SAM33
Member
Joined: December 18th, 2005, 3:28 am

January 8th, 2018, 2:48 pm #61

You know, that went by me I admit, but of course Rick's right, that's more fitting for a pulp serial.

I was discussing this with another friend last night, and while like me he really enjoyed it, especially visually, he too was a bit confused by the rush of plot in the last 45 minutes or so. I just think they needed to streamline it some. While I suspect some of what I see as "confusing" is deliberate ambiguity, which we know was central to the first film, I still feel they tried to cram in too much, resulting in both a long run time and yet a too-short amount of time to develop the many characters' stories they were trying to bring together.

I admire ambitious plotting, beats simplistic action for me every time, but I still think they got a bit out of control with the narrative at the end.

BUT - I like and recommend this film. Much more good than bad here.

SAM33
Quote
Like
Share

Rick
Member
Joined: December 22nd, 2004, 2:22 pm

January 8th, 2018, 7:59 pm #62

My brilliant son (well, of course he is, duh) may have loved this BLADE RUNNER even more than I did. He couldn't stop talking about it. The one area in which we differed was Ryan Gosling's performance. I accept it as a placid, semi-robotic thing and I'm fine with it. My son thought he was a bore, but still loved the movie. Since Gosling is pretty much onscreen throughout, he couldn't have been that bad.

We agreed very much on Harrison Ford, however. Even before I expressed my opinion, my son said it was the best acting Ford had ever done, which is just what I posted here a while back.

Main thing is that my brilliant son (really, I swear) and I both seriously loved this one.
“I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.”
~ Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 5th, 2009, 12:05 pm

January 8th, 2018, 8:56 pm #63

The idea that especially stays with me on this one is the brief scene of 'remote, casual, all-out War' meted out by a lethal but classy woman, as she simultaneously relaxes and gets her fingernails attended to cosmetically, in a serene, civilized setting.

This is a new area of 'designer violence' taken to lengths I never saw before: not done like this, anyway.

Brilliant fantasy notion which I much appreciated. 
'the horror..............THE HORROR!'


Cartoon-strip blog here [updated regularly]:

http://zoomertoonsrabsmith.blogspot.com/
Quote
Like
Share

Maximillian
Member
Joined: January 20th, 2011, 5:59 pm

January 30th, 2018, 2:24 pm #64



Oh look, it's Lars and the Real Girl😋
"If hard work were such a wonderful thing, surely the rich would have kept it all to themselves."  -- Lane Kirkland, AFL-CIO President (1979-1995)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 16th, 2011, 2:23 am

January 31st, 2018, 2:30 pm #65

did not like.  what was bold in 1982 is a Bounty commerical in 2017.  Listless, predictable, full of adversity with no true conflict with a "slave rebellion" after thought.  Oh, and the blind visionary and bubble girl chosen one?  What are we in Cliff Notes 301?  How about a character named Jesse King for, you know, "meaning"?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 23rd, 2004, 10:51 am

February 2nd, 2018, 2:14 pm #66

Meh. I don't know. Does anyone really pine for "2010: The Year We Make Contact"?
Don't think this Blade Runner incarnation will be anything but a similar footnote years from now.
It just doesn't have the magic.

Steve
"This is the wireless detonator, men," he explained. "When I press this key it will complete a radio circuit in the real detonator tuned to this wave combination. As soon as I can get the boy Hank, I'll have him tow the old duck boat with the wireless bomb and leave it under the radio shack where that Evans chap has his laboratory and his confounded radioplane. Then blooey!"
Quote
Like
Share

Joe Stemme
Member
Joined: July 16th, 2013, 6:38 pm

February 2nd, 2018, 5:28 pm #67

Barbenfouillis.monsterkidclassichorrorforum wrote: Meh. I don't know. Does anyone really pine for "2010: The Year We Make Contact"?
Don't think this Blade Runner incarnation will be anything but a similar footnote years from now.
It just doesn't have the magic.

Steve
You may not care much for it, but, BR2049 Director Denis Villenueve is one of our finest filmmakers (SICARIO, INCENDIES, PRISONERS, ARRIVAL), and his stuff is on a whole higher plane than 2010's Peter Hyams (CAPRICORN ONE, TIMECOP).


That said, 2010 is a perfectly serviceable matinee flick, if not the the masterwork that the Kubrick is. BR2049 is much much more ambitious and prodigiously made than 2010.
Quote
Like
Share

Ardeth Bay
Member
Joined: January 14th, 2018, 5:33 am

February 3rd, 2018, 3:57 am #68

Captain Bryant compares Blade Runner 2049 to the original Blade Runner...

"He-He-He went for a little walk! You should have seen his face!" - (former Egyptologist Ralph Norton)
Quote
Like
Share

Maximillian
Member
Joined: January 20th, 2011, 5:59 pm

March 4th, 2018, 4:31 am #69

So I just finished watching Blade Runner 2049 and I got to say I loved it. Better than the overrated original.

There, I said it.

Now I've been pretty verbal in my lack of interest in this movie on this board, so you all are probably wondering what happened.

Well, it began with a picture. This one:



This picture would come up every time I clicked the Netflix link from an email message. And every time I saw it, my eyes drifted towards Ana de Armas's Mia Kirshner-like visage. It was as if Ana wasn't just staring at me or through me. She stared into me, drawing me to her.

I was pulled away from disinterest and toward curiousity. I watched a couple of video reviews and decided to rent it from Netflix in Glorious Blu-Ray (at least it ought to be since it costs extra).

This was my third Denis Villeneuve movie: the first being Arrival and the second being Sicario. I liked Arrival and loved Sicario. I don't know why he alone wasn't enough to make me see it. Probably because it was a sequel to a movie that was nothing more than photographs of production design set to music.

Thankfully, this sequel more was than that. It had a plot. K/Joe was more of a detective than Deckard was. And the production design was utilized properly. It didn't feel overwhelming.

Harrison Ford gave a better performance in this than the previous. Hell, it's his best in a long time. Gosling was good. And Sylvia Hoeks (I chuckle at her surname since it reminds me of a certain ill-tempered cartoon Chichuahua from the '90s) was one real femme fatale, with emphasis on the fatale.

I'll be adding this movie to my small Blu-Ray collection. And since I turn 37 next month, I'll ask the Birthday Fairy for a copy. I would ask for a night and a day with Ana de Armas, but I know that'll never happen.

I guess this'll have to do.
"If hard work were such a wonderful thing, surely the rich would have kept it all to themselves."  -- Lane Kirkland, AFL-CIO President (1979-1995)
Quote
Like
Share

hermanthegerm
Member
Joined: December 1st, 2005, 8:05 am

July 10th, 2018, 8:39 pm #70

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) SOME SPOILERS
 
The expanded, updated future world created by Messrs. Ridley Scott and Syd Mead is revisited & this movie relishes its time with it. Fans who appreciate the previous design and world building should be satisfied. Why rush this?
 
We start the movie immediately with some familiar visuals, boiling water, fighting bodies going thru walls, etc. that immediately bring to mind Blade Runner milieu. Later we'll encounter miniature animals, further reinforcing visual motifs from the first movie.
 
From a certain point of view this is the film that Ridley Scott probably wishes he had made, we get the 'irony' of a replicant replicant hunter. But from another POV it's also totally the opposite. Based on the Alien reboots, Frankenstein's monster should hate and want to destroy its father (or creator god) but in this one... maybe not so much.
 
But also the ironic impact of the replicant replicant hunter is also proven to be toothless and meaningless.
Just how much does the reveal sting here? Not much.
In fact, not at all.
To all the fanboys who defend the Deckard as replicant (up to and including Scott himself) the practical cinematic application of the concept is finally shown to not really amount to much at all.
If 'irony' is as meaningless as all this, then why should anyone bother?
 
Also, the character of Deckard is proven for certain, once and for all to be the only logical thing he could have been all along (at least in this sequel's Universe, but also as based on Philip K. Dick's original concept.) Even based on one of the first lines here 'replicants are augmented', which Deckard clearly was not.
A minor doubt is inserted later in the game about exactly how far ahead the plan has been going on, but the character who mentions it is too young, and dates after the file blackout to be taken seriously... How could this guy know the details of what went on thirty plus years ago?
 
Minor quibbles are, why do we get lines like "An emanator"?
If I am gifted a TV I do not state "A television watching machine" for the expository benefit of an audience that is not there.
The script is dumbing things down a bit.
No need for that.
Even non-Science Fiction fans should be sophisticated enough to not require verbal descriptions of a thing we are about to see in mere seconds.
The only other explanation is that someone came up with the name, and was so proud of it that it just had to be included in the script and survive the editing process.
 
We've seen lots of holograms in movies (and TV's Red Dwarf, for example,) but props for doing a realistically practical one. (I loved it when one showed up in Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 and it was nice finally seeing one on the screen.)
 
The script is also fairly naive in regards to what is and is not impossible. These folks consider of the idea of a fertile replicant that "That's not possible." Really? Wouldn't the concept of a surrogate, replicant womb be one of the first to come out the development of artificial humans? (Isn't that exactly what RAH's Friday is about?)
And considering that Tyrell was doing all kinds of unorthodox things in secret, would it really be that much of a stretch? How could anyone, 30 years later, know that he did or not do something specific - especially after all records have disappeared?
However, they are allowed to their Universe whichever way they please, so I'd allow it.
 
The idea of identical DNA seems also a little behind the times. There are no clones in this Universe?
This is a really scientifically backward reveal in an established world of replicants, ...but again, it's their Universe. So, fine.

When asking about whether a memory is real, or not, the wrong question is being asked. The question should not be "is this memory real?" but "is this memory mine?" Since we've seen solid proof that it is real, then why even ask the (obviously wrong) question?

Deadbeat dads have already been proven to be a Hollywood obsession on these old movie revisits: Captain Kirk, Indiana Jones, Superman. Some decades into the future we will look back at this phenomenon and ask ourselves what it was all about.
It's actually well handled here, though. 
Maybe they are learning.

The other repeated theme in much of today's science fiction cinema is the blurring of alien, or artificial and human. 
I've commented on it, but I see not many others echoing awareness of the same. 
The first set of Alien movies end with a human/alien hybrid (a concept which is nowhere near in the first installment.) Species is much the same thing boiled down. Even going as far back as Demon Seed, or not so far back as Star Trek The Motion Picture we keep seeing this same theme repeated. 
The theme was, in fact, already established in Island Of Lost Souls but while it seems easy to interpret the motif (if going that far back) as some sort of allegory of racial miscegenation, could it be that the current incarnation is still that same old thing? Are we still obsessed with the idea of the loss of mere racial identity? Or, have we gone truly beyond that outdated fear, and are we now in territory where it truly reflects a true fear of literal loss of humanity?


On the positive side, we get a good, trashy update to the replicant Pris.  

The movie stars well and ends well, but in the middle it sets up a few thing it doesn't quite know how to resolve. Why let this guy go? What is actually achieved from transporting this guy, to exactly where and for what purpose? What actually is the plan to force this guy to talk? (The bribe scene is very good, but there is no backup plan.) 

Despite the light missteps, the ending is emotional and wholly successful.

We need more adult oriented films like this one. We need more Science Fiction like this.

Check it out.
 
Last edited by hermanthegerm on July 13th, 2018, 3:11 pm, edited 7 times in total.
"There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom."

George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
Quote
Like
Share

Godziwolf
Member
Joined: December 7th, 2008, 5:04 pm

July 10th, 2018, 9:42 pm #71

hermanthegerm wrote: Blade Runner 2049 (2017) SOME SPOILERS
 
The script is also fairly naive in regards to what is and is not impossible. These folks consider of the idea of a fertile replicant that "That's not possible." Really? Wouldn't the concept of a surrogate, replicant womb be one of the first to come out the development of artificial humans? (Isn't that exactly what RAH's Friday is about?)
I guess you'd have to answer what replicants were. In the book they are androids -- human-appearing robots. Think West/Futureworld, although that raises the question of how they would be undetectable. Basically, you can be superhuman or undetectable, but not both.

If they are still robots, then a replicant womb would be cargo-culting humanity. There's no reason to expect a robot to need a womb. Something like the androids in Screamers would be more likely -- more likely to have come from a mill than a womb.

But if they are just genetically-engineering pseudohumans, there's no reason to marvel at them reproducing. Jeff Goldblum has already fielded this question.
Quote
Like
Share

hermanthegerm
Member
Joined: December 1st, 2005, 8:05 am

July 10th, 2018, 10:07 pm #72

Godziwolf wrote:...But if they are just genetically-engineering pseudohumans, there's no reason to marvel at them reproducing.
Since they have virtually human DNA (which we see onscreen,) then this is exactly what they are. This was established already the first film, somewhat obliquely, but established nevertheless. (Some questions from the first are answered here, such as 'are humanoid replicants also serial tagged, as animal replicants are?' The answer, here, is yes. In theory you'd then not require the VK test, identifying one serially would also do it. The hard part would be to get one to stay still for the electron microscope!)

The book is a different issue.

Friday was an artificial, augmented human, made sterile only deliberately. AFAIK Friday was the equivalent of a replicant (movie replicant, that is.)
"There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom."

George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 11th, 2008, 4:18 pm

July 11th, 2018, 7:57 pm #73

If it ever rains again here, I’ll have to watch this, I guess. Too many good reviews. The length is very offputting to me, though. Definitely for a slow, rainy day...


Cheers,
MacXoftheMounted, formerly Professor Von X
MacXoftheMounted.....................formerly known as Professor Von X
Quote
Like
Share

hermanthegerm
Member
Joined: December 1st, 2005, 8:05 am

July 11th, 2018, 10:25 pm #74

MacXoftheMounted wrote: If it ever rains again here, I’ll have to watch this, I guess. Too many good reviews. The length is very offputting to me, though. Definitely for a slow, rainy day...


Cheers,
MacXoftheMounted, formerly Professor Von X
Oh. I think it'll rain.
"There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom."

George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
Quote
Like
Share

Maximillian
Member
Joined: January 20th, 2011, 5:59 pm

July 12th, 2018, 4:47 am #75

MacXoftheMounted wrote: If it ever rains again here, I’ll have to watch this, I guess. Too many good reviews. The length is very offputting to me, though. Definitely for a slow, rainy day...


Cheers,
MacXoftheMounted, formerly Professor Von X
To quote Mike Stoklasa, "It's like a comfy nightmare blanket."

"If hard work were such a wonderful thing, surely the rich would have kept it all to themselves."  -- Lane Kirkland, AFL-CIO President (1979-1995)
Quote
Like
Share