that she gain some form of conscience; the rain scene, the scene with the bubblegum hair girl (not the sex one, the one when then talk after) or the scene when she is looking at the plants in the casino, since she doesn't seem to act only according to her design but also for herself, and she would in that case have legitimate love for K. But of course there is plenty of other clues for her not having conscience, and only becoming better at knowing what K wanted.
The giant joi seemed to me more of a way for K to realize that "his" joi was irreplaceable because she was forged with all their time together, their common memories, witch is true even if she had no autonomy. The giant has no memories, she didn't live, but joi did live and gain memories, and the question is to know if that makes her human or not.
On October 25 2017 06:14 Archeon wrote: Really liked the movie, the look is incredible, Gosling and Ford play really well and it's close enough to the original to work but different enough that it still feels different. I also really liked the pacing, I agree that the story is more a pretense about being alive though, but that is a very interesting approach to storytelling imo. + Show Spoiler +
I didn't really like the giant Joy-scene at the end though. Joy was ambivalent before by design, I didnt like that they moved back on that ambivalence later on. Also the "rebellion" came a bit out of nowhere and didnt really have any influence outside of pushing him to the final scene that he might have done anyways.
The Joi scene showed that Joi was just following her programming. She told K what he wanted to hear (you're a real boy!) which likely influenced his thinking. It also means that you may not want to consider her a person, as her emotions are just simulations.
The rebellion people were there to give K a mission (kill gramps). He then rejected that mission which showed both empathy and free will - both important to the 'is K a person or just a fancy android' question.
Yeah that's precisely why I didn't like the Joi scene. If they can artificially create humans, it doesn't seem far fetched that Joi is an actual AI (standing in contrast with evil girl talking all the time about her as a product). She certainly seems irrational enough at times. But the giant Joi scene casually ruined that possibility, shutting the door on the real/virtual discussion, nulling her possible sacrifice by reducing her to a thing. Just to make K go into "nothing to loose"-mode.
I get that the rebellion furthered K's growth, but they could have had some further introduction. I would have been ok with "we are the guys who protect that child", but "we are a group of rebels" (including 20 extras for one scene) is quite the jump. Besides they do nothing all movie long. All they did was reveal the "plot twist" and ask K for something that was neither rationally nor emotionally sound.
I mean K is working for the police ffs, it would have been really easy to casually drop that there are terror bombings/unrest. The chief talks about stopping that the entire time.
It was already pretty clear that joi was program to love K and do/say what he want, at least I assume so from the start when I watched the movie, I am pretty sure they say so in a scene early on. The question was to know if she "evolve" past it, there are clues to say that she gain some form of conscience; the rain scene, the scene with the bubblegum hair girl (not the sex one, the one when then talk after) or the scene when she is looking at the plants in the casino, since she doesn't seem to act only according to her design but also for herself, and she would in that case have legitimate love for K. But of course there is plenty of other clues for her not having conscience, and only becoming better at knowing what K wanted.
The giant joi seemed to me more of a way for K to realize that "his" joi was irreplaceable because she was forged with all their time together, their common memories, witch is true even if she had no autonomy. The giant has no memories, she didn't live, but joi did live and gain memories, and the question is to know if that makes her human or not.
This was pretty much the main theme of the movie. Does it matter if memories are real (or even our own)? How memories affect our view of the world? Are we (as in, our personality, psyche, consciousness) nothing more than just a collection of memories? What would happen if you took all the memories of a person and put it in an android body? Would they be human? How do we know our memories are real? How do we know whatever is real if we don't know if our memories are real and we know that memories can change over time?
loved the movie, music is not afraid to be upfront, visually amazing, plot is decent (though not the best) and that slow pacing is perfect combination for me. I just wish the story had a little more substance to it, and really wish it was less of a sequel.
On October 25 2017 06:14 Archeon wrote: Really liked the movie, the look is incredible, Gosling and Ford play really well and it's close enough to the original to work but different enough that it still feels different. I also really liked the pacing, I agree that the story is more a pretense about being alive though, but that is a very interesting approach to storytelling imo. + Show Spoiler +
I didn't really like the giant Joy-scene at the end though. Joy was ambivalent before by design, I didnt like that they moved back on that ambivalence later on. Also the "rebellion" came a bit out of nowhere and didnt really have any influence outside of pushing him to the final scene that he might have done anyways.
The Joi scene showed that Joi was just following her programming. She told K what he wanted to hear (you're a real boy!) which likely influenced his thinking. It also means that you may not want to consider her a person, as her emotions are just simulations.
The rebellion people were there to give K a mission (kill gramps). He then rejected that mission which showed both empathy and free will - both important to the 'is K a person or just a fancy android' question.
Yeah that's precisely why I didn't like the Joi scene. If they can artificially create humans, it doesn't seem far fetched that Joi is an actual AI (standing in contrast with evil girl talking all the time about her as a product). She certainly seems irrational enough at times. But the giant Joi scene casually ruined that possibility, shutting the door on the real/virtual discussion, nulling her possible sacrifice by reducing her to a thing. Just to make K go into "nothing to loose"-mode.
I get that the rebellion furthered K's growth, but they could have had some further introduction. I would have been ok with "we are the guys who protect that child", but "we are a group of rebels" (including 20 extras for one scene) is quite the jump. Besides they do nothing all movie long. All they did was reveal the "plot twist" and ask K for something that was neither rationally nor emotionally sound.
I mean K is working for the police ffs, it would have been really easy to casually drop that there are terror bombings/unrest. The chief talks about stopping that the entire time.
It was already pretty clear that joi was program to love K and do/say what he want, at least I assume so from the start when I watched the movie, I am pretty sure they say so in a scene early on. The question was to know if she "evolve" past it, there are clues to say that she gain some form of conscience; the rain scene, the scene with the bubblegum hair girl (not the sex one, the one when then talk after) or the scene when she is looking at the plants in the casino, since she doesn't seem to act only according to her design but also for herself, and she would in that case have legitimate love for K. But of course there is plenty of other clues for her not having conscience, and only becoming better at knowing what K wanted.
The giant joi seemed to me more of a way for K to realize that "his" joi was irreplaceable because she was forged with all their time together, their common memories, witch is true even if she had no autonomy. The giant has no memories, she didn't live, but joi did live and gain memories, and the question is to know if that makes her human or not.
This was pretty much the main theme of the movie. Does it matter if memories are real (or even our own)? How memories affect our view of the world? Are we (as in, our personality, psyche, consciousness) nothing more than just a collection of memories? What would happen if you took all the memories of a person and put it in an android body? Would they be human? How do we know our memories are real? How do we know whatever is real if we don't know if our memories are real and we know that memories can change over time?
Agreed, especially K's story is all about real vs virtual, which is precisely why I don't like that the movie goes out of it's way to say that Joi is replicable (which is something the movie hints at on a biological level when Deckard meets Rachel 2, which Deckard then denies).
In that way K's decision to rescue Deckard is a rebellion against accepting that his memories are virtual and against Joi not mattering, which is something I didn't really consider earlier. Guess that makes me like it more.
The way I see it, it's both a rejection of the developed "can an AI be close to a real person?" theme, a pretty harsh one at that (it's like making you ask yourself a question, then slamming the door shut with no retort possible), and a way to make K decide to help Deckart.
Being shown / realizing that his relationship to Joi was an artificial one is in contrast to Deckart's daughter being a "genuine" living person. At that point K realises that Deckart can get what he himself never had, making the "real relationship" all the more precious, and the trigger for his decision.
It looks like he was at best lost / hesitating, and more likely just not going to do what the rebellion asked him. After seeing the Joi hologram, he turns the rebellion's motto of "the most human think one can do is to give everything to one's cause" from "Deckart would kill himself to avoid giving up intel if given the chance, please execute him for his sake" to "the most human-like thing I can do is to give my all [/sacrifice myself] to grant Deckart a real relationship." That's when he decides to take him to his daughter.
The way I see it, it's both a rejection of the developed "can an AI be close to a real person?" theme, a pretty harsh one at that (it's like making you ask yourself a question, then slamming the door shut with no retort possible), and a way to make K decide to help Deckart.
Being shown / realizing that his relationship to Joi was an artificial one is in contrast to Deckart's daughter being a "genuine" living person. At that point K realises that Deckart can get what he himself never had, making the "real relationship" all the more precious, and the trigger for his decision.
It looks like he was at best lost / hesitating, and more likely just not going to do what the rebellion asked him. After seeing the Joi hologram, he turns the rebellion's motto of "the most human think one can do is to give everything to one's cause" from "Deckart would kill himself to avoid giving up intel if given the chance, please execute him for his sake" to "the most human-like thing I can do is to give my all [/sacrifice myself] to grant Deckart a real relationship." That's when he decides to take him to his daughter.
I read the giant Joi-scene the same way, as slamming the door on the virtual/reality discussion. It's denying that Joi did evolve, saying that their relationship was designed and that Joi is replaceable. "Joe" wasn't from "his" version of Joi, but part of the program. This is strongly mirrored when Deckard is captured and Wallace hints that D. meeting with Rachel could have been planned and then introduces a new Rachel. It shows exactly how Wallace thinks, that humans or at least replicants are products. But Deckard denies the new Rachel, basically saying that it was real and she unique for him.
I initially went with your train of though that K is "doing the right/human thing" as a last hurray. But K is a loner, a killer and he lost everything. When he realizes that his relationship with Joi was artificial, he reacts with anger, the anger we see when he goes to the crashed car and shoots the drivers. I doubt he even wanted to save Deckard at the start.
But instead of killing Deckard, K realizes that he still sees him as his father and because the feelings are still there, fake basis or not, decides save and help him. It's the reason Deckard asks him how he sees him, to make the viewer wonder about K's motivation. It's also the reason the last scene is a huge throwback at the Joi-rain scene. Because by helping Deckard K accepts that memories and relationships, fake or not, give birth to real emotions and therefore have value for him, K resolves his inner struggle about what his own reality is and dies in piece.
Both of us watching agreed Rachael's eyes were brown. Was Deckard lying, misremembering, or are we colorblind? I kind of hope it's the former, it would be such a dick thing to do.
Both of us watching agreed Rachael's eyes were brown. Was Deckard lying, misremembering, or are we colorblind? I kind of hope it's the former, it would be such a dick thing to do.
Rachel's eyes were green in the Voight-Kampff-test, brown for the rest I think. I'm not sure what the book says or if it varies between the cuts, but as far as I can tell, it's usually ruled out as a continuity error of some kind.
I don't think I've seen any solid explanation for what they were going for in the new one.
Just saw it, finally. Visually stunning and I thought it was pretty interesting. A tad long, but I love the concept and noir atmosphere of Bladerunner. And the woman playing the memory creator stole her scenes IMO
Both of us watching agreed Rachael's eyes were brown. Was Deckard lying, misremembering, or are we colorblind? I kind of hope it's the former, it would be such a dick thing to do.
Rachel's eyes were green in the Voight-Kampff-test, brown for the rest I think. I'm not sure what the book says or if it varies between the cuts, but as far as I can tell, it's usually ruled out as a continuity error of some kind.
I don't think I've seen any solid explanation for what they were going for in the new one.
what makes this even more complicated is that there are a half dozen different cuts of this movie that came out from 1984 to 2004. the differences from the 1982 theatre version are pretty big.
Both of us watching agreed Rachael's eyes were brown. Was Deckard lying, misremembering, or are we colorblind? I kind of hope it's the former, it would be such a dick thing to do.