Movies: Blade Runner 2049 (2017): Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford. Directed by Denis Villeneuve.

beowulf

Not a nice guy.
Jan 29, 2005
59,361
8,958
Ottawa
I loved it, the grandness, the "miracle". A few things I would have liked to have seen more are Wallace and rebel replicants.
 

Dogewow

Such Profile
Feb 1, 2015
2,883
291
Really enjoyed the movie. Love the sci-fi backdrop and the existential ideas and questions it raises about reality, self awareness, "having a soul", etc. Wasn't a fan of the older one, but do appreciate it for what it was.

I think even the most die hard fans of the franchise can acknowledge that it's pretty tough to sit through nearly a three hour slow burn. Like I said, I enjoyed it and would definitely recommend to someone that would appreciate it, but after a certain point I just wanted it to be over.
 

beowulf

Not a nice guy.
Jan 29, 2005
59,361
8,958
Ottawa
Sounds like it's doing pretty poorly at the box office. That's too bad.

It's sad that people would rather go watch terrible explosion filled movies over this. I like a dumb movie that's full of action as much as anyone but when good movie like this comes out I make sure to go, only way filmmakers will make more like this. Seems like a poor weekend in general at the box office..
 

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
42,540
10,136
Toronto
If I remember correctly, the first one was a slow starter at the box office, too.
 

Dr Awesome

Yak in the city
Sep 24, 2008
3,591
182
British Columbia
It's sad that people would rather go watch terrible explosion filled movies over this. I like a dumb movie that's full of action as much as anyone but when good movie like this comes out I make sure to go, only way filmmakers will make more like this. Seems like a poor weekend in general at the box office..
I second your statement. Hopefully it all works out.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
Really enjoyed the movie. Love the sci-fi backdrop and the existential ideas and questions it raises about reality, self awareness, "having a soul", etc. Wasn't a fan of the older one, but do appreciate it for what it was.

I think even the most die hard fans of the franchise can acknowledge that it's pretty tough to sit through nearly a three hour slow burn. Like I said, I enjoyed it and would definitely recommend to someone that would appreciate it, but after a certain point I just wanted it to be over.

It didn't feel like 3 hours to me. I don't get annoyed with deliberate dialogue and slow cuts. There was plenty to look at and absorb IMO.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
96,409
30,660
Las Vegas
It didn't feel like 3 hours to me. I don't get annoyed with deliberate dialogue and slow cuts. There was plenty to look at and absorb IMO.
The only moment I felt was distractingly dragging was when

K was slowly trudging through the former factory portion of his dreamscape to find the toy horse. Not when he got to the furnace portion. The problem is the point before he sticks his hand in the furnace had increasingly tense and loud music. But when he walks down the stairs there's almost no music. It just felt unnecessarily long.

There were other points that felt excessively long but they didn't bother me much.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
96,409
30,660
Las Vegas
It's supposed to be an important reveal and it's the most dramatic one in the movie up until that point.
I know but the walk to that point was segmented into two different parts. The first part could've been shorter or at least been layered with more suspenseful music.

In any case, The Revenant in my opinion was even more guilty of overlong self indulgent nature shots so I really don't see why it's such a big deal here. It's just a staple of Villenueve's directing. He likes to hold on certain frames to give the viewer the chance to take the moment in. I watched a review where the guy says there's a film school exercise where you watch films from the past and clap your hands every time there's an edit. Then you watch a modern film and do the same. With older films you don't clap your hands all that much. Modern films you clap your hands very often. In some genres and stories this isn't a bad thing, but as a whole our attention spans have come down a lot.

I'll take a rare opportunity to knock on The Force Awakens. For all the ways I think TFA gets railed on too hard, I will admit that the pacing is far too frenetic after Rey and Finn are forced to run from the First Order. The first 8th or so of the movie you have time to breath, to take in the new world. Blade Runner is paced in a way that allows the viewer to take in every moment and breath it in. Sometimes it feels overly long but I really didn't mind. Films like the Revenant are not films I want to watch often because with the Revenant it takes a long time for things to happen and it's a shallow script as it is. Blade Runner still has a lot going on. I anticipate that when I finally get the chance to own the film I will rewatch it a good amount of times. I know it's not a perfect movie but I absolutely loved it. I have thought about the film several times a day every day since I've seen it and I can't wait to see it again.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
I know but the walk to that point was segmented into two different parts. The first part could've been shorter or at least been layered with more suspenseful music.

There's a reason it's cut the way it is.

The first part is where he learns there is a conspiracy at play that is covering up details about the child he is after via the missing pages. He thinks it's himself. The walk to the actual horse isn't scored because the movie doesn't want to tip its hand too early. When he finds it in the cloth, it's a major reveal; these memories are real, at least to someone. We don't find out until later that they aren't his, he isn't special, and this entire thing has been a part of his programming. The movie plays with your expectations that way. While it would be tempting to have every scene have faint Vangelis inspired tones in it, it ends up being better for not going down that path. The world is brutal and even more decayed than in the original, and K is supposed to be a post ban non emoting 'baseline' replicant. The silence is often supposed to reflect the stillness of his emotions, and the music swelling is his inner turmoil.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
There's a reason it's cut the way it is.

The first part is where he learns there is a conspiracy at play that is covering up details about the child he is after via the missing pages. He thinks it's himself. The walk to the actual horse isn't scored because the movie doesn't want to tip its hand too early. When he finds it in the cloth, it's a major reveal; these memories are real, at least to someone. We don't find out until later that they aren't his, he isn't special, and this entire thing has been a part of his programming. The movie plays with your expectations that way. While it would be tempting to have every scene have faint Vangelis inspired tones in it, it ends up being better for not going down that path. The world is brutal and even more decayed than in the original, and K is supposed to be a post ban non emoting 'baseline' replicant. The silence is often supposed to reflect the stillness of his emotions, and the music swelling is his inner turmoil.

I know it's not really the point of your post, but I feel like "programming" is the wrong word here. The Replicants are biological and self aware. While there's certainly a lot of bio-engineering and conditioning that goes into keeping the Replicants in line, most explicitly in the form of planted memories. The movie takes the time to show K being tested in a Voigt-Kampf-like test twice (obviously some newer variation), to be compared to a baseline. But it's not really programming. In a vague sense you could liken it to a rogue artificial intelligence, sure. But we can draw a distinction between Joi and K, to an extent, by the degree in which their actions are "programmed." Joi tells K exactly "what he wants to hear," that he's special. Joi is following her programming in that regard, appeasing her user. K wants to be special not because of programming, but because of the existential crisis of being an Replicant (not having a "soul"). He has no past, and he's manufactured like a million others. He's able to grow and change independently, with his own experiences coloring who he will be in the future (and the planted experiences coloring who he is in the present).
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia

The big twist was just a giant slap in the face as a major plot point. I mean, they gave little reason to believe that Gosling wasn't the "miracle child", but they pull the rug out after heavily driving home and overemphasizing every step Gosling takes that makes him feel and act more human than replicant. I can take a bit, but when they hammer something home so much only to flip the switch, I can't understate how much I hate it and feel it as a cheap parlor trick. And the twist wasn't even that great. "hidden in the database/locked away for no one to hurt her". I don't even recall he showing enough/acting correctly after the dream montage "reading" with Gosling. I just can't stand that.

Disagree with this vehemently.

There are numerous hints that K isn't the child. First and foremost, there's the line that gets replayed during the reveal "every artist puts a bit of them self in their memory" (don't remember it verbatim). But that's far from the only hint. In the same conversation, she specifically states the response in a non-committal manner ("someone lived this") as she cries while watching the memory. She also dodged the question regarding if she uses her own memories, simply stating that it would be illegal to do so. Not to mention the database stating the health issues and her being limited to being behind the glass because of health issues. That's three from the same scene that were directly foreshadowing the reveal.

Additionally, much of K's belief that he was special comes from Joi constantly telling him that he's special. She repeats "I've always told you that you were special" multiple times in the movie, which also implies that she's told him he's special even before the events of the movie. Contrast that to the giant neon ads for Joi (shown both before and after the reveal) that explicitly state Joi tells you "what you want to hear," which simply implies that Joi was following her programming and fulfilling K's desire to feel special. K remains skeptical of the memories long past when Joi jumps to her conclusion, as well. Joi is simply fulfilling her programming to fulfill K's desires.

There's also the scene in which the prostitute is leaving K's apartment. She picks up the wooden horse and starts muttering a line about "I've been dreaming about this" before Joi interrupts and kicks her out. That makes it clear that K isn't the only one with an implanted memory/dream around that horse, and that other Replicants have that memory as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canucks5551

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
I know it's not really the point of your post, but I feel like "programming" is the wrong word here. The Replicants are biological and self aware. While there's certainly a lot of bio-engineering and conditioning that goes into keeping the Replicants in line, most explicitly in the form of planted memories. The movie takes the time to show K being tested in a Voigt-Kampf-like test twice (obviously some newer variation), to be compared to a baseline. But it's not really programming. In a vague sense you could liken it to a rogue artificial intelligence, sure. But we can draw a distinction between Joi and K, to an extent, by the degree in which their actions are "programmed." Joi tells K exactly "what he wants to hear," that he's special. Joi is following her programming in that regard, appeasing her user. K wants to be special not because of programming, but because of the existential crisis of being an Replicant (not having a "soul"). He has no past, and he's manufactured like a million others. He's able to grow and change independently, with his own experiences coloring who he will be in the future (and the planted experiences coloring who he is in the present).

Don't agree that replicants are 'self aware' to the point of being true AIs. It's never stated or even implied in the movies. This is doubly true for the post blackout replicants, all of which are nowhere near as advanced as Rachel or Roy. Joi is essentially a fancy desktop buddy or app. Her limitations are obvious and her programming hardline. K is still constrained by his, it's just not made as obvious - he can't say no to the captain and he doesn't lie, for example. It's even pointed out that, rather than lie (which he cannot do), he would simply not answer. The point of the 'baseline' testing is to show that, like the original, the replicants will always eventually develop complex emotional patterns and ultimately rebel. Saying that the replicants and humans are exactly the same is boring and ruins a lot of the philosophical question both movies pose.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
96,409
30,660
Las Vegas
There are numerous hints that K isn't the child. First and foremost, there's the line that gets replayed during the reveal "every artist puts a bit of them self in their memory" (don't remember it verbatim). But that's far from the only hint. In the same conversation, she specifically states the response in a non-committal manner ("someone lived this") as she cries while watching the memory. She also dodged the question regarding if she uses her own memories, simply stating that it would be illegal to do so. Not to mention the database stating the health issues and her being limited to being behind the glass because of health issues. That's three from the same scene that were directly foreshadowing the reveal.

Additionally, much of K's belief that he was special comes from Joi constantly telling him that he's special. She repeats "I've always told you that you were special" multiple times in the movie, which also implies that she's told him he's special even before the events of the movie. Contrast that to the giant neon ads for Joi (shown both before and after the reveal) that explicitly state Joi tells you "what you want to hear," which simply implies that Joi was following her programming and fulfilling K's desire to feel special. K remains skeptical of the memories long past when Joi jumps to her conclusion, as well. Joi is simply fulfilling her programming to fulfill K's desires.

There's also the scene in which the prostitute is leaving K's apartment. She picks up the wooden horse and starts muttering a line about "I've been dreaming about this" before Joi interrupts and kicks her out. That makes it clear that K isn't the only one with an implanted memory/dream around that horse, and that other Replicants have that memory as well.
[/QUOTE]
I'm like 99.9% sure that's not what she says. I'll have to see it again.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
Don't agree that replicants are 'self aware' to the point of being true AIs. It's never stated or even implied in the movies. This is doubly true for the post blackout replicants, all of which are nowhere near as advanced as Rachel or Roy. Joi is essentially a fancy desktop buddy or app. Her limitations are obvious and her programming hardline. K is still constrained by his, it's just not made as obvious - he can't say no to the captain and he doesn't lie, for example. It's even pointed out that, rather than lie (which he cannot do), he would simply not answer. The point of the 'baseline' testing is to show that, like the original, the replicants will always eventually develop complex emotional patterns and ultimately rebel. Saying that the replicants and humans are exactly the same is boring and ruins a lot of the philosophical question both movies pose.

I don't see how you could possibly conclude that Replicants aren't self-aware. They are very obviously aware of themselves as a distinct entity. That's not even a point of contention.

Once again, K isn't programmed. To quote the original movie, they are "genetically engineered." They have organic brains, and are only distinguishable via empathy tests.

It's far from "boring" and it certainly does not "ruin" any of the philosophical questions to realize that the Replicants are not programmed
 

TheOriginalJez

Registered User
Oct 24, 2014
668
131
A box under a bridge
I don't see how you could possibly conclude that Replicants aren't self-aware. They are very obviously aware of themselves as a distinct entity. That's not even a point of contention.

Once again, K isn't programmed. To quote the original movie, they are "genetically engineered." They have organic brains, and are only distinguishable via empathy tests.

It's far from "boring" and it certainly does not "ruin" any of the philosophical questions to realize that the Replicants are not programmed

There is some degree of programming since it's noted at the beginning that the new crop of replicants cannot disobey, but I would still see replicants as self aware - almost more like a brainwashed human brain than an AI. I have bigger issues with Joi though - she's clearly just a programmed AI, and yet she tells K how to break the device in order to stop her location being reported. I can just about buy telling him to delete her files for 'confidentiality' but a corporation that is clearly a control freak to encourage users to go dark?
 

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,348
59,259
Ottawa, ON
As a big fan of the original (I have a framed movie poster in my basement), I was very pleased with the sequel in that it evoked a lot of the same emotions via the imagery and soundscape.

For me, Blade Runner wasn't about plot - it was about mood. Industrial, hard but with melancholy nostalgia for the past - a past which may or may not have ever existed. Grandeur and former glories diminished by time and by the brutal and almost violent footprint of humanity.

The Earth of humanity is long past middle age and into inevitable senescence. Those that are left live in the shattered remains where tiny and rare moments of beauty are overshadowed by excess and consumption.

The performances were subtle and terrific, the infrequent moments of rage exhibited by the replicants a reminder of their young and unbalanced personalities.

The ending was a bit less ambiguous than the original - a bit derivative in the end, which is really my only minor disappointment with the film.

But like the original, you'll find yourself thinking about some of the ideas, concepts and visuals long after you've seen it.

TheOriginalJez said:
I have bigger issues with Joi though - she's clearly just a programmed AI, and yet she tells K how to break the device in order to stop her location being reported. I can just about buy telling him to delete her files for 'confidentiality' but a corporation that is clearly a control freak to encourage users to go dark?

I suspect that 99.999% of their users wouldn't put Joi into that kind of position of having to choose between their user and the company that made her with the user's very life on the line. I'd argue that it was an unforeseen outcome of her programming.

The fact that her very last act was to try and comfort K and tell him that she loves him was a chilling reminder of the intense nature of her programming. A bit of an homage to AI or Her I suppose - how could a human compete with such selflessness?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kurtz

Canucks5551

Registered User
Jun 1, 2005
8,806
389
I saw it today and thought it was great. The visuals, cinematography, and atmosphere were stunning. I thought it made huge improvements on the original, which I appreciated technically but didn't enjoy. It was slow and methodical, but I never found it boring. My only gripe was that Jared Leto's character was a little goofy and pointless, but Sylvia Hoeks' character filled the villain role nicely enough on her own, anyways.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
It's a $150m art piece that the producers commissioned because they've worked with the director in the past and love Villeneuve's work. It makes zero attempt to comprise itself in the name of broader appeal. It's a movie where the villain speaks in biblical metaphors and Pale Fire is actually quoted as a key part of the story. It can't ever be taken back, which is great. I hope it breaks even. I don't want or need a Blade Runner cinematic universe or even a sequel for a long time. It's very special. I'm glad it exists.

. My only gripe was that Jared Leto's character was a little goofy and pointless, but Sylvia Hoeks' character filled the villain role nicely enough on her own, anyways.

I thought he played the part of an eccentric megacorp CEO extremely well. Tyrell had managed something he cannot and he is constantly chasing it. When Deckard rejects the copy of Rachel, he is visibly insulted and hurt. Leto was great. The character is purposefully over the top. Luv is also a psychopathic child of a replicant, which is terrifying. Every performance in the film was great!

 
Last edited:

Surrounded By Ahos

Las Vegas Desert Ducks Official Team Poster
Sponsor
May 24, 2008
26,150
80,576
Koko Miami
If we can get more reboots like this and Fury Road and less like Robocop and Total Recall I'll be very happy.

What an experience. I rarely see movies in the theatre more than once, but I'm hoping to catch another showing this weekend.

I can't stop telling people about how beautiful this film was. The shot where
the sparks from the campfire turned into city lights
in particular was absolutely breathtaking. Such a visually stunning movie.
 

who_me?

Registered User
Oct 7, 2003
3,405
1,239
This rehash is nothing more than another lame reboot of the original, completely DERIVATIVE, taking all the memorable scenes and motifs from the original film and (poorly) overdoing them to death in this derivative:
  • Opening scene with the eye in the original BR; copied in the derivative.
  • Deckard goes to retire Roy and subsequently Roy ends up chasing Deckard in a cat-and-mouse hunt, as he thrusts his hand through the wall to grab Deckard's gun, and later his head through a tile wall; K goes to retire a replicant but he ends up being attacked by the replicant. Subsequently he and replicant go through a wall during the tussle.
  • Rachel with black hair, robotic behavior; exact lookalike in the derivative;
  • Pris, the pleasure model replicant in the original; exact lookalike blonde hooker in the derivative;
  • The gigantic screen on the building of the geisha; giant nude pink lady with blue haired hologram in the derivative.
  • Rachel shoots her gun through the head of Leon; Rachel lookalike shoots the head of Rachel-clone;
  • Deckard's boss downs shots of hard liquor and has slicked back hair; so does K's boss.
  • One of the most memorable shots in the original BR is right before the Voight-Kampff test with Rachel when the room at Tyrell HQ is slowly dimmed; at Wallace Corp you see this light dimming / shadow effect throughout the inside of the building in multiple scenes, overdone to death.
  • Tyrell's eyes look weird because of his Coke bottle lens glasses; Wallace has weird looking white eyes (was hoping Roy Batty would make a reappearance to shove his thumbs through Jared Leto's eyes).
  • Roy Batty kisses Tyrell before killing him (and you can see the saliva between their lips -- yuck); Wallace kisses the replicant on the lips before killing her and you see the saliva string again.
  • Deckard is a human who thinks he may be a replicant (dreams of a unicorn); K is a replicant who thinks he is human (has flashbacks of a wooden horse).
  • "One more kiss, dear" in the original; Frank Sinatra and Elvis in the derivative.
  • Deckard visits some Middle Eastern foreign speaking type looking for answers; K visits some African foreign speaking type looking for answers;
  • Ending scene with Roy Batty dying in the rain after memorable monologue; K laying down on the steps in the snow at the end (hopefully he died so there won't be another sequel).
And the soundtrack, can be described in one word, DISCORDANT. In the original, the soundtrack by Vangelis complemented and set the mood of the dream-like Blade Runner world; this derivative has no soundtrack to speak of if you take out all the loud grating cacophony.

If you love the original Blade Runner, don't watch this rehash -- I wish I hadn't! What has been seen can't be unseen! You have been warned!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->