Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blade Runner II - SPOILER

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

    #76
    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
    “It's an odd world isn't it? One man, one genius man, well two in succession control these massive companies. That feels rather 80s as well. Does he not have shareholders, a board, employees? “

    That’s a trope in a lot of movies. It just makes it easier for the plot. Of course, in real life, the replicants would be designed and created by hundreds or maybe thousands of scientists and engineers working for a publicly controlled company, but it’s harder to turn that into characters that can be developed in a film or limited tv series let alone turned into a metaphor for God.

    So, for example, in the original Blade Runner the idea was that Tyrell was an artist as well as being the Series Six’ father figure - evoking Pinocchio and some other myths - so it’s more poignant when Roy Batty squishes his head.

    It’s also a thing in some of William Gibson’s work and that of other scifi writers - that eventually the superrich will be so rich and that they’ll transcend and become a different species. That’s implied in this one with Wallace being a bit of a cyborg.

    It would make sense if they took it further and made the omnipotent creator/villain an AI. But the only popular films I can recall that did that are Tron (Which is underrated) and, of course, The Matrix and Terminator franchises.
    See also Weyland in Ridley Scott's Promethus/ Alien Covenant films. Ridley loves his genius-creator led corporations.

    Comment


      #77
      I liked Ryan Gosling's coat, and the rest of the film.

      Comment


        #78
        Another quest film then, The One discovering their powers (and then twist! Not-One) FFS. The Director’s cut Replicant stuff was bollocks enough in the first movie (as The stuff with Rutger now makes no sense), now it’s the plot device the sequel hangs on. It does look very pretty but. Jared Leto and the scriptwriter both need to be run out of town though.
        Last edited by Lang Spoon; 15-10-2017, 13:39.

        Comment


          #79
          So. I really like the original, and finally saw this on Wednesday. Bizarrely, I mostly enjoyed it (with some reservations) while watching it, but the more I've thought about the film since then, the more it has felt unsatisfying and shallow.

          The good things first: the cinematography, set design and soundtrack are fantastic; and the arc about the AI girlfriend, while not handled completely well (see below), is probably the most interesting strand of the story and raises the kind of interesting existential questions that I expected from the film.

          As for the problems, first of all the ubiquitous female nudity and general gender politics stink. Joi, the prostitute, the newly-born replicant, the random and unexplained giant statues etc. A film can depict a sexist world in a non-sexist way, but this definitely didn't manage that, and the couple of paper-thin Strong Female Characters offered as a sop didn't help. I spent large chunks of the film feeling alienated and unwelcome, which is especially dispiriting given that I never felt that way watching the original film despite it being made in supposedly less enlightened times.

          Also, it's far too long. The pacing and editing didn't bother me at all, but several scenes didn't add anything and could easily have been dispensed with. All the stuff about showing how evil Jared Leto's character is was particularly tedious, and the half-arsed sub-plot about the rebellion seemed lifted from a completely different film.

          But what disappointed me the most is that for all its ambitions to be a deep and meaningful film asking the big questions, it was strangely empty and trite. If anything, what it says about SPOILER AHOY the importance of procreation not only seems pretty dodgy territory, but also takes away from the moral dilemma at the heart of the first film. What's interesting about replicants is that they are made not born, and their memories are inauthentic, yet they have feelings and display humanity. If you start having replicants that are born, grow up, have parents and actual memories instead of implants, then they are basically human in all but name anyway, so any observations about their humanity derived from that is bound to be fairly banal stuff.

          Comment


            #80
            Someone needs to gain a court order to separate Ridley Scott from his old films. There will be a Duellists reboot next, somehow tied in with the Alien/Blade Runner universe. It’s bad enough he still churns out politely reviewed guff like Deaf Ears Robin Hood, without him franchising and reimagining everything he made when he was bearable (that’s a very short window round chez Spoon).

            It’s like the Star Wars and Star Trek reboots, Abrams really plays close to nostalgic wink wink fan fiction as well. At least Scott has no visible sense of irony so films he produces or directs don’t break the 4th wall tongue in cheek like when giving the punters what they think they want (every last little enigma explained, in as trite and clunky a way possible. So fuckin Facebender bot makes the Alien we know and love. Such a neat little bow).
            Last edited by Lang Spoon; 15-10-2017, 15:41.

            Comment


              #81
              There are some brilliant Hot Takes from US Centrist Dad types who think it’s a box office failure cos the spoiled millennials can’t take the central message (for the protagonist) You Aren’t Special Snowflake. Seeing that twist as stunning and insightful, good god.

              Maybe if they hadn’t spent their time embargoing all plot details during the promotion, folk that weren’t Centrist Dads who saw the original age 15 might have gone along, but then again maybes not. And not having the film dedicated to gratuitous Awesome Boobage might have brought in a few more women, cos it completely stunk out with women under 24.
              Last edited by Lang Spoon; 15-10-2017, 15:57.

              Comment


                #82
                I'm with Fussbudget in that I left leaving the cinema thinking I liked it and now I feel it was OK but not worth repeated viewings.

                It's nowhere near Alien Covenant levels of shocking shiteness but it's a narrow miss at times.

                Comment


                  #83
                  I really liked the original, saw it in Slough when it first came out - no directors cut - but loved it, mainly as it was the first film that made me actually giddy from the effects.

                  So watched it again, before going to see BR2049.

                  I really liked it, even with French sub titles trying to lure me away from the plot ( a personal weakness to see how they handle swear words).
                  As others have said a visual treat; but it just goes to show how spoilt we all are with modern cinema effects, there wasn't that amazed feeling I got with the original in '82.
                  Liked the performances, OK Harrison phoned it it in. Leto what-is-name was a good panto villain, as was the Luv character really.
                  I was amazed at the Rachel apparence for CGI magic (several leagues higher than Rogue Ones young Carrie Fischer that's for sure).
                  I always like Ryan Gosling - so like others surprised at his negative image by some.

                  Interestingly my wife watched it at the IMAX in London, and she cannot remember seeing the original before (she actually had a few years ago, got bored and went to bed early - but she can't remember) - anyhow she really enjoyed it as a stand alone movie. Although 3D at an IMAX would have been a treat to watch most things.

                  Still don't know if Deckard was a replicant - in fact when i first saw Bladerunner all those years ago - I it never evn crossed my mind , it's only when we started getting into the internet era and seeing so called "well known fan theories" I even thought it was on the cards. So I think i need someone hitting me over the head saying yes or no to get through my head.
                  Last edited by VTTBoscombe; 18-10-2017, 08:07.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Still don't know if Deckard was a replicant - in fact when i first saw Bladerunner all those years ago - I it never evn crossed my mind , it's only when we started getting into the internet era and seeing so called "well known fan theories" I even thought it was on the cards. So I think i need someone hitting me over the head saying yes or no to get through my head.
                    Original movie - not a replicant. Director's Cut and Final Cut - replicant. 2049 - deliberately ambiguous.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      My question on that though. He's told that Rachel was designed to appeal to him, in order to impregnate her. Does that mean he was designed with replicant sperm? In the original he had been blade running long enough to retire and then be coerced back. So when did Tyrell invent replicants with sperm producing capability? Was it some time before he perfected replicants with functioning ovaries?

                      Comment


                        #86
                        In the original he had been blade running long enough to retire and then be coerced back.
                        As was pointed out on a very insightful podcast episode I was listening to the other day, we don't actually know that. For all we know, he was switched on just before we first see him.

                        As for the sperm thing, if they have to do Voight Kampff tests to figure out if the Series 6s are replicants, then pretty self-evidently they must produce sperm.

                        In 2049, in the interpretation that he is a replicant, then he's a Nexus 7 or 8, because he would have to have an unlimited (artficially) lifespan.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by Ginger Yellow View Post
                          As for the sperm thing, if they have to do Voight Kampff tests to figure out if the Series 6s are replicants, then pretty self-evidently they must produce sperm.
                          I'd never thought of that. It would have been a different film had Deckard turned up with a plastic cup and a copy of Razzle.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            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.

                            If Deckard has just been switched on, Bryant and others are just playing him. But surely he would be top, top secret. Someone else in the department would think 'Who the hell is that guy?'

                            Although being newly switched on would explain Deckard's ineptness at killing replicants.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              I had been very eager to see this since Blade Runner is one of my favorite films, but have been so swamped with work and am not a fan of being packed in like a sardine on Friday and Saturday nights that I waited until today to see it. I read through the comments posted so far. Most make sense to me and I'm in agreement about the cinematography. 3D was gone from my theater but I'm not a fan of 3D so would have opted for XD (wall to ceiling screen) but that has been replaced by some horror film. Anyway, standard 2D still looked amazing.

                              I really liked the film. The one major thing that irritated me was the rebellion angle; it was stupid and not necessary.

                              In terms of the nudity, I get Fussbudget's point but I think there's probably some kind of middle ground. The scene where Leto basically performs a hysterectomy on the replicant could have happened with less sustained nudity. But it would seem strange if he performed the same move when she was clothed. I don't know why the camera needed to scan her naked body for as long as happened. The other main form of nudity was the giant hologram figure but I think that made sense; it was an extreme version of what we get in many ads. I mean, was this worse than the Carl's Junior/Hardee's ads we see in the US of busty models dripping ketchup on themselves as if the ketchup is some kind of porno money shot? Whether the director meant for this to a critique of advertising, I can't say, but I certainly see it that way. I don't remember any other nude scenes beyond the statues, but those were clearly part of this take on Las Vegas-style tackiness (as we see with the brilliant flickering almost-fat Elivs lounge scene). I don't think those statues would be out of place in Vegas amidst it's gaudy architecture and sex sells imagery.

                              The other thing that bothered me was Luv's voice being a copy of Rachel's in terms of lack of affect drowned in reverb.

                              I didn't mind the length although my bladder was bursting and I had to run out during the scene when Harrison Ford (I assume) explained what happened to Ryan Gossling. But I really liked the twist about Gossling thinking that he was the son because of the implanted memory. It's just too bad that reveal had to happen via the stupid revolutionary leader moment.

                              I would like to see it again in the theater before it disappears from the big screen because I assume there were some other interesting little twists that I might have missed on first viewing.

                              I don't know if we needed to wait 30 years to get this sequel but it was a good film. Perhaps it might have been better if it was done less as a sequel and more of stand alone film with some light connection to the original as we saw with Rogue One in the Star Wars spin-offs.
                              Last edited by danielmak; 22-10-2017, 21:56.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                As for the problems, first of all the ubiquitous female nudity and general gender politics stink. Joi, the prostitute, the newly-born replicant, the random and unexplained giant statues etc. A film can depict a sexist world in a non-sexist way, but this definitely didn't manage that, and the couple of paper-thin Strong Female Characters offered as a sop didn't help. I spent large chunks of the film feeling alienated and unwelcome, which is especially dispiriting given that I never felt that way watching the original film despite it being made in supposedly less enlightened times.
                                That shows my privilege. I didn't even notice there were any boobs in the film.

                                I thought the giant hologram woman made sense in the context. Though it could have been made PG. The point was that advertising will just become more and more pervasive and that soon there will be somebody ready to sell us something to satisfy our base desires everywhere we go. We're almost there already.

                                It's also problematic that both films posit a world in which Asian culture - mostly Japanese in the first one,* but maybe more Chinese in the second one - has become a huge part of American culture, at least on the west coast, and yet none of the main characters are Asian. The extras and secondary characters are racially diverse, but all the main characters are white.

                                It's also connected to the widespread panic in the 80s that the Japanese would soon own us all. I remember that well.


                                I'm not entirely sure what the point of the naked replicant getting murdered was.


                                All the stuff about showing how evil Jared Leto's character is was particularly tedious, and the half-arsed sub-plot about the rebellion seemed lifted from a completely different film.


                                I think they're trying to set up a sequel.

                                But what disappointed me the most is that for all its ambitions to be a deep and meaningful film asking the big questions, it was strangely empty and trite. If anything, what it says about SPOILER AHOY the importance of procreation not only seems pretty dodgy territory, but also takes away from the moral dilemma at the heart of the first film. What's interesting about replicants is that they are made not born, and their memories are inauthentic, yet they have feelings and display humanity. If you start having replicants that are born, grow up, have parents and actual memories instead of implants, then they are basically human in all but name anyway, so any observations about their humanity derived from that is bound to be fairly banal stuff.


                                I don't know if it's banal, but it isn't new.

                                Even if they're "born," they're still stronger than us and possibly better than us in different ways, so they could generate a backlash from humans worried about being replaced. The prequel animated short about the blackout explained it more than the film, but the idea is that there's a emerging anti-replicant racism thing going on. So that's pretty much the subplot of all of X-men, I suppose.

                                As the film laboriously explained - first by Robin Wright, and then by Jared Leto - if replicants start to be pretty much the same as humans, than humans can no longer treat them as slaves. But they'll probably continue to want to do that even when it becomes clear that they're human for all intents and purposes. So now it's the plot of Battlestar Galactica. And the backstory of the Matrix.

                                I don't know if that's "banal" but I don't know if there's much new territory to be mined there.

                                But they still have the memory-making daughter character. There could be interesting stuff with her. I don't know if the replicant-rebellion would be very interesting. Maybe.


                                * This is pulled straight out of early William Gibson, but he has Asian characters and sets some of his stories in Japan, so anytime I'm in an airport and hear announcements in Japanese I feel like I'm in the future.

                                Comment


                                  #91
                                  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.)

                                  Comment


                                    #92
                                    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 think it's two-fold. First, this was an outpost of Los Angeles and so there weren't replicants there (perhaps) or they couldn't afford replicants. Second, it shows the overall system of exploitation and corruption.

                                    By the way, I posted above about Jared Leto's character cutting out the replicant's uterus, but read somewhere else that he was trying to make replicants that could reproduce. I might have missed that angle. My sense was he didn't want them to reproduce or to be human-like. Did someone else catch what was happening with that scene where he cut her open?

                                    Comment


                                      #93
                                      He was disappointed she was barren so killed her. (Was my interpretation)

                                      Comment


                                        #94
                                        Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                                        He was disappointed she was barren so killed her. (Was my interpretation)
                                        It shouldn't have been left so vague and unclear.

                                        As for why there are replicants with so much potentially cheap labor around: Because the replicants they're making now are obedient to Wallace. People aren't as easy to control. And the replicants are stronger and, I guess, not as susceptible to the effects of all the radiation in the atmosphere on earth or the atmospheric issues off-world. At least, that's suggested in the book. And it both the first film and the book, the idea is that the Series 6 are more lifelike than any of the earlier models and that Tyrell is making them like that just because he can. A kind of mad-scientist thing.

                                        But it's never explained why we don't see any of the cheaper ones that look like robots. As I recall, there's a scene in the current film that alludes to that. Luv is talking to a hologram of a potential client saying that maybe he doesn't need a humanoid one unless he's going for a "pleasure model." But other than the life-like holograms, the only artificially intelligent beings are full-on replicants. You'd think that, as with the Cylons in BG, most of them - especially the industrial worker kind - would be just big hulking metal robots.

                                        As for why they need the Voight-Kampf test or whatever it is in the new film that Joe has to do to prove he's ok, I think - and I may be remembering this wrong - that in the book or maybe the first film it was explained that they don't use DNA tests because they're too easy to fake. I could be wrong and have imagined that. But it would make sense. Also, the book was written in the 60s before DNA testing was really a thing.

                                        Besides, the point of the story was about what it is to be human and what not, not to accurately predict the evolution of artificial intelligence. So the only difference between humans and the replicants is, supposedly, that the latter don't really have compassion. They can sort of fake it but the VC test can tell the difference.

                                        Comment


                                          #95
                                          Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
                                          The point was that advertising will just become more and more pervasive and that soon there will be somebody ready to sell us something to satisfy our base desires everywhere we go.
                                          As long as "we" are male, seems to imply the film. At no point in the film did I feel included in that "we", because the female characters are always on the other side of that.

                                          Even if they're "born," they're still stronger than us and possibly better than us in different ways, so they could generate a backlash from humans worried about being replaced. The prequel animated short about the blackout explained it more than the film, but the idea is that there's a emerging anti-replicant racism thing going on. So that's pretty much the subplot of all of X-men, I suppose.

                                          As the film laboriously explained - first by Robin Wright, and then by Jared Leto - if replicants start to be pretty much the same as humans, than humans can no longer treat them as slaves. But they'll probably continue to want to do that even when it becomes clear that they're human for all intents and purposes. So now it's the plot of Battlestar Galactica. And the backstory of the Matrix.

                                          I don't know if that's "banal" but I don't know if there's much new territory to be mined there.

                                          But they still have the memory-making daughter character. There could be interesting stuff with her. I don't know if the replicant-rebellion would be very interesting. Maybe.
                                          I guess that's where they're going. I just don't find that rebellion stuff interesting at all if I'm honest. It seems to take Blade Runner from a Solaris-style existential meditation to something more like Star Wars or as you say X-Men or The Matrix, which is not my bag at all and has been done to death.

                                          Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                                          He was disappointed she was barren so killed her. (Was my interpretation)
                                          Yes that's how I read it too. I still think it was a pointless scene that we could have done without.

                                          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 was even more confused by why Wallace is so keen to create replicants that can reproduce in order to quickly multiply the number of replicants, rather than continue to manufacture industrial numbers of fully-formed, immediately effective replicants, on the grounds that the latter "take too long to make" (or cost more money? I can't remember which.) Given how long it takes to raise a child and how much it costs to feed/clothe/educate them during that time, that seems a pretty baffling strategy. And who is going to do that? Replicant wet nurses, thereby reducing the number of adult replicants who can go "conquer other worlds" or whatever Wallace is so desperate to do? I didn't get that bit at all.

                                          Comment


                                            #96
                                            HP, they aren't robots. They're artificial humans with bones and stuff. That's why they bleed. Even in the first one it's clear they're wetware.

                                            Comment


                                              #97
                                              Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                                              HP, they aren't robots. They're artificial humans with bones and stuff. That's why they bleed. Even in the first one it's clear they're wetware.
                                              Robot just means "slave," as I recall, so it's actually a fair description of what they're designed to be.

                                              I get that they aren't just skin over metal like Terminators (though the way Philip K Dick describes artificial animals, it's a bit like that) but they aren't just people grown in a vat either. They're made fully grown, age very fast, and are stronger than humans. Just like the flesh and blood Cylons.

                                              My point - at least in my own head - was that if they have the technology to make artificial fully grown humans and enough understanding of neurology to download memories into their heads (and Jared Leto's character plugs in things to his head. William Gibson called those, perhaps prophetically, "microsofts."), then they surely have the ability to make some fairly intelligent mech-droids for a lot lower cost.

                                              Comment


                                                #98
                                                The Matrix 2 got pretty good reviews when it came out, didn’t it? I wouldn’t put this needless sequel down there quite yet, but I wonder how many critics are now quietly reviewing their opinion. Like Fussbudget was saying, it curdles looking back at it. And I don’t even particularly enjoy it while watching. If they just had almost 3 hours of plotless snooping around the amazing world they created, I’d have been far happier. Man with a Movie Camera for a makey up world.

                                                Comment


                                                  #99
                                                  As long as "we" are male, seems to imply the film. At no point in the film did I feel included in that "we", because the female characters are always on the other side of that.
                                                  You're not wrong.

                                                  Part of that is the current reality that most porn, etc, is geared toward men, and the filmmakers may just be blindly assuming that will continue for the foreseeable future or, probably mistakenly, assuming that that represents something hardwired in our biology.

                                                  They're also assuming - correctly, I'm afraid - that the audience is more likely to "know what a female prostitute looks like, even in the future" based on a zillion images in film and TV. Certainly, it's more of a stock character than a male one, so it's easier to portray female prostitutes and porn-images in the background without explaining what they're there for And then they can have a character like McKenzie Davis' character just show-up and not have to explain what her job is. That would be harder with a man, I suppose. Not defending that, just saying that it fits the audience's expectations of the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold.

                                                  But the more powerful explanation is that the filmmakers assume that the primary audience for their film is men. Which, as you allude to, is a self-fulfilling prophesy when they put in lots of naked women but make the heroes all straight men.

                                                  In The Expanse, the authors specifically made sure that the TV series shows both male and female prostitutes in scenes of brothels. (Though none of them are major characters in the books) In the future solar system they posit, prostitution is fairly common because the economy isn't great for most people and the social stigma of it has dissipated, especially in the artificial stations around the outer planets.



                                                  I was even more confused by why Wallace is so keen to create replicants that can reproduce in order to quickly multiply the number of replicants, rather than continue to manufacture industrial numbers of fully-formed, immediately effective replicants, on the grounds that the latter "take too long to make" (or cost more money? I can't remember which.) Given how long it takes to raise a child and how much it costs to feed/clothe/educate them during that time, that seems a pretty baffling strategy. And who is going to do that? Replicant wet nurses, thereby reducing the number of adult replicants who can go "conquer other worlds" or whatever Wallace is so desperate to do? I didn't get that bit at all.
                                                  If replicant babies grow-up as fast as they do in the factory - or at least much faster than real people - and he can control them the way he controls his replicants, then its a sound business strategy, especially since he can just download information, memories, etc into their brain. No need for schools.

                                                  Even if they don't grow fast and do need schools, it's still may be a good way to build an army if for whatever reason, he can't scale-up the factory - either due to some resource constraint, government oversight, etc.

                                                  More importantly, I think, it evokes how slavery worked/works in the real world. The "slave-owner" gets to possess the offspring of his slaves. Just as an animal breeder does (which is, in my strongly held opinion, also unethical).
                                                  Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 23-10-2017, 18:48.

                                                  Comment


                                                    I see what you're getting at Spoons, because the longer I think about it the more annoyed I get at the silly plot holes.

                                                    I haven't reached anywhere near Alien Covenant levels of hate rage yet though.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X