|
On October 16 2017 20:58 Bacillus wrote:2. + Show Spoiler +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? 3. + Show Spoiler +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.
|
On October 16 2017 21:29 CheesecakeScribble wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2017 20:58 Bacillus wrote:2. + Show Spoiler +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? 3. + Show Spoiler +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.
+ Show Spoiler +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.
|
|
I'm not really surprised that the movie isn't a box office success. Though it is a great movie, it isn't exactly a fun one.
|
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.
My first 10/10 since Nightcrawler.
|
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: 1. + Show Spoiler +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? Also a bit about the symbolism: + Show Spoiler +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? 1. + Show Spoiler +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. symbolism: + Show Spoiler +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.
Show nested quote +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: 1. + Show Spoiler +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? Also a bit about the symbolism: + Show Spoiler +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? 1. + Show Spoiler +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. symbolism: + Show Spoiler +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.
9/10 - 9.5/10 for me without a doubt.
|
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.
+ Show Spoiler +My takeaways..
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 08:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
+ Show Spoiler +My takeaways..
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.
+ Show Spoiler + 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.
|
Canada8747 Posts
On October 25 2017 11:23 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 08:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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.
+ Show Spoiler +My takeaways..
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.
+ Show Spoiler + 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.
+ Show Spoiler +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 13:17 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 11:23 Archeon wrote:On October 25 2017 08:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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.
+ Show Spoiler +My takeaways..
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.
+ Show Spoiler + 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.
+ Show Spoiler +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.
+ Show Spoiler + 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 18:02 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 13:17 Nakajin wrote:On October 25 2017 11:23 Archeon wrote:On October 25 2017 08:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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.
+ Show Spoiler +My takeaways..
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.
+ Show Spoiler + 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.
+ Show Spoiler +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. + Show Spoiler + 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?
+ Show Spoiler + 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.
|
+ Show Spoiler [Giant Joi scene] +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.
|
On October 26 2017 06:35 Alaric wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Giant Joi scene] +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. + Show Spoiler [spoilers the entire end!] +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.
|
|
|
|