Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blade Runner II - SPOILER

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    In terms of the sexism and men first world that's just lazy writing and direction imo.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
      In terms of the sexism and men first world that's just lazy writing and direction imo.
      Here comes my rant.

      I doubt it's laziness. They've been passing this script around for thirty years. If anything, it's had too much work on it. I doubt there's a single decision about the movie that wasn't argued over and micromanaged.

      The main culprit is the inherent conservatism of big films created by how studios spend money on these kinds of films.

      If they're going to spend $185m on a movie, they want it to make money the first weekend. That's somewhat ridiculous, but its the nature of publicly traded companies.

      To do that, films need at least three of the following:
      1) A "property" that a lot of potential fans already like, or at least don't hate, so they have some clue what it's about. That's why there are so many remakes, reboots, sequels, and movies based on TV shows, comic books, or best-sellers.
      2) At least one or two well-liked, well-known "stars" that appeal to the broad domestic (read: mostly white) audience.
      3) Clear Oscar-Bait. Which usually means #2 and #4 plus good reviews from the film festivals that mortals don't go to and the sort of premise that sounds like an Oscar movie.
      4) A director who is so hot and/or respected that fans will trust that it's probably going to be good. Scorsese, for example. And I doubt Christopher Nolan could have funded Inception had Batman not been huge.
      5) A cool trailer

      Special effects and 3D, were a viable gimmick for a while, but that's not much of a hook any more. That's how Cameron could make Avatar despite no comic book or any other predicate, butt I'm not sure the studio would go for that now unless he got Jennifer Lawrence and Ryan Gosling to be in it. Sam Worthington isn't that big of a name, as these things go.



      Blade Runner was a known property, though not as well known outside of nerd-land as the studio probably hoped. Scott is a major famous director but maybe not as much as he used to be, and not so much with younger people for whom Alien is ancient history.

      So it really needed to have big stars. Harrison Ford (especially reviving an old role), Ryan Gosling, Jared Leto, and to some extent Robin Wright count as big stars. But even with good reviews, that wasn't enough to carry it to a massive opening, especially in October.

      The lead role could have been a woman. But studios have convinced themselves, based on dubious evidence, that women-led action movies don't work. Wonder Woman, hopefully, will break that, and there's a reboot of Tomb Raider coming that could help too. But for now, they're convinced it has to be male stars. There's zero reason why Ryan Gosling's character couldn't have been played by a woman. But alas.

      And the insistence on "established bankable stars" meant there wasn't much room for any Asian actors, even though it posits a world where Asian culture has fully infiltrated North America.

      Of course, there are loads of Asian (and Latino, Black, Native American, Pacific Island, etc) actors out there that could do the job. But they aren't yet "stars" that the studios are willing to bet a movie like this on. So we get Scarlett Johanson, among other white people, playing the lead roles in Ghost in the Shell. The film - which isn't nearly as good as the anime version - goes way out of its way to explain that, but still. It looks bad.

      It looks especially bad because contrary to what they tell you, even without the studio system, Hollywood does seem to just decide "Ok, this person is going to be a star whether you like it or not" and they make it happen. Like Alicia Vikander, for example. I like her. She's beautiful and a good actress. But there are lots of those. But they've decided she's it now, so she got to do Man From UNCLE (which sucked, but it raised her profile) and a Bourne movie and now Tomb Raider. Her first big thing, as far as I know, was Ex Machina with Oscar Issac, another guy who just all of a sudden is in anything. He's very good too, but that's not the only reason he's getting all these roles and he'd say the same thing. He's just hot right now and so he, his agent and his supporters in the studios, are making hay while the sun shines.

      But the number of people who are attractive and can act reasonably well is much bigger than the number of people that get to be "movie stars," so Hollywood does have the power to just say "Ok, this person has it. Let's make them a star." And yet they never seem to do it with black or Asian actors. Black actors who've become stars, like Will Smith, had to work their way in via music and/or comedy and/or TV. We still don't have our Asian Will Smith. Sure, there are a shit load of them in Asia, of course. But not in Hollywood. Whereas, I bet that if they just said "Ok, we're going to convince America that John Cho (http://starringjohncho.com/) was awesome, America would accept it. He does well on talk shows and what not.

      So it's part the racism of powerful Hollywood people and part the racism that powerful Hollywood people imagines exists in the English-speaking 18-45 demographic that sees films on the first weekend.

      There's a limit, to this star-making power. For example Keanu Reeves' career cooled off because everyone realized he really couldn't act. Or Taylor Lautner or Megan Fox. Etc. Sooner or later, you have to show something. And there's only so much flakiness and assholery that will be tolerated. So Lindsey Lohan is out. Shia LaBoeuf is mostly out. etc.


      This could be slowly switching. Star Wars is giving more prominent roles to non-white-men. And it seems that DC and Marvel have realized that they don't have to make the film characters the same race as the comic book characters, most of whom were created in the 40s and 50s when a black hero would have been considered too niche, if not flat-out rejected by the publishers.

      So they made Johnny Storm black (the film still sucked, but ok). WB is using Jason Momoa for Aquaman, instead of the skinny blond guy that fans of the old Superfriends are used to as Aquaman.

      And they're also trying to bring their non-white characters to the fore. Like Falcon in the Avengers and DC made Cyborg a member of the Justice League (he was originally a Teen Titan) and hopefully they will use John Stewart (the black Green Lantern, not the comedian) when they reboot Green Lantern. Luke Cage got his own show and Black Panther is going to be huge and will give prominence to some black actors who really deserve it.

      There's always a backlash. There's butthurt about some of the characters in Thor being played by non-white actors. The idiots insist that they are "Norse Gods" so they must be blond. FFS. Because that would be historically accurate, of course. And there was a guy who waged a long campaign against Ron Moore for making Starbuck a woman. I shit you not.

      But that side has lost. In the comics, there are loads of alternative versions of characters - a female Spiderman, an hispanic Spiderman, an hispanic Blue Beetle, etc. Those are showing up in TV and films. Already, they made MJ into Michelle and she's not white. Wolverine introduced the new female Wolverine clone. Etc.

      They still haven't had the guts to switch the race or gender of a really, really well known character like Batman, but I think they will eventually, or one of these newer non-male/non-white characters will eclipse the old ones in popularity.

      We'll probably get a black and/or female Robin, for example.

      I really want somebody to make a movie of the hispanic lesbian Question.
      Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 23-10-2017, 23:32.

      Comment


        The sameness of just about every film green-lit today is apparently down to a screenwriting bible from the late nineties- “Save the Cat!” There was a Slate article on this obnoxious nonsense I can’t find anymore.

        Comment


          I agree that filmmakers should push beyond the standard limitations that we find in advertising and in a broader treatment of popular culture, but I don't know if the "we" in this film is more limited than other mass media. Again, that doesn't mean such sameness between film and other mass media should be accepted without critique. But in short, and to repeat my point above, the naked statues and the giant topless hologram are no different than the ads we find. And the flawless face of Ryan Gossling is no different than the ads we find or the media that lines supermaket checkout aisles. The general approach (blatant sex geared toward heterosexual men) and bad boys that clean up well (geared toward heterosexual women) remains intact.

          I think it is interesting (but not in a good way) that the new model female replicant was a nude actress and yet the old model replicants that were shown in the hallway of the corporate offices were male nude molds instead of a nude male actors.

          One more thing, and I this is going to be an underdeveloped argument because it's 11pm here and I've been working since 10am, but if one puts any faith in Pornhub's surveys of users** (which is self report to a certain degree and self report is always going to be flawed--then again demographic data is flawed in other ways) then the division between what men find sexually stimulating and what women find sexually stimulating is not as divided as many people think. In that sense, the "we" of the audience is perhaps more nuanced. Again, in general, I agree with the assessment of the problems but figured some context might be interesting. Or not.

          **There is NSFW language on the link but no graphic images.

          Comment


            I get all that HP and agree that part of the problem is Hollywood being run by old white guys. Although that does presume "Hollywood" is one amorphous mass that speaks in one voice, a bit like how redneck America talks about the "librul meeja". (Or how I dismiss redneck America.)

            But if Blade Runner 2049 flopped, like a lot of other big name big brand films seem to, maybe that's a sign that their day is on the wane.

            Clearly there are a lot of films that end up being lobotomised by committee. That may have happened here. But everything going into the committee is 'lazy' in one sense. We don't have a compelling reason for the bad guys to be bad so, er, let's just get them to kill a newly produced replicant. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

            Comment


              Before I start, I have to say how much I love watching a film and then settling down with, firstly, Mark Kermode's review (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and, secondly, the OTF thread with spoilers that has been baiting me for, in this case, years. Reading this thread has reiterated a couple of things that I though during the viewing so thank you.

              Just a note on the original. I loved the original. I watched it in the cinema, on video and on TV. I then went to watch the Director's Cut and actually quite missed the voiceover that was put in for the hard-of-understanding - Maybe I am just a bit thick - but preferred the ending. However, the last time I saw it, I watched it with my wife and there was something about watching it through her eyes that made me feel it was ponderous. Maybe I have just seen it too much. Maybe, as she didn't like it, I saw it from a female's perspective a bit more as some on here have mentioned.

              Anyway, I genuinely didn't feel any negative anticipation and was really looking forward to it. It is half-term so I went on my own to the 1pm showing. It is, I have to say, awesome. Indeed, I am going to say that I agree with every Kermode says (and what many say on here) but also go one step further and say that, on first viewing, it is better than the original. Again, maybe that is down to over-familiarity with the original.

              It looks amazing not only in the lighting and the effects but in being pitched perfectly with the original + 30 years feel. The 'white' and 'orange' scenes were great additions to the original's dark lighting. I loved Hans Zimmer anyway so loved the soundtrack and it's nods to the Vangelis original but, good grief, is it loud. Luckily, I had my headphoneswith me which, when I knew some music was coming, I slipped on and still could hear everything. I thought the pace and editing were absolutely perfect. Indeed, I was brought up sharp by the ending which seemed abrupt but I think that it was only because, with the rest of the progression of the film, any ending would have seemed abrupt. I could have had the film go on even longer if my bladder could have handled it. Some of the film's longer scenes especially Joe's exploration around the hotel were ones that I enjoyed most. It is the only film where product placement didn't bother me but I almost wonder whether it is because it actually adds to what the film is trying to say. I also raised an eye at the Atari logo wondering whether they were actually still around. I am also happy to see the blade runners, like me, drive Peugeots.

              I was glad to see the mentions of the gratuitous nudity on here. I did wonder whether it was with a post-Weinstein eye that I felt it but the posts on here previous to that suggest otherwise. I also thought that, were we to watch the original now, we might feel the same but that doesn't quite excuse it here however much they wanted to keep the same feel as the original. The Joi massive naked hologram and the statues in Las Vegas did make some sense as a comment about what the society had become but, after the 'birth' scene (that I found jarring and unnecessarily graphic in the way it panned across the replicant's body), it left a unsettling feeling in me. Also, it seemed to accentuate the violence against women through the film. Firstly, there was the killing of the new replicant, then the police chief and then the extended death of LUV. Of course, LUV was the main active villain so she had to end being killed at some point and had handed out a fair bit of violence herself but, again, it made me feel a trifle uneasy.

              That brings me to the fact that Wallace wasn't killed which was one of the loose ends that wasn't tied up. That, the replicant revolution (which I felt was a bit shoehorned in as a plot device to get Joe to track down Deckard but didn't mind) and the introduction of the daughter character seems to point to some sort of sequel. The latter was a well-rounded female character that I would like to see explored more but am not sure how I feel about a sequel especially if it is some full-on 'Rise of the replicants' film.

              Having said that, I really loved it and am considering seeing it again this week. It's something that I am still thinking about which I think is the sign of a great film. I don't think I disliked any of the cast - Gosling was perfect, Ford was great (even though he was phoning it in a bit a la The Force Awakens) and the appearances of Sean Young and Edward Olmos were enjoyable. One point though is why did they appear to ban hoods and hats between 2019 and 2049?
              Last edited by Bored Of Education; 24-10-2017, 14:34.

              Comment


                A female "Joe" or Idris Elba playing him would have been great. The other point I forgot to mention is that I did not recognise Robin Wright at all.

                Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                Another weird thing in the original (now) is the way Tyrell looks lovingly at the Roy Batty as if he's never seen a Nexus 6 before. But they would be old news to him because he has Rachel knocking around and also Deckard given the above posts.
                Maybe it's nostalgia. Like seeing a classic car or a Space Invaders machine now.
                Last edited by Bored Of Education; 24-10-2017, 14:54.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                  The orphanage scene made me question the need for replicants at all. When there's so much human slave labour available why make extra. (I know they're made for off-world but even so.)
                  I assumed it was because orphan kids are cheaper than buying masses of replicants.

                  Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                  He was disappointed she was barren so killed her. (Was my interpretation)
                  ...and mine. Hence him shooting "Rachel" at the end. As they are organic androids, they can't just take them apart and put them back together differently.
                  Last edited by Bored Of Education; 24-10-2017, 14:42.

                  Comment


                    But shooting her was colossally wasteful. As is murdering newly birthed replicants.

                    Lazy scriptwriting to make bad guys look bad.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                      But shooting her was colossally wasteful. As is murdering newly birthed replicants.

                      Lazy scriptwriting to make bad guys look bad.
                      Rich people burn money to show how rich they are.

                      Comment


                        Also, as she was present both times, it would focus LUV's mind as the the tasks in hand.

                        Comment


                          I saw it again last night with my daughter and one of her friends. As PT said, I now the killing of the new model replicant (the example of most gratuitious nudity for me) was because she wasn't made pregnant. And was discussed above, Wallace claims that he needs replicants to reproduce because he can't meet the production demand. This is a totally illogical plot twist. As I note above, the revolution angle was also stupid and seeing it again seems even more stupid. I think the move would be to have the crew of replicants that helped Deckard and Rachel reflect some general sense of humanity and perhaps showing to be more human than the humans. And I agree with others that there would be super easy ways to work in more actors of color. Finally, and something I would have never noticed: my daughter and her friend are both teaching themselves Korean. They said that the Korean ads in the movie were ridiculous because the lettering was all random. There weren't any words. So if someone didn't read English but saw Z X W T in an ad they might think it was for a product.

                          Beyond all of that, on second viewing, I am settled that I really like this movie. For me, it is what a good science fiction movie should do: smart without a bunch of shit blowing up at all times, some fighting but mostly some speculation about the future, some good effects. I'm sold. But I was predisposed because Blade Runner is probably one of my top 5 favorite films. As with BE, I saw the original in the theater, saw the director's cut in the theater, and have watched both on DVD multiple times. The only one I might not have seen is the European release, which is part of a box set my parents have so will need to watch that when I visit them in the winter.

                          Comment


                            Finally went to see it tonight. We both really liked it. I would write more, but Bored has largely covered my thoughts already.

                            I liked the fact that although the end of the (Director's/Final Cuts) original reveals, in my opinion, that Deckard is a replicant, the ambiguity remained in this one. In fact I liked it even more in light of that Ridley Scott interview mentioned on the first page from a couple of years ago when he said Deckard definitely was. I've not gone back to thinking, 'oh now I don't know whether he is or not again!' but I like that it keeps those questions going. And in the original Deckard is a (presumed at the film's start) human who starts to wonder whether he's a replicant, whereas in this one K is a replicant who starts to wonder whether he's ... not human exactly, but something 'more'.

                            Oh, because I'm too eager to see references to Kafka where probably none are intended, I did also enjoy the fact that when Joi suggests K should have a proper name, she calls him Joe.

                            Comment


                              I was disappointed when K found out he wasn’t the child that Rachel had because it meant he couldn’t say to Deckard, “Let me ask you about my mother.”

                              Comment


                                Saw this a couple weeks. While watching the film I thought it was quite good, but now I realise I got carried away with Blade Runner nostalgia and the amazing shots. I thought the cinematography was great. Amazing landscapes and dystopian future and all that. All the nudity was unnecessary. Especially the slow panning shot of the nude body of the murdered replicant lady. The new Tyrell guy was also a bit shit.

                                My main gripe with the film is that they spelled out everything to the audience. The original Blade Runner left a lot open to interpretation. This one assumes that the audience need to be told everything about the K character and that the dreammaker lady is the real daughter, etc. Totally ruins the whole mystery aspect that should go with a Blade Runner film.

                                Comment


                                  To be fair, they did leave it ambiguous as to whether Deckard is a replicant. Which is a bit silly, given that the definitive version of the original film didn't.

                                  Comment


                                    We've just finished watching it. I gotta say my initial reaction is that it's really very tedious, and feels every second of its two and three-quarter hours. I'm all for slowly evolving movies, but they have to be slow for a reason, and never as uniformly paced as this film is. Anyway I'll go away and sleep on it. It might seem better in the morning.

                                    Comment


                                      I presume you watched it at home? I can't see it working anything like so well without the immersion and scale of seeing it at the cinema.

                                      Comment


                                        Yes - it's definitely a big film experience.

                                        Comment


                                          Yeah, we missed in theatres by a day. It's certainly possible that scale has much to do with it's effectiveness. I also admit that sci-fi is not particularly a favourite genre of mine (I'm not sure how many more post-apocalyptic dystopian themed productions I can get excited about.) T'other half though is a huge si-fi reader and watcher, and had been avidly waiting to see this. She was, therefore, probably more disappointed than I was. As she said, "There were so many questions raised in the first film that warranted multiple viewings, but there's really no reason to see this again, it's all done in one sitting."

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                                            As she said, "There were so many questions raised in the first film that warranted multiple viewings, but there's really no reason to see this again, it's all done in one sitting."
                                            She summed up what I thought about the film better than I could.

                                            Comment


                                              I've not looked through the thread. I've sat down to watch this 3 times, and each time I fell asleep just before the 25th minute mark*.

                                              Admittedly, I couldn't tell you much about the first 25 minutes either. Although, I think they have done something to Ryan Gosling's chin, or mouth, as it doesn't look right (and I think he took a bit of a kicking at some point?) Anyway, I am going to try again this weekend. It looks fucking sumptuous, even on a slightly-bigger-than-necessary, TV.

                                              *Not sure if this is true, as I was asleep.

                                              Comment


                                                I could watch the world they created for hours. I never want to sit through that shitty plotty mess of a story ever again. Maybe even worse than the new Star Wars. Certainly more problematic. I’d take Leia flying like an angel through space to the giant blue ladeez acting like a massive FHM/Loaded spread (grr fucking James Brown (ex NME hack, not skeezy funk genius), the paleo pre Vice 20peter20).
                                                Last edited by Lang Spoon; 17-01-2018, 20:44.

                                                Comment


                                                  I forgot to mention: over the weekend, me and 'im indoors watched actual 'Blade Runner'. He has never seen it, so I didn't say a single word throughout. (It was the 'no commentary' version. And he loved it.)

                                                  Comment


                                                    Don't show him the new one then
                                                    Last edited by Patrick Thistle; 17-01-2018, 22:39.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X