# Blade Runner 2049



## krtek a houby (Jul 18, 2016)

Hmmm.

Blade Runner 2: First official artwork revealed - BBC News


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 18, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Blade Runner 2: First official artwork revealed - BBC News





> *Ryan Gosling* will star in the as-yet-untitled sequel, which is set several decades after the first story.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 18, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


>



I like the films I've seen him in but is he suitable in this universe? Then again, I recall that Gerard Depardieu was once considered for the sequel...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 18, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I like the films I've seen him in but is he suitable in this universe? Then again, I recall that Gerard Depardieu was once considered for the sequel...


I'd put him on a par with Keanu Reeves. I think I'd even prefer Nicholas Cage playing the part.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 18, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'd put him on a par with Keanu Reeves. I think I'd even prefer Nicholas Cage playing the part.



I could see Idris Elba in it.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I like the films I've seen him in but is he suitable in this universe? Then again, I recall that Gerard Depardieu was once considered for the sequel...


Very versatile actor and nothing is known about his role so far. If Villeneuve has cast him, then he's probably right for the role.

People who are under the misapprehension that Gosling can't act have only seen him in the Refn films where he gave deliberately minimalist, stylised performances which perfectly fitted those films. He was very different in more naturalistic dramas like Half Nelson and Blue Valentine and equally good in comedy roles like Crazy, Stupid, Love and Lars and the Real Girl.

I doubt Depardieu was ever seriously considered for a sequel.

The art work looks nice, very much in keeping with the original. Best of all is the news that Scott won't direct it so he can't "pull a Prometheus" on this. Denis Villeneuve is a great choice. He isn't a studio hack, he comes more from an art house background and he is one of the most interesting directors currently around. His previous films are very atmospheric and they have a noir quality which makes me think he could really do this justice.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2016)

Reno said:


> Very versatile actor and nothing is known about his role so far. If Villeneuve has cast him, then he's probably right for the role.
> 
> People who are under the misapprehension that Gosling can't act have only seen him in the Refn films where he gave deliberately minimalist, stylised performances which perfectly fitted those films. He was very different in more naturalistic dramas like Half Nelson and Blue Valentine and equally good in comedy roles like Crazy, Stupid, Love and Lars and the Real Girl.
> 
> ...



I feel reassured, cheers.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 22, 2016)

Gosling was in Drive.  He'd be perfect for a BladeRunner movie.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jul 22, 2016)

I thought he was good in The Believer as well - pretty scary portrayal of the US neo-nazi milieu and not such a contrived plot as based on an actual case....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

telbert said:


> tonight. BBC4 10pm. Aint seen it for ages so im gonna give it a go.


Aw  I missed it


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 19, 2016)

Oooh!


----------



## pengaleng (Dec 19, 2016)

YES BRUH IN MY FACE


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 19, 2016)

Chewie, we're home


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2016)

Deckard clearly not a replicant then, the andy's don't get to be old warriors shakily holding a pistol. Unless he is a secret model, Tyrell Corp Nexus 9, the future of replicant containment strategy


----------



## catinthehat (Dec 19, 2016)

I really hope this lives up to it and is worth the wait.  The casting looks promising and I'm with Reno on the Gosling front.  Jóhann Jóhannsson - so the soundtrack is also promising (and one of the key elements behind my Bladerunner admiration).


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2016)

Just picked up "Blade Runner 2" by KW Jeter in Oxfam. Published 20 years ago. I expect it to be crap but what the hell...


----------



## pengaleng (Dec 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Deckard clearly not a replicant then, the andy's don't get to be old warriors shakily holding a pistol. Unless he is a secret model, Tyrell Corp Nexus 9, the future of replicant containment strategy




of course he's a special model ffs just as rachael was < new BR must have shown up to retire the old on the run BR - new BR under the impression that himself aint a replicant  just as deckard is/possibly was


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2016)

We shall see. Wouldn't put it past the director/writers to still leave it ambiguous.

From the trailer I do like that they have kept a certain aesthetic, albeit on a grander scale but it visually felt like a bladerunner film. Oh what a time to be alive


----------



## pengaleng (Dec 20, 2016)

theres no ambiguity


----------



## strung out (Dec 20, 2016)

Deckard ain't a replicant: http://bestforfilm.com/film-blog/deckard-is-not-a-bloody-replicant-blade-runner-1982-a-defence/


----------



## pengaleng (Dec 20, 2016)

nope.


----------



## Reno (Dec 20, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> of course he's a special model ffs just as rachael was < new BR must have shown up to retire the old on the run BR - new BR under the impression that himself aint a replicant  just as deckard is/possibly was


Only in the theatrical cut the fact that Rachel is a prototype could mean that she has longer to live (that's something Deckard hopes in a VO at the end) and only in the Directors Cut it is implied that Deckard could be a replicant. Neither is confirmed, not even in the versions which imply these things. Never understood why so many people feel uncomfortable with ambiguities in films.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2016)

I've read the arguments both ways and still cannot say 100% deffo replicant. Watched various cuts, more than once.

Reno

it makes for enjoyable geek arguing. ymmv on that particular form of entertainment


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 21, 2016)

"you've done a man's job sir" exit line of Gaff. If that doesnt indicate Deck is a replicant, then I dont know what does....


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2016)

apparently villenueve is going to do Dune! DUNE!


----------



## Reno (Dec 22, 2016)

I always wondered why people (including Ridley Scott, but not the screenwriter or Ford) think Deckard definitely being a replicant is a good idea apart from that many people think that twist endings in themselves are awfully clever.

I'm fine with it being a possibility, but I'm not fine with it being a certainty. Deckard being human has about it the irony that the machines evolve to becoming more human than the real thing.

With Deckard being a replicant you end up with story about a machine falling In love with another machine rather than one about a man going against everything he believes in. One merely hinges around a plot twist, the other one around an allegory for discrimination and how prejudices work out when one ends up becoming personally involved with "the other". Decked rediscovers his humanity by falling in love with a machine.


----------



## Lazy Llama (May 8, 2017)

New full trailer


----------



## DexterTCN (May 8, 2017)

And it looks brilliant.


----------



## Sea Star (May 8, 2017)

Me & Rich are both huge fans so this is going to be fab evening out!!


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 9, 2017)

Latest footage leaked:


----------



## Ming (May 10, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Latest footage leaked:



I love that movie so much I'm not going to watch it. I remember seeing it for the first time at the cinema (thankfully). Blew my mind. I actually agree with that article further up the thread that Decard's not a replicant but a jaded man who rediscovers his humanity and the value of life through his interactions with Rachael and the replicants.


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 10, 2017)

Reno said:


> I always wondered why people (including Ridley Scott, but not the screenwriter or Ford) think Deckard definitely being a replicant is a good idea apart from that many people think that twist endings in themselves are awfully clever.
> 
> I'm fine with it being a possibility, but I'm not fine with it being a certainty. Deckard being human has about it the irony that the machines evolve to becoming more human than the real thing.
> 
> With Deckard being a replicant you end up with story about a machine falling In love with another machine rather than one about a man going against everything he believes in. One merely hinges around a plot twist, the other one around an allegory for discrimination and how prejudices work out when one ends up becoming personally involved with "the other". Decked rediscovers his humanity by falling in love with a machine.


Deckard is the audiences entry point and point of view to the story, it starts with a jaded cop hunting machines. But as the story moves it is revealed to the audiance that the machines have a humanity while Dekard's journey takes him to accepting their humanity and recognising his own inhumanity. It the journey the audience goes so "untwisting" it 30 odd years later may jar many. Its a bit "it was just a dream now but the new film". 

The whole film is suffused with the alienation, dislocation and loss of identity in a megacity. At the time perhaps playing on fears of over population, now it may pull more to fears of multiculturalism. The crowds, masses of languages and alieness of it all while the white, clean upper layers were riddled with nostalgia for the 50s, in part set by the film noir lighting and tone. Deckards journey from a alienated soul in the swarm of humanity to a plot resolution of him finding a place where he belonged even if it was one soon to be dead android worked. Well in my daft opinion.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 10, 2017)

Ming said:


> I love that movie so much I'm not going to watch it.


----------



## Ming (May 10, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


>


 Alright! Erm....You know I'm not sure what I meant now...


----------



## T & P (Jul 17, 2017)

Second full trailer just released. Have to say it looks really fucking good...


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 29, 2017)

better than a trailer, this


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 30, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Just picked up "Blade Runner 2" by KW Jeter in Oxfam. Published 20 years ago. I expect it to be crap but what the hell...



Finally decided to read the thing before seeing the movie. Obviously, it's nothing like the premise of the new film. It's set a year or two after the events of Blade Runner and it tries to capture the atmosphere. It kills off one of the interesting characters and brings back others whilst expanding on the nature of replicants and runners. It's ok. There's another two books in the series, I believe.

I'm expecting great things of the new film. Great things.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 22, 2017)

Saw the trailer for this at the flicks last night. It looks fucking awesome and I can't wait! I've not been proper excited like this about a film for ages. Must calm down to avoid disappointment.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 23, 2017)

Standard?
3D?
IMAX 3D?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 23, 2017)

Won't be IMAX for me for sure as the nearest one is in Auckland and Auckland is not near me!


----------



## Crispy (Sep 27, 2017)

Some first impressionns from reviewers/bloggers who've seen previews:


> @ErikDavis
> BLADE RUNNER 2049 is sci-fi masterpiece; the kind of deep-cut genre film we don't see anymore. Visually mind blowing, absolutely fantastic
> 
> @colliderfrosty
> ...



Hype thyselves


----------



## Chilli.s (Sep 27, 2017)

A hypenado. I never quite trust that Wriggly Scott until I've seen the proof with my own eye and a half.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 27, 2017)

Chilli.s said:


> A hypenado. I never quite trust that Wriggly Scott until I've seen the proof with my own eye and a half.


He's got nothing to do with this film


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2017)

After arrival I think we can trust villnueve when it comes to sci fi. We'll see if his wish to finally get Dune right ever comes to light...

I might go cinema for this one.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 27, 2017)

I'm definitely cinemaing this. If it does as well as the hype promises, then they'll probably let him do dune. squee etc.


----------



## Chilli.s (Sep 27, 2017)

Crispy said:


> He's got nothing to do with this film


I stand corrected and a bit more optimistic.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 27, 2017)

strung out said:


> Deckard ain't a replicant: “Deckard is not a bloody replicant!” Blade Runner 1982 – a defence


Lols


> There doesn’t need to have been a World War Three for urban life to be a bit shit. Have you been to Middlesbrough?


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 27, 2017)

strung out said:


> Deckard ain't a replicant: “Deckard is not a bloody replicant!” Blade Runner 1982 – a defence



Whoever wrote that really doesn't like the Deckard is a Replicant theory. Had they actually read the book Bladerunner is based on they'd realise the cop was a robot in that so it's not too much of a leap to theorise it with Deckard...and you can't dismiss the link between his unicorn dream and the origami piece as mere coincidence, they were on screen for a reason. I would agree with the article though that if they wanted a replicant cop he'd be as tough as Roy was.

Either way I like the passion in that article for the film....I agree with his view on the narration and I like the happy ending also, after all the gloom and darkness it was a perfect closure......it is indeed the best film ever made.

I did my third year uni dissertation on Bladerunner analysing it through 4 Freudian principles (after doing an analysis of it in my first year at uni assessing it from a Postmodern perspective). The amount of material on it to read in the film critic section of the uni library amazed me. I was hunting around for books on it, turned a corner of one row of books to be confronted with an entire library shelf dedicated to Bladerunner....pig in heaven, I was.


----------



## strung out (Sep 27, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Had they actually read the book Bladerunner is based on they'd realise the cop was a robot in that so it's not too much of a leap to theorise it with Deckard....


Hang on, have you actually read the book? Deckard is human in it.


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 27, 2017)

strung out said:


> Hang on, have you actually read the book? Deckard is human in it.



There was a robot cop...I didn't say Deckard in the book was.


----------



## strung out (Sep 27, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> There was a robot cop...I didn't say Deckard in the book was.


Maybe there was, but if you're going to use the fact that there was a robot cop in the book as proof that Deckard is a replicant, then surely the fact that Deckard is definitely human in the book is even better proof of the opposite.


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 27, 2017)

strung out said:


> Maybe there was, but if you're going to use the fact that there was a robot cop in the book as proof that Deckard is a replicant, then surely the fact that Deckard is definitely human in the book is even better proof of the opposite.



It's just that as per the book, 'the source material' cops are robots. Add that to the unicorn dream and Ridley himself saying so kind of sums it up. But I agree with the article it makes more sense 'plotwise' for him to be human. I certainly watched it as Deckard being human, it doesn't phase me if I misread Ridley Scott's intention. To be honest the film is about so much more I don't see why people get too wound up with it. There's 3 questions for me a good film tries to answer, 'Where have I come from?' 'Where am I going?', 'How long have I got?' - Bladerunner tackles those like no other.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 27, 2017)

BLADERUNNER


----------



## Lazy Llama (Sep 27, 2017)

Bagh, it’s been taken down. 
Blade Runner Black Out 2022 
15 minute animated “between old and new movies” short. 

See how long this one lasts.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Sep 28, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> Deckard is the audiences entry point and point of view to the story, it starts with a jaded cop hunting machines. But as the story moves it is revealed to the audiance that the machines have a humanity while Dekard's journey takes him to accepting their humanity and recognising his own inhumanity. It the journey the audience goes so "untwisting" it 30 odd years later may jar many. Its a bit "it was just a dream now but the new film".
> 
> The whole film is suffused with the alienation, dislocation and loss of identity in a megacity. At the time perhaps playing on fears of over population, now it may pull more to fears of multiculturalism. The crowds, masses of languages and alieness of it all while the white, clean upper layers were riddled with nostalgia for the 50s, in part set by the film noir lighting and tone. Deckards journey from a alienated soul in the swarm of humanity to a plot resolution of him finding a place where he belonged even if it was one soon to be dead android worked. Well in my daft opinion.



This analysis only makes sense if you take a position in the final moments - and let's forget the problem with the dove and the colour of the sky.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 29, 2017)

Reviews are up.

Blade Runner 2049

I'm deliberately avoiding reading them, but the snippets on RT all paint a very very positive picture.


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2017)

Crispy said:


> Reviews are up.
> 
> Blade Runner 2049
> 
> I'm deliberately avoiding reading them, but the snippets on RT all paint a very very positive picture.


I'm seeing a shit load of five star reviews. Thank fuck.



> We’re in an era in which Hollywood mass produces superhero movies and every success is immediately turned into a franchise. Thankfully, _Blade Runner 2049_ doesn't feel opportunistic at all. Like _The Godfather Part II_, it’s a sequel to a very celebrated film which may actually be better than the original.
> Blade Runner 2049, review: may be better than the original





> It may seem premature to ascribe the word ‘masterpiece’ to a legacyquel of a heady sci-fi head-scratcher from the ‘80s, but its audacity and formal perfection – not to mention its thematic weight – leave no other alternative.
> Film Review: Blade Runner 2049


----------



## gawkrodger (Sep 29, 2017)

Peter Bradshaw at the Graunaid also loving it


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 29, 2017)

I *have* to imax this one


----------



## Badgers (Sep 29, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I *have* to imax this one


Is the IMAX always 3D?


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 29, 2017)

Telegraph one - "one of the most spectacular, provocative, profound and spiritually staggering blockbusters of our time"

Oh my goodness, my expectations have just gone stratospheric!!!

Blade Runner 2049 review: Harrison Ford is extraordinary in the most spectacular, provocative blockbuster of our time

Looking forward to hearing what Kermode has to say on this, he should dedicate his entire 10 minutes BBC News 24 give him to this.............for a month.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 29, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I *have* to imax this one


Roger Deakins says you should see it on a normal screen.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 29, 2017)

Well, I mustn't argue with that


----------



## Chilli.s (Sep 29, 2017)

Telegraph one - "one of the most spectacular, provocative, profound and spiritually staggering blockbusters of our time"  Hard to have a more gushing review, really looking forward to it now.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 29, 2017)

Crispy said:


> Roger Deakins says you should see it on a normal screen.


Will go with that first then pop to an IMAX viewing


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 30, 2017)

ecstatic review: 
Blade Runner 2049 review – a gigantic spectacle of pure hallucinatory craziness


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 30, 2017)

Crispy said:


> Roger Deakins says you should see it on a normal screen.


Do you always look to the Queen rhythm section for advice on your cinema-going?


----------



## Badgers (Oct 2, 2017)




----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Oct 2, 2017)

Can't decide to go 3D, Imax of just wait a few months and torrent it and watch it on the 50" at home.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 2, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> Can't decide to go 3D, Imax of just wait a few months and torrent it and watch it on the 50" at home.


Going to watch 2D first
Then IMAX if it is a good as reviews say
After that many times at home


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Oct 2, 2017)

I can't do that with films 

If they are exceptionally good I may consider rewatching in 6 months time. If you watch it on a standard screen first, doesn't it take away some of the initial wow of watching it on imax?


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 2, 2017)

booked imax for friday morning


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2017)

Ming said:


> I love that movie so much I'm not going to watch it. I remember seeing it for the first time at the cinema (thankfully). Blew my mind. I actually agree with that article further up the thread that Decard's not a replicant but a jaded man who rediscovers his humanity and the value of life through his interactions with Rachael and the replicants.


Sorry to quote an old post, but one word:

Origami


----------



## shifting gears (Oct 3, 2017)

Blatantly a double-viewer at the cinema isn't it?

Hoping these reviews aren't over-egging it.... never have I been so excited for a film. Will get a rewatch of the original in first for good measure...

Fucking Blade Runner... it's the dogs bollocks innit [emoji41]


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 3, 2017)

Oh no....I was trying to keep my expectations low but I've read those reviews now. Bugger. It had better be good.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 3, 2017)

Going to see it on Thursday morning.


----------



## iona (Oct 3, 2017)

I'm actually thinking of going to the cinema for this. Last time I went cinema was over a decade ago


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 4, 2017)

Got my tickets to see tomorrow night in Northampton at the Vue Cinema (which has a fucking amazing sound system).


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Oct 4, 2017)

No spoilers here.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Oct 4, 2017)

Original post replaced with version with better audio.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 5, 2017)

Just seen it this morning.
Um....


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 5, 2017)

Going to see this in an hour.  Took the day off work.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 5, 2017)

Equipment not working at my local cinema.  Won't have the time to see it until next week. Arse.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 5, 2017)

A masterpiece with a few flaws.  The main flaw being Jared Leto both in performance and character.

Trouble is you can't really talk about the film yet because there are so many spoilers.

It links up really well with the first one.  

It's a good 2 and a half hours, there's not a lot of action, there is a lot of talking.

It looks fucking beautiful.

If you liked the first one you'll most likely love this.   They've done a man's job.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 5, 2017)

I know 2 have already been posted but I'll put all 3 here.  You can watch these, they're linked to the movie.


----------



## marshall (Oct 5, 2017)

Was ready to be disappointed, but it's hard not to be blown away by the visuals alone. Not just the big picture, but the little touches are really smart. Engrossing stuff.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 5, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> They've done a man's job.


 Fucking hell.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 5, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucking hell.


Watch the film then come back and discuss that


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 5, 2017)

Excellent....and flawed....just like the original


----------



## campanula (Oct 5, 2017)

iona said:


> I'm actually thinking of going to the cinema for this. Last time I went cinema was over a decade ago



Me too (although it has been even longer since I last went to see a film). Going with my boys, looking forward tremendously.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Oct 6, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> I know 2 have already been posted but I'll put all 3 here.  You can watch these, they're linked to the movie.




Are they all prequels and worth watching before or best left till after? 

Booked to watch on imax on Saturday.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 6, 2017)

£6.00 to see it in my local Broadway cinema if I sneak into a 4pm showing


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 6, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> Are they all prequels and worth watching before or best left till after?



either/or

I watched before, but they added little in terms of the actual film/plot/story


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> Are they all prequels and worth watching before or best left till after?
> 
> Booked to watch on imax on Saturday.


As nanker said, you can watch them before and after.  They fill in some back story before but they'll make more sense after.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 6, 2017)

lol i saw it today  06/10th


----------



## Poi E (Oct 6, 2017)

Hmm. Download then.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> lol i saw it today  06/10th


heh


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Hmm. Download then.


he wasn't giving it a rating


----------



## kropotkin (Oct 6, 2017)

Just got back from seeing it. Incredible- loads to think about.
Made me think about "Stalker"  in some parts. Score was very bass flatulent


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)

More human than humans.

Is it too early to talk about Oscars?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 7, 2017)

Deakins is due his...


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)

So's Villeneuve.


----------



## innit (Oct 7, 2017)

Saw it at baby cinema. I loved it; the baby was a bit scared of the bass; someone else's baby screamed through the final scene but I think I got the gist.



Spoiler: Spoiler



I'm very sleep deprived so I'm not sure if it answered whether Deckard is a replicant.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)

innit said:


> Saw it at baby cinema. I loved it; the baby was a bit scared of the bass; someone else's baby screamed through the final scene but I think I got the gist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It did not.  It took that and turned it into a much, much bigger question.

DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU'VE NOT SEEN THE FILM!   You've been warned.


Spoiler



replicants can have babies...but with humans? with replicants?  does it need love? can the two species co-exist, do they even need us to exist now? miracles, eh 



Also Joi and Luv were two of the strongest characters.  I'm struggling to recall any character as beautiful as Joi in any movie.  At times she took my breath away.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)

Here's an adult pic of Joi in all her glory.



Spoiler


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 7, 2017)

Was looking at an old review on Empire of A.I. and this amusing bit of synchronicity happened


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 7, 2017)

Watched this afternoon. Disappointed tbh. Was expecting more


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Watched this afternoon. Disappointed tbh. Was expecting more



Yeah but did you finish it sit back with a deep sigh and think... 'This was a man's job!' ?  



DexterTCN said:


> They've done a man's job.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)

What can I say...love Adama


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 7, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah but did you finish it sit back with a deep sigh and think... 'This was a man's job!' ?



I didn't even know what that post meant tbh. Baffled.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> I didn't even know what that post meant tbh. Baffled.



Some sexist nonsense as far as I can tell.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)

You two are taking the piss right?  

(e2a no need for an angry face  )


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 7, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Some sexist nonsense as far as I can tell.



When I went the bog at the end, it was the first time that the men's line was longer than the line for the women's bogs. Is it a man's film?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 7, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> You two are taking the piss right?
> 
> (e2a no need for an angry face  )



I literally have no idea what your post that ruti quoted meant and I said as much.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)




----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 7, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


>




I'd forgotten that bit of dialogue. I was well confused


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Some sexist nonsense as far as I can tell.


well?


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 7, 2017)

oh my god how can you like blade runner and not know about the mans job line it's basically what the arguments about him being a replicant was hinged on, I am glad you never liked it and were disappointed.

slykes


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 7, 2017)

Spoiler: another big spoiler spoiler



and he was in the new film, K visits him in the hospital.  Gaff makes him an origami sheep  I think


----------



## innit (Oct 7, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> It did not.  It took that and turned it into a much, much bigger question.
> 
> DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU'VE NOT SEEN THE FILM!   You've been warned.
> 
> ...


Thanks, that's what I thought but am tired as fuck so didn't trust I hadn't missed something vital.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 8, 2017)

Aaaaghhhhh....what a massive, massive disappointment. How on earth could they make such a leaden dull plodding futile fiasco


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 8, 2017)

Yes, but did you think to yourself 'this is a man's job'?


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 8, 2017)

well you need to be pretty tough just to sit through it tbh - seemed to go on for rather a long time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 8, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> well you need to be pretty tough just to sit through it tbh - seemed to go on for rather a long time.



Childbirth can go on a long time too, women do that everyday


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 8, 2017)

in addition to which it'd probably be alot more entertaining to watch


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 8, 2017)

honest truth , i fell asleep after about 30 mins , was knackered tho and found myself snoring meself awake so left the cinema , did I not miss much then ? it was pretty good til i dozed off


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 8, 2017)

It looked nice, very nice. But nothing happened. I'm hoping for a insurrection sequel tbh. That's the only excuse for that indulgent dronefest :/


----------



## albionism (Oct 8, 2017)

How do I post a spoiler?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 8, 2017)

I'm glad it's not just me who left feeling non-plussed. I felt it looked beautiful and was a perfectly good sci-fi movie but nothing very special and too long. I liked the nods to the original such as Joi wearing a see-through coat like Pris and the hooker looking a bit like Pris (I like Pris!) but I was mainly thinking about how very handsome Ryan Gosling is and what a cool coat he was wearing. Im not sure that's what the director intended. I liked the idea of Joi but hated the sexy scene. Made me cringe.

Agree that Luv is a great character - "I'm the best!"


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Oct 8, 2017)

It felt slow in parts, but I quite enjoyed. Do agree more could have been done with it.

We were definitely to close to the screen in the imax. I like how immersive it was, but I actually had to move my head at times.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 8, 2017)

Mrs Miggins said:


> I'm glad it's not just me who left feeling non-plussed. I felt it looked beautiful and was a perfectly good sci-fi movie but nothing very special and too long. I liked the nods to the original such as Joi wearing a see-through coat like Pris and the hooker looking a bit like Pris (I like Pris!) but I was mainly thinking about how very handsome Ryan Gosling is and what a cool coat he was wearing. Im not sure that's what the director intended. I liked the idea of Joi but hated the sexy scene. Made me cringe.
> 
> Agree that Luv is a great character - "I'm the best!"



This sums up my feelings pretty well.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Oct 8, 2017)

It occurred to me whilst watching it that I must have been very young when I watched the first one and possibly didn't get back then. Certainly didn't remember well. Should have rewatching it before watching this one, but will download so I can compare and contrast better.


----------



## FiFi (Oct 8, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> It occurred to me whilst watching it that I must have been very young when I watched the first one and possibly didn't get back then. Certainly didn't remember well. Should have rewatching it before watching this one, but will download so I can compare and contrast better.


Believe me, re-watching it doesn't help! 
Maybe I should have suggested we watch the one with the voice-over but I remember being confused by that version as well


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 8, 2017)

sigh


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 8, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> It occurred to me whilst watching it that I must have been very young when I watched the first one and possibly didn't get back then. Certainly didn't remember well. Should have rewatching it before watching this one, but will download so I can compare and contrast better.



I re-watched the original film again recently. I think that added to thr disappointment tbh. The first one was so enveloping... in a way that this one just wasn't.


----------



## belboid (Oct 8, 2017)

Just back. It looked and sounded absolutely fantastic. Glad it got the whole ‘is he/isn’t he?’ out of the way quickly. Plenty of nods to the original without overwhelming it. It doesn’t add much, philosophically, but it doesn’t lose anything either. 

Hopefully it’ll do well enough to get the sequel made.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 8, 2017)

kropotkin said:


> Made me think about "Stalker"  in some parts. Score was very bass flatulent



I was watching it today and some scenes did remind me of Stalker. The scene near the end in the radioactive city and the scene in the orphanage.

I also felt the the Ryan Gosling character reminded me of the "Stalker" in Tarkovsky film.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 8, 2017)

Saw it today at the Peckhamplex (in London). The £5 ticket cinema that means I can still see films. Me and my partner saw it in afternoon. It was still almost full.

Ive seen Bladerunner. The original when it came out and the director cut with the (better) ending. I don't think it did that well when it first came out. But got status as time went on. The Ridley Scott original does stand the test of time with stunning visuals. A dystopia with the dark ending. It's also a bit closer to Philip K Dick. Minus some of Philips paranoia about women. The Ridley movie does contain some of the original novels unsettling feeling. The new film , whilst the credits say its based on Philip K Dicks work ( Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Worth reading imo) it's far removed from it.

This new film is sprawling space opera. On that level it works. I would not agree it's just a boys movie. Another recent dystopia is Mad Max Fury Road. Which I think works better as comment on present times. Fury Road is boys  adventure movie.

The Ryan Gosling character in Bladerunner and his relationship with Joi does mark it as different than just a boys movie. My partner she liked that part of the film. It was the romantic interest. I thought that in film terms it worked onscreen.

I thought Ryan Gosling did a really good job. He was convincing as the grizzled private eye who knows he is not human. ( With this kind of sci fi noir crime and sci fi cross over. Follows Philip K Dick and writers who followed him like Gibson).

In a way I liked the film as it is like sci fi. I read sci fi and "literature" . Sci fi writing is often a mixture of pulp fiction with some great ideas/ scenes. That is its popular but mixes in ideas.

Just seen this film and my immediate reaction is that , apart from Ryan and Joi , it's the visuals that make this film. This is where Villeneuve version does pick up on Philip K Dick. The visuals show an almost dead world that is depopulated. Those who can move off world or live crammed into the remnants of cities. In the original novel this is the case. It's the androids who colonise off world. So whose left on earth who is human? And why do they stay?


The film works as a commentry on the present. A dystopia is a near possible future.( Like Mad Max Fury Road). And its the visuals that make this real.

To add. Just reread my post. Ive gone from the beginning saying it's far removed from Philip K Dick to saying it's got things in common with original novel. And that kind of sci fi.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 8, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> ...Just seen this film and my immediate reaction is that , apart from Ryan and Joi , it's the visuals that make this film...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 8, 2017)

What a waste of time that was. A cynical money-making exercise with no redeeming features. Piece is shit. Walk away.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 8, 2017)

Mrs Miggins said:


> I felt it looked beautiful



the curse of sci fi is fantastic epic visuals & cover art followed by turgid contents



> Agree that Luv is a great character - "I'm the best!"



a not-half-as-good version of the rather lovely & lethal side kick girl in Kingsman imo

They have massive solar arrays but cook on gas hobs   



Spoiler



utterly gratuitous stabbing scene + "Rachel" blown away for having the wrong colour eyes - wouldn't contact lenses be less messy



and Wallace took over the Tyrell Corporation. I wish it had been bloomin' Gromit tbh


----------



## A380 (Oct 8, 2017)

Just seen it 3D non IMAX.

Could easily have been 40 minutes shorter and wouldn’t have lost anything. Too many self indulgent long shots of cars flying in the clouds.

But. Some fantastic ideas explored on what it means to be alive and the nature of memory and self. And some really interesting thought experiments.

Some truly amazing visual scenes.

Glad I saw it and especially at the cinema. Some great elements. A classic though? Probably not.

Go and see it though.



Spoiler



visually I thought there were great moments. For example the Las Vegas Cabaret and the foreplay scene where Joi(?) projects herself over another woman (replicant). Felt they were things not seen in the cinema before.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 9, 2017)

Gramsci  I agree that Ryan Gosling did a very good job.



Spoiler



His confusion about thinking that he had a "real" memory and starting to believe he was the child and then realising that he wasn't was very well played


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 9, 2017)

To be fair I came out feeling quite emotional. I have invested so much time and love for the original I was worried I would be disappointing as the bar was so sigh. I think BR20149 not only respects and honours the feel of the original movie it stands shoulder to shoulder with it. Everything about this film is perfect. The script. Cinematography, the score-the acting. I was in complete awe of it. Im going back this thursday to watch in 2D. My movie of the year


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 9, 2017)

How is anyone supposed to sit still for three hours?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 9, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> How is anyone supposed to sit still for three hours?



Godfathers, Once Upon a Time in America, Dances With Wolves, er... Titanic.

Movies can cast a spell, sometimes. I'm hoping this one will do the same for me.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 9, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I thought Ryan Gosling did a really good job. He was convincing as the grizzled private eye who knows he is not human.



Aaaaaaaaaargh. Unsubscribing now.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 9, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Godfathers, Once Upon a Time in America, Dances With Wolves, er... Titanic.
> 
> Movies can cast a spell, sometimes. I'm hoping this one will do the same for me.



All good films, but my bladder is indifferent to the qualities of cinematography, perceived or real. It will be a struggle, but this one deserves a cinema viewing.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 9, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> All good films, but my bladder is indifferent to the qualities of cinematography, perceived or real. It will be a struggle, but this one deserves a cinema viewing.



I'm liking this (not for your bladder running problems, obvs) but this thread... I'm so addicted to Blade Runner... but on this thread, regarding spoilers. . I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Ok, that's it. Too bad I won't reply but then again, who cares


----------



## belboid (Oct 9, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> All good films, but my bladder is indifferent to the qualities of cinematography, perceived or real. It will be a struggle, but this one deserves a cinema viewing.


tbh, there are shots of cars flying over LA that go on long enough for you to have a piss and grow, grind and roast the coffee beans


----------



## belboid (Oct 9, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm liking this (not for your bladder running problems, obvs) but this thread... I'm so addicted to Blade Runner... but on this thread, regarding spoilers. . I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...
> 
> Ok, that's it. Too bad I won't reply but then again, who cares


Gramsci's point isn't a spoiler, it's revealed two minutes in


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 9, 2017)

belboid said:


> tbh, there are shots of cars flying over LA that go on long enough for you to have a piss and grow, grind and roast the coffee beans



Yes, I've read enough reviews to know there's quite a few quiet moments, guess I'll have to choose my time wisely. I'll never know what I missed........ but then again, who does?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 9, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Aaaaaaaaaargh. Unsubscribing now.



Don't fucking quote it then dickhead.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Aaaaaaaaaargh. Unsubscribing now.



That wasnt a plot spoiler. Its made clear from the very beginning. There are several plot spoilers I have left out.


----------



## Lazy Llama (Oct 9, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Yes, I've read enough reviews to know there's quite a few quiet moments, guess I'll have to choose my time wisely. I'll never know what I missed........ but then again, who does?


You need RunPee 


> The RunPee app is surprisingly easy to use. When the app starts, it shows you a list of movies.
> Each movie has a list of carefully selected Peetimes. We try to find 3-5 minute long scenes that don’t have crucial plot twists, or LOL moments, or exciting action


----------



## belboid (Oct 9, 2017)

Lazy Llama said:


> You need RunPee


brilliant!

58 mins, 1 hour 25, 1 hour 40 (the best one, but be back promptly)


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 9, 2017)

Lazy Llama said:


> You need RunPee



Crikey! Talk about an app for everything....that's genius, how about this weeks Euromillions numbers.


----------



## BoxRoom (Oct 9, 2017)

Watched it at Peckhamplex too (up yours, Ritzy!).
Managed to go into it with very little info about it, remained spoiler free, and really enjoyed it more than I would have, I reckon.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 9, 2017)

Spoiler: Well...



I really like the alternative universe/retrofuture aspect to the setting, it being a progression of a future world as seen from decades ago, if that makes sense.  2049 as seen from 1982.

It looks and sounds amazing, and where the two work together so well is during the wave-lashed showdown with Luv near the end.  Jared Leto is just a bellend.  Will have a second look because I enjoy the feeling of butterflies fluttering in my stomach.

'_I'm_ the best one.'


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2017)

Thinking on the film today.

Its length. I didn't find that a problem. I saw it in 2D. The visuals are so stunning that I could have sat through more. I also feel like that the visual look was important part of how the story was told. Unlike first Bladerunner this one had mystical element. Whether one likes this is another discussion. I felt the long scenes in the cities and the corporation added to the story.


I did feel the film worked on visual level. Immersing one in tbis near future dystopia. I could have sat through more if it. Especially the radioactive city. Most surreal.

Films are not novels. They work IMO in more immediate sensory way like music. It's why film is better for propaganda than writing. Visual powerful films like this suck one in or bore the pants of people.

The more I think of the film the more I think it owes to another
great sci fi writer Gibson rather than the older Philip K Dick. Gibson Necromancer trilogy I finished recently. Which was inspiration for the Matrix films. Gibson books are mixture of future hard boiled crime with the awe at the possibilities of the future. With fear that it could be a dark future.Not about paranoia like Dick.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 10, 2017)

Think I might go and see this in a few days - is it essential to have seen the original first? Not sure why I never got around to it...


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 10, 2017)

I'd say not - although this is extremely subjective I think I'd hugely prefer the new one if I hadn't had the old one to compare it to. I mean for context it helps if you know that 



Spoiler



Harrison Ford & the replicant with no sell-by date Sean Young drive off into the sunset


 at the end of BR1 but there are no plot leads to pick up as such


----------



## Nivag (Oct 10, 2017)

^^ you might want to edit this unless you want to spoil the first film for those that hasn't seen it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> Think I might go and see this in a few days - is it essential to have seen the original first? Not sure why I never got around to it...


It's strongly recommended.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 10, 2017)

Is the original any good then?  I've got the DVD but I've never watched it...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 10, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Is the original any good then?  I've got the DVD but I've never watched it...


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Is the original any good then?  I've got the DVD but I've never watched it...


Can't say.  For some people, probably including me, it's one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever made.  People watch it dozens or hundreds of times, besotted with the visuals, the story, the sound, _that speech_. 

Others think it's boring.  It's long, not a lot of action, nothing's handed to you on a plate and it definitely requires multiple viewings for the full experience.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


>



 



DexterTCN said:


> Can't say.  For some people, probably including me, it's one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever made.  People watch it dozens or hundreds of times, besotted with the visuals, the story, the sound, _that speech_.
> 
> Others think it's boring.  It's long, not a lot of action, nothing's handed to you on a plate and it definitely requires multiple viewings for the full experience.



It's odd - I bought it with the intention to watch it, especially given the director was from my neck of the woods.  But somehow it has sat there, poor and unloved still in the original shrink-wrap plastic.


----------



## T & P (Oct 10, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Is the original any good then?  I've got the DVD but I've never watched it...


What version(s) does the DVD contain? I’d give the theatrical version a wide miss if I were you.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 10, 2017)

T & P said:


> What version(s) does the DVD contain? I’d give the theatrical version a wide miss if I were you.


I've only ever seen the theatrical version....I'm not sure I'm even that bothered about other versions. The theatrical version is great!


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2017)

Here is a cool thing about the production design.  Spoiler free.

The film isn't even out a week...it's incredible that stuff like this can come out so quickly.  You'd think it was a dvd extra.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 10, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> It's odd - I bought it with the intention to watch it, especially given the director was from my neck of the woods.  But somehow it has sat there, poor and unloved still in the original shrink-wrap plastic.



You've certainly done _a man's job_ in not having watched it Barleymow.


----------



## T & P (Oct 10, 2017)

Mrs Miggins said:


> I've only ever seen the theatrical version....I'm not sure I'm even that bothered about other versions. The theatrical version is great!


The nearly-constant voiceover commentary by Harrison Ford’s character is pointless and bordering on the patronising, and was insisted upon by the Studio as they feared Joe Public would be too dumb to understand the plot otherwise. Director’s cut is far better.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 10, 2017)

T & P said:


> The nearly-constant voiceover commentary by Harrison Ford’s character is pointless and bordering on the patronising, and was insisted upon by the Studio as they feared Joe Public would be too dumb to understand the plot otherwise. Director’s cut is far better.


Yeah I know that's what everyone says....maybe one day I'll bother with the director's cut.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You've certainly done _a man's job_ in not having watched it Barleymow.


_
There are things you _haven't _seen _


----------



## T & P (Oct 10, 2017)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Yeah I know that's what everyone says....maybe one day I'll bother with the director's cut.


I could be wrong but IIRC the theatrical version also has an extra happy ending scene with Harrison and his gf flying into the sunset. The director’s cut ending, while not different on the main message, stops at the moment when Harrison Ford finds the origami piece on the floor.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2017)

Nope.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 10, 2017)

Tankus said:


> _There are things you _haven't _seen _




Don't tell me, only men can see and replicate them?


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2017)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Yeah I know that's what everyone says....maybe one day I'll bother with the director's cut.


Don’t. Go straight to the Final Cut, the ‘directors’ is actually nothing of the sort.


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2017)

The ‘original’ ending is actually an outtake from The Shining, for anyone who didn’t already know.


----------



## T & P (Oct 11, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> Nope.


Is that a reply to my post? If so please let me know the actual differences between the various versions released. Only going on memory and genuinely interested to know how they all differ


----------



## T & P (Oct 11, 2017)

belboid said:


> The ‘original’ ending is actually an outtake from The Shining, for anyone who didn’t already know.


Having seen your two posts above I am now very confused. I remember a version with lots of voiceover commentary and the final ‘flying into the sunset’ scene, and the version with neither. How many more are there and which one is which?


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2017)

T & P said:


> Having seen your two posts above I am now very confused. I remember a version with lots of voiceover commentary and the final ‘flying into the sunset’ scene, and the version with neither. How many more are there and which one is which?


The one you refer to is the ‘original’. There are (at least) seven official versions. That one is commonly referred to as the ‘international release’.

There are two pre-release versions, a US and the international, a TV cut, the ‘Directors’ version (nothing to do with Scott, a studio release that deletes the voiceover, and adds the unicorn) and the Final Cut (the actual Ridley Scott approve version, sans voiceover and with all the dreams in the right order)

You almost definitely haven’t seen the first three, but might have any of the others.


----------



## T & P (Oct 11, 2017)

belboid said:


> The one you refer to is the ‘original’. There are (at least) seven official versions. That one is commonly referred to as the ‘international release’.
> 
> There are two pre-release versions, a US and the international, a TV cut, the ‘Directors’ version (nothing to do with Scott, a studio release that deletes the voiceover, and adds the unicorn) and the Final Cut (the actual Ridley Scott approve version, sans voiceover and with all the dreams in the right order)
> 
> You almost definitely haven’t seen the first three, but might have any of the others.


Fuck me...


----------



## Gromit (Oct 11, 2017)

belboid said:


> The one you refer to is the ‘original’. There are (at least) seven official versions. That one is commonly referred to as the ‘international release’.
> 
> There are two pre-release versions, a US and the international, a TV cut, the ‘Directors’ version (nothing to do with Scott, a studio release that deletes the voiceover, and adds the unicorn) and the Final Cut (the actual Ridley Scott approve version, sans voiceover and with all the dreams in the right order)
> 
> You almost definitely haven’t seen the first three, but might have any of the others.


Commonly referred to as the Theatrical Releases. US Theatrical and International Theatrical. 

Yes I own all versions.

It was the only way I could get my preferred version. 

I love the voiceover.
The phoned in deadpan delivery is in my opinion in character. I know the director is unhappy with it not just for that reason but I still like it.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 11, 2017)

My review of the new film:

Masterpiece. 

End of review. 

Unfortunately like many masterpieces it will go unappreciated by the unwashed masses.


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2017)

I still have a soft spot for the voiceover version(s). But it is obviously phoned in, in retrospect, and I’d recommend ‘Final Cut’ to anyone coming afresh.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 11, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You've certainly done _a man's job_ in not having watched it Barleymow.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 11, 2017)

Why 'Bladerunner' - well I never knew, fascinating:

How the Blade Runner film title came to be


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


>



Watch it and you will understand. This thread is full of little quotes from the original... like tears lost in rain.


----------



## Nivag (Oct 11, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> Here is a cool thing about the production design.  Spoiler free.
> 
> The film isn't even out a week...it's incredible that stuff like this can come out so quickly.  You'd think it was a dvd extra.



Enjoyed that, thanks for posting it!


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 11, 2017)

A decent film, I enjoyed it and was glad they didn't totally screw it up. Gosling's story was pretty compelling. But:

1) There was a lot of flab.



Spoiler: minor spoiler



The scenes with the LAPD chief for example. I mean, I didn't really care when she died, and she was on screen a lot. It was nothing to do with the main story really. Most of the scenes in the casino were also just padding, and like someone said 'Let's get bladerunners fighting each other - that will be cool."


2) Making a convincing world doesn't consist of doing expensive CGI landscapes, however good they look. The original made a much more convincing world with a lot less.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 11, 2017)

belboid said:


> I still have a soft spot for the voiceover version(s). But it is obviously phoned in, in retrospect, and I’d recommend ‘Final Cut’ to anyone coming afresh.



I like the voice-over, I'm sure I would have understood a lot less of what was going on without the narration. Deckard's comment about his boss calling Replicants 'skinjobs' would've passed me by had he not mentioned it, and the photos being memories. The ending was uplifting and a good contrast to the darkness and rain throughout the film. 

I have the rare opportunity to watch the original with someone who has never seen it. I was going to show them the original with the narration otherwise I'd be an absolute pain in the arse explaining it like crazy as we watch it. He'll get a lecture afterwards though.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 11, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Watch it and you will understand. This thread is full of little quotes from the original... like tears lost in rain.



Can't be bothered - it sounds too complicated to follow.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Can't be bothered - it sounds too complicated to follow.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Can't be bothered - it sounds too complicated to follow.



The original version has narration running all the way through it explaining everything from the main characters viewpoint. 

You can sit back and let the *best film ever made wash over you.

*totally subjective, of course but as per my earlier post - There's 3 questions for me a good film tries to answer, 'Where have I come from?' 'Where am I going?', 'How long have I got?' - Bladerunner tackles those like no other.


----------



## Poi E (Oct 11, 2017)

Workprint cut works the best for me.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 11, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> The original version has narration running all the way through it explaining everything from the main characters viewpoint.
> 
> You can sit back and let the *best film ever made wash over you.
> 
> *totally subjective, of course but as per my earlier post - There's 3 questions for me a good film tries to answer, 'Where have I come from?' 'Where am I going?', 'How long have I got?' - Bladerunner tackles those like no other.



All films can be distilled down to the same question to save the time watching them - did they live happily ever after. 

So was it yes or no for this film?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> All films can be distilled down to the same question to save the time watching them - did they live happily ever after.
> 
> So was it yes or no for this film?


You'd probably be happier with Transformers or Mission Impossible or something mate


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 11, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> You'd probably be happier with Transformers or Mission Impossible or something mate



Nah, they're both shite. Magic Roundabout is more my level.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> ...2) Making a convincing world doesn't consist of doing expensive CGI landscapes, however good they look. The original made a much more convincing world with a lot less.


Didn't you watch the production video in posts 171 and 191?

 

That's a set mate, that's not cgi.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> All films can be distilled down to the same question to save the time watching them - did they live happily ever after.
> 
> So was it yes or no for this film?


depends which version you watch. And even then...


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> depends which version you watch. And even then...



Stop splitting hairs.  

Just average out the results for each version to reach the answer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Stop splitting hairs.
> 
> Just average out the results for each version to reach the answer.


can a person ever truly be happy if they don't know what they are?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 11, 2017)

.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> All films can be distilled down to the same question to save the time watching them - did they live happily ever after.
> 
> So was it yes or no for this film?


The original
Maybe. It was deliberately left ambiguous. I suspect you knew this already. 

The new film:
Yes... and no. 
And...
Maybe. We'll find out in the next film.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> can a person ever truly be happy if they don't know what they are?





Gromit said:


> The original
> Maybe. It was deliberately left ambiguous. I suspect you knew this already.
> 
> The new film:
> ...



You're both being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> You're both being deliberately obtuse.



But that's the way it is. There's a lot left to your own interpretation.

For me both versions (of the original I'm talking about) they live happily ever after. There is a possibility they don't in the Directors cut but if they don't you don't see it, so for all intents and purposes, for me, they do.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 11, 2017)

Gromit said:


> We'll find out in the next film.




At the rate they're making them, the next one should be out in 2052.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 11, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> You'd probably be happier with Transformers or Mission Impossible or something mate



 I was going to recommend Tremors 5, there's a Tremors 6 to look forward to in January.

I quite like Transformers.....who would have thought something called a Decepticon, would be a deceitful baddie.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> You're both being deliberately obtuse.


Look.  Just fucking watch it...then you tell us what it's about.

Time's an issue, you know.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 11, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> But that's the way it is. There's a lot left to your own interpretation.
> 
> For me both versions (of the original I'm talking about) they live happily ever after. There is a possibility they don't in the Directors cut but if they don't you don't see it, so for all intents and purposes, for me, they do.





Spoiler



I could work out for exactly how long they lived happily for given latest revelations... but I'm lazy


----------



## EYEisBloke (Oct 11, 2017)

Ed: removed as it's already been posted.


----------



## Cloo (Oct 12, 2017)

Our conclusion: 'hot mess'.

Beautiful to look at, if not really much to see. It wouldn't compel one to watch again like Blade Runner does.

Interestingly I find myself thinking not of 'the original' or 'the first one', but 'Blade Runner', so it's not in the same league. Ford, Leto and Wright are great in it.

Re the sexism angle, my view is it's a dystopia based on humanoid slavery and as such presenting a world where women seem objectified and sexualised is appropriate in context. It's not Star Trek, and as the tech suggests, it's not a future of *our* world, just a world. And not a very nice one.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 12, 2017)

Cloo said:


> Our conclusion: 'hot mess'.
> 
> Beautiful to look at, if not really much to see. It wouldn't compel one to watch again like Blade Runner does.
> 
> ...


Women aren't objectified and sexualised. Artificials are. Replicants and AI holograms etc.

You can argue whether or not this spills over to sexism against real women but we never see any real women or the society they live in. 

The background theme to Bladerunner has always been that replicants were treated as slaves to humans. But they have no souls they are just objects and therefore that's fine. But they are so human like to the audience so that doesn't sit well with us. 

Then this time they went and gave them souls too. 
For if one can have a soul then maybe they all can.


----------



## belboid (Oct 12, 2017)

Gromit said:


> but we never see any real women or the society they live in.


Yes we do.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 12, 2017)

belboid said:


> Yes we do.


Who? 

Oh wait the police chief. 

1. We see one real woman. 
Hardly a representative sample.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 12, 2017)

Did anyone spot the Orwellian 1984 angle?


----------



## belboid (Oct 12, 2017)

Gromit said:


> Who?
> 
> Oh wait the police chief.
> 
> ...


And how many 'real' men?  Hardly a representative sample either, so no point talking about them.

wtf am I doing?  Having a sensible discussion with gromit is about as worthwhile as having a discussion about islam with the BNP


----------



## Gromit (Oct 12, 2017)

belboid said:


> And how many 'real' men?  Hardly a representative sample either, so no point talking about them.
> 
> wtf am I doing?  Having a sensible discussion with gromit is about as worthwhile as having a discussion about islam with the BNP


Two really. 

One representing evil. The slave master who has lost his humanity. 

One representing good. The former servant who learned to love and sacrifice. 

But yes there is little point talking about the humans. It's not their story.


----------



## catinthehat (Oct 12, 2017)

Saw it yesterday and not disappointed.  I liked the subtle homages to the first - the fabric used in a lot of the clothes was a nice reference.  Loved the sound track.  Gosling was excellent.  First five mins was like a RS masterclass slap in the face.  Visually stunning.  The story went off track a couple of times and could have lost 15 - 20 mins to make it tighter and maintain peak interest throughout for me.  On first showing no golden 'Ive seen things' moment but then that would be hard to beat.


----------



## ringo (Oct 13, 2017)

Loved it, best film, and best looking film, made in years.


----------



## moonsi til (Oct 13, 2017)

I'm not long back from watching in 3D so still try to process how visually & sonically wonderful it was. If time wasn't an issue tonight & the 30 mile round trip then I would have chosen IMAX. My dreams should be sweet tonight.


----------



## Voley (Oct 14, 2017)

I fell asleep, missed the first half hour and haven't got a fucking clue what it was about.


----------



## Voley (Oct 14, 2017)

I haven't seen things you people wouldn't believe.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 14, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Godfathers, Once Upon a Time in America, Dances With Wolves, er... Titanic.
> 
> Movies can cast a spell, sometimes. I'm hoping this one will do the same for me.


Three hours is a long time for me these days. No bladder worries but I fell asleep in the climactic chase at the end of Secret Life of Pets so I fear BR2049 would-be impossible anywhere other than at home.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 14, 2017)

Voley said:


> I haven't seen things you people wouldn't believe.



 Get yerself back in there.


----------



## Maharani (Oct 14, 2017)

That’s 2 hours 44 minutes of my life I’ll nexer get back. I found this magnificent visually but boy was I bored. Some scenes too long and I just found the plot flakey. Ryan G was wooden and boring too. Best things were Madame’s character and the holographic juke box. It didn’t help watching it at Peckhamplex due to Ritzy Boycott, I had a man’s head in the way the whole way through and people playing musical chairs throughout.


----------



## shifting gears (Oct 14, 2017)

Saw it yesterday and thought it was phenomenal - visually stunning, superb score and no weak performances in my eyes. I'm a Blade Runner fanboy I cannot deny but it was just monstrously brilliant I thought, I'm going again next week [emoji41]


----------



## Voley (Oct 14, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Get yerself back in there.


I will have to watch it again. What I saw of it was very good.


S☼I said:


> Three hours is a long time for me these days. No bladder worries but I fell asleep in the climactic chase at the end of Secret Life of Pets so I fear BR2049 would-be impossible anywhere other than at home.


I managed to kip right through Mad Max Fury Road. In 3D and booming quad sound. Cinemas are basically diazepam for me.


----------



## shifting gears (Oct 14, 2017)

Scene after scene had me reeling with the stark beauty, the detail, the sheer "Blade Runner-ness" of it... it's a fucking triumph and anyone that says otherwise is a liar [emoji39]


----------



## J Ed (Oct 15, 2017)

Really loved this film. You get to feel immersed in an amazing, terrifying world.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 15, 2017)

Going to see it again on Tuesday.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 15, 2017)

shifting gears said:


> Scene after scene had me reeling with the stark beauty, the detail, the sheer "Blade Runner-ness" of it... it's a fucking triumph and anyone that says otherwise is a liar [emoji39]


Nick Abbot (LBC radio) dedicated 45 minutes of his talk show to how he saw Bladerunner and didn't get it. 

I don't know if he was being provocative to provoke calls or is just a dull prick.


----------



## magneze (Oct 15, 2017)

It's fantastic. Saw it on a 2D "superscreen" and that was perfect. Kinda agree about Jared Leto's character. Could have just not been there and would have made little difference. Perhaps a longer director's cut will reveal more?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 15, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Going to see it again on Tuesday.



I was thinking about doing that, except maybe for 3D because I saw it in 2D.

One thing I thought was really amazing apart from the visuals was the audio which was breathtaking in itself.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 15, 2017)

Soundtrack here btw


----------



## Maharani (Oct 15, 2017)

Must have seriously missed something. I liked the first film but thought the new one was nothing as good.


----------



## poului (Oct 15, 2017)

Maharani said:


> Must have seriously missed something. I liked the first film but thought the new one was nothing as good.



You haven't. The insistent praise and arrogant dismissal of any criticism the film is getting is reminiscent of a Scientology-like cult.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 15, 2017)

poului said:


> You haven't. The insistent praise and arrogant dismissal of any criticism the film is getting is reminiscent of a Scientology-like cult.


I don't think that's fair. I don't think anyone on this thread has arrogantly dismissed the criticisms of others. In fact it's been pretty even split between people who like it and people who don't.


----------



## Maharani (Oct 15, 2017)

Feels like it’s faired more on those that thought it a masterpiece. I just wanted to go to sleep for a lot of it but it was so loud I was unable to!


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 15, 2017)

Maharani said:


> Feels like it’s faired more on those that thought it a masterpiece. I just wanted to go to sleep for a lot of it but it was so loud I was unable to!


There's a good number who didn't think much of it - me included.


----------



## poului (Oct 15, 2017)

Mrs Miggins said:


> I don't think that's fair. I don't think anyone on this thread has arrogantly dismissed the criticisms of others. In fact it's been pretty even split between people who like it and people who don't.



Maybe not here, but in the wider film-going community it's a different story. Just look at the YouTube comments on the Looper video about the film's poor box office showing. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if the next Blade Runner article on the BBC website cites a hastily-commissioned study confirming those who liked the film have a higher average IQ and are more likely to have gone to university.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 15, 2017)

it suffered from not having anyone like Rutger Hauer in the cast to convey the replicants. Hauer & Daryl Hannah were these superbly charismatic if slightly barking, punky, uncanny Nietschian uber-blonde beasts - the ultimate ultra-sexy celebrity-couple who could actually do superhuman things - Ryan Gislong mopes about with his imaginary girlfriend & is apparently very good at optical scanning through a view-finder or something - woopy-_*flipping*_-doo - so he could be a really great lab technician or something - even the way he just lays down and pegs out on a step compared to the Roy Batty scene - which has become an iconic & much loved part of our culture shows the utterly dull pedestrian nature of this film & I desperately waned to be knocked out by it having seen the original many many times - eventually traipsing up multiple times to a cinema in Baker St that was the last place in London you could see it before VHS .
On a Hollywood car-park Scott managed to convey a totally crazily jam-packed kaleidoscopic mega-metropolis bustling with energy - this was like watching a lifeless video-game with no gameplay.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 15, 2017)

One thing that I think was better in the original Bladerunner was things like the street scenes, there were very few scenes in the new film with people going about their day to day lives. I'm sure that was deliberate rather than an oversight, probably because the new film is in many ways a film about isolation in a way that reflects our own atomisation in 2017.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 15, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I was thinking about doing that, except maybe for 3D because I saw it in 2D.
> 
> One thing I thought was really amazing apart from the visuals was the audio which was breathtaking in itself.



The flights over the city and facing Luv at the giant sea wall.



poului said:


> Maybe not here, but in the wider film-going community it's a different story. Just look at the YouTube comments on the Looper video about the film's poor box office showing. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if the next Blade Runner article on the BBC website cites a hastily-commissioned study confirming those who liked the film have a higher average IQ and are more likely to have gone to university.



I went to see it (and will make a return visit) more so because it's a Denis Villeneuve film than a sequel to Scott's original, and while not being a huge fan of the first film I do apppreciate its influence.  He's one of the more interesting directors currently working in mainstream films. I loved it and could hold my own against some arsehole acting like a sixth-form snob. Don't peg me as being like that as I would urge as many people to take the chance to see it, rather than pretend I'm special for liking something the masses rejected. The imagery and sounds are best experienced in the most immersive way possible.  That means the biggest screen you can reach and afford to get access to, with chair and bone-shaking surround sound. Its what going to a multiplex with the dumb masses is all about. It's a truly awful world depicted in this film but one you can get lost in for nearly three hours and wonder about afterwards.


----------



## Maharani (Oct 15, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> it suffered from not having anyone like Rutger Hauer in the cast to convey the replicants. Hauer & Daryl Hannah were these superbly charismatic if slightly barking, punky, uncanny Nietschian uber-blonde beasts - the ultimate ultra-sexy celebrity-couple who could actually do superhuman things - Ryan Gislong mopes about with his imaginary girlfriend & is apparently very good at optical scanning through a view-finder or something - woopy-_*flipping*_-doo - so he could be a really great lab technician or something - even the way he just lays down and pegs out on a step compared to the Roy Batty scene - which has become an iconic & much loved part of our culture shows the utterly dull pedestrian nature of this film & I desperately waned to be knocked out by it having seen the original many many times - eventually traipsing up multiple times to a cinema in Baker St that was the last place in London you could see it before VHS .
> On a Hollywood car-park Scott managed to convey a totally crazily jam-packed kaleidoscopic mega-metropolis bustling with energy - this was like watching a lifeless video-game with no gameplay.


This emphatically. Great review.


----------



## Maharani (Oct 15, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> it suffered from not having anyone like Rutger Hauer in the cast to convey the replicants. Hauer & Daryl Hannah were these superbly charismatic if slightly barking, punky, uncanny Nietschian uber-blonde beasts - the ultimate ultra-sexy celebrity-couple who could actually do superhuman things - Ryan Gislong mopes about with his imaginary girlfriend & is apparently very good at optical scanning through a view-finder or something - woopy-_*flipping*_-doo - so he could be a really great lab technician or something - even the way he just lays down and pegs out on a step compared to the Roy Batty scene - which has become an iconic & much loved part of our culture shows the utterly dull pedestrian nature of this film & I desperately waned to be knocked out by it having seen the original many many times - eventually traipsing up multiple times to a cinema in Baker St that was the last place in London you could see it before VHS .
> On a Hollywood car-park Scott managed to convey a totally crazily jam-packed kaleidoscopic mega-metropolis bustling with energy - this was like watching a lifeless video-game with no gameplay.


And I missed the humourous dwarf like replicants from the first film. They added a bit of light-heartedness which was missing in the new film.


----------



## shifting gears (Oct 15, 2017)

J Ed said:


> One thing I thought was really amazing apart from the visuals was the audio which was breathtaking in itself.


. 

Wasn't it just.... deep farting bass stabs, at one point I actually just laughed, it was so dark and atmospheric!

I'm not interested in getting into crossed words with those who didn't dig it, so if I was flippant earlier and touched a nerve with anyone - apologies. It's not often I see a film that blows me away but this did, and as someone who's seen the original many, many times, I'm just chuffed they not only did it justice in my eyes, but made a sequel I'll watch again and again, as I have the original. [emoji106]


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2017)

Maharani said:


> And I missed the humourous dwarf like replicants from the first film. They added a bit of light-heartedness which was missing in the new film.


There were two actual jokes in this one though


----------



## shifting gears (Oct 15, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> it suffered from not having anyone like Rutger Hauer in the cast to convey the replicants. Hauer & Daryl Hannah were these superbly charismatic if slightly barking, punky, uncanny Nietschian uber-blonde beasts - the ultimate ultra-sexy celebrity-couple who could actually do superhuman things - Ryan Gislong mopes about with his imaginary girlfriend & is apparently very good at optical scanning through a view-finder or something - woopy-_*flipping*_-doo - so he could be a really great lab technician or something - even the way he just lays down and pegs out on a step compared to the Roy Batty scene - which has become an iconic & much loved part of our culture shows the utterly dull pedestrian nature of this film & I desperately waned to be knocked out by it having seen the original many many times - eventually traipsing up multiple times to a cinema in Baker St that was the last place in London you could see it before VHS .
> On a Hollywood car-park Scott managed to convey a totally crazily jam-packed kaleidoscopic mega-metropolis bustling with energy - this was like watching a lifeless video-game with no gameplay.




Oh dammit... I'll have to bite hahah

Those were early model replicants and were being hunted down by Blade Runners precisely because they displayed too many human characteristics... now, as replicant technology has, more thank likely, come on considerably over the 30 years which have passed since the original events, isn't it.... credible that K has only passing human tendencies; and those that he does display are clearly well managed with the likes of his holographic girlfriend?

Hmmm? Hmmm?


----------



## mx wcfc (Oct 15, 2017)

Maharani said:


> Feels like it’s faired more on those that thought it a masterpiece. I just wanted to go to sleep for a lot of it but it was so loud I was unable to!


Just back,  similar experience.  feel I need to buy the DVD and watch it several times to figure out wtf was going on.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 15, 2017)

Its a while since I saw the first Blade runner - but couldn't beleive have amazingly sexist this film was. Repeated gratuitous use of naked women with very pert nipples for no good reason. I was irrated that most female charcters were holograms, replicants or prostitutes.

I spent a long time wondering what was going on.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 15, 2017)

shifting gears said:


> Oh dammit... I'll have to bite hahah
> 
> Hmmm? Hmmm?



yes, that's probably one of the underlying aspects to the film's scenario - plus the other point about isolation -  but for _Dawkin's sake_ it doesn't make for a very entertaining film does it ? They should have gone for a full star-ship troopers style prequel Off-World : Replicant Uprising  

( worked really well for Terminator after all     )


----------



## J Ed (Oct 16, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> Its a while since I saw the first Blade runner - but couldn't beleive have amazingly sexist this film was. Repeated gratuitous use of naked women with very pert nipples for no good reason. I was irrated that most female charcters were holograms, replicants or prostitutes.
> 
> I spent a long time wondering what was going on.



The portrayal of sex workers and holograms and replicants and the confusion between the three was obviously intended to disturb and provoke far more than it was intended to titillate. The head of the LAPD was a woman, very many of the male characters were replicants. There are plenty of takes online which argue that Blade Runner is a very feminist film, obviously it isn't for me to decide whether it is or not but this just seems like a v superficial reading of the film to me.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 16, 2017)

for all us refuseniks out there I've just remembered quite a while back they actually did 3 follow-up sequels as books - I'm now slightly more intrigued to see what they came up with as a continuation :-








https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blade-Runn...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1508136750&sr=1-1


_The first sequel to the major movie spectacular, "Blade Runner", "The Edge of Human" has been commissioned by Orion and authorised by the Philip K Dick Trust and The Blade Runner Partnership. It is written by a writer who worked alongside Dick in the years prior to his tragically earl death. It answers a lot of the questions left hanging by the movie and yet remains true to the spirit of the original Philip K Dick story "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". Rick Deckard is living with his replicant lover, Rachael, in the rural backwoods of North America. They eke out their remaining days together with Rachael spending most of the time in cyrogenic suspension. Out of the blue Deckard is snatched away and dumped back in LA with more questions than answers. Why is he on a murder rap? Who is the sixth replicant? And is Sarah Tyrell, Rachael's double, to be trusted?


_


----------



## kalidarkone (Oct 16, 2017)

I went to see this on my own and enjoyed it, although I missed dissecting it with someone afterwards. Might go with my son tomorrow.  I do feel like I need to see it again.


----------



## lefteri (Oct 16, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> Its a while since I saw the first Blade runner - but couldn't beleive have amazingly sexist this film was. Repeated gratuitous use of naked women with very pert nipples for no good reason. I was irrated that most female charcters were holograms, replicants or prostitutes.
> 
> I spent a long time wondering what was going on.



I don't think on reflection that it was all that gratuitous and there was no nudity in the sex scene for example - I felt the same as you in various parts of the film but had to remind myself that it is a dystopia


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Oct 16, 2017)

saw it last night and loved it! beautiful film. 
Might have to go see it again at the IMAX


----------



## Gromit (Oct 16, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> I was irrated that most female charcters were holograms, replicants or prostitutes.
> 
> I spent a long time wondering what was going on.


How else to highlight as heavily as possible how evil the slavery of replicants by humans is?
We tend to think of sexual slavery as the worst kind of slavery.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 16, 2017)

Gromit said:


> How else to highlight as heavily as possible how evil the slavery of replicants by humans is?
> We tend to think of sexual slavery as the worst kind of slavery.



So distopian it didn't look as if anyone had a good life. Everyone looked enslaved. 

I couldn't work it out - were all the prostitutes replicants? and only female characters were sexualised or naked.

Also weren't replicants supposed to be farmers? or was it he was just the wrong type/older replicant.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 16, 2017)

J Ed said:


> The portrayal of sex workers and holograms and replicants and the confusion between the three was obviously intended to disturb and provoke far more than it was intended to titillate. The head of the LAPD was a woman, very many of the male characters were replicants. There are plenty of takes online which argue that Blade Runner is a very feminist film, obviously it isn't for me to decide whether it is or not but this just seems like a v superficial reading of the film to me.


I was suprised it looked more sexist than a film over 30 years ago. 
Lots of naked females/ only females were naked/gratuitous violence to defenceless females. 
I'd like to know how it could ever be argued as 'very feminist'


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 16, 2017)

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/1...-cant-help-falling-in-love-with-you-or-can-i/

_Rarely is a movie as highly anticipated or as divisive as the just released Blade Runner 2049 (BR2049). People love it. People hate it. I decided to see it with an open mind, and I came out of the movie with a head full of thoughts, so I’m fine with the film. Directed by Denis Villeneuve (Sicario and Arrival) and produced by the 1982 Blade Runner director Ridley Scott, the film is a $180,000 contemplation on the corporate takeover of reproduction and the female body. It is also a stunning visual portrayal of a world gone environmentally and humanistically wrong._


----------



## lefteri (Oct 16, 2017)

With musk actually working on an offworld colony the original looks ever more prophetic


----------



## Gromit (Oct 16, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> So distopian it didn't look as if anyone had a good life. Everyone looked enslaved.
> 
> I couldn't work it out - were all the prostitutes replicants? and only female characters were sexualised or naked.
> 
> Also weren't replicants supposed to be farmers? or was it he was just the wrong type/older replicant.


In the Bladerunner universe earth is the cesspit of the universe. Those living off-planet are the elite and earthbound humans worker bees who dream of being rich enough to move off-planet.

Yes all the prositutes were replicants. 
It's interesting that even the prostitute replicants expressed (through contempt) a place up in a pecking order over holograms (considering herself 'real' and implying holograms aren't 'real'). Hierarchy amongst slaves.  

The male characters weren't sexualised. Instead they were killers. The violence bringers.  Gender role stereotyping also. Women life. Men death. Women creators and men destroyers. 
Reinforced by patriarchal society for so long that so many fall into those roles.

In the main replicants fall into the slave labour / service industries categories. 
Our hero is one of the rare exceptions. The task of killing replicants is distasteful and dangerous. Of course they aren't going to subject a human to that task when there is an alternative.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 16, 2017)

Just to explain further...

The old models (Nexus 6) revolted. 

The new models are advertised as safe. But are they in fact any different from Nexus 6?

I postulate that no they are not different. There is a false advertising illusion that these replicant are different. 

"Safety" is managed though the baseline protocol rather than engineered in. 
Baseline is an early warning detection system. At the first sign of disobedience units are destroyed (In 1984 you were re-educated). 

So they are no different from Nexus 6. The humans are just more proactive in killing rebellion before it fully forms instead of pursuing it with Bladerunners after it's formed.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 16, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> I was suprised it looked more sexist than a film over 30 years ago.
> Lots of naked females/ only females were naked/gratuitous violence to defenceless females.
> I'd like to know how it could ever be argued as 'very feminist'



Takes abound from both left and right sources as to sexism, feminism etc

Here's a couple if you want, plenty more out there

Blade Runner 2049 is an uneasy feminist parable about controlling the means of reproduction



> Niander Wallace is an avatar of a particularly male kind of rage. He is furious that he can do anything except create a lineage with him at his head. On the surface, the intensity of his anger that he cannot make his replicants procreate is mystifying: he's already father to thousands more children than even the most eager sperm donor can manage. Take away their time-limited lifespans and his machines could surely outlive him.
> 
> What truly troubles him, then, must be how female fecundity sharply highlights the limits of his power. If he can't do _this_, there is still some part of nature that he cannot control. And in a film full of female characters who can be controlled - from K's compliant home assistant Joi, to the "pleasure model" she pays to take her physical place for sex with him, not to mention the many supplicant nudes trying to flatter onlookers into buying something - that's a powerful type of impotence. We can build robots to serve us, in everything from off-world mining to sex to adjusting the thermostat, but there's still something that the most powerful man cannot do.
> 
> ...



The hidden feminist message buried inside 'Blade Runner 2049'



> *Sara Lynn Michener on feminism:*
> 
> “I am not going to be one of those feminists who has a problem with this movie, because I think that the goal of _Blade Runner_—if it’s going to be true to _Blade Runner_, which it is, thank goodness—is to show the world as it is. And I think that a lot of feminists have a hard time with that. They had a hard time with it in _Game of Thrones_, where _Game of Thrones_ is designed to be a very patriarchal society, because it’s reflecting on and talking about patriarchy. _Blade Runner_ is the same. … To me what makes _Blade Runner_ prescient is its bleakness, and I think, as a feminist, I want science fiction to show us a mirror, I don’t want it to break the fourth wall and tell us, ‘Oh by the way, this is bad.'


----------



## nastybobby (Oct 16, 2017)

My sis kindly took me to see it last week in 2D on an IMAX screen. She detested it. As a big fan of the first film, I really enjoyed it. It reminded me slightly of THX 1138 in places, especially when K was undergoing his psych exams. I just hope it doesn't become a.n. other film franchise. Certain unexplored elements towards the end of the film made me think they were setting things up for a sequel. I'd be concerned the quality would drop if a less talented director than Villeneuve was at the helm. But then I've read that the box office takings aren't replicating the critics reviews, so perhaps not.

Weirdly the weather up here in the north at lunchtime today (caused by the African sand carried by the storm) meant a strange orange glow over everything, much like in parts of the film.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 18, 2017)

So I just got back from watching this:

Good points:

Very true to the original, maintains and continues the 'Bladerunner' universe very well.
Ryan Gosling performance, perfect for the role he played.
Harrison Ford, perfect, if brief.
Visuals, amazing.
Audio, amazing, perfect continuation from the original
Thought provoking, yes, although the original already stole it's thunder.

Bad points:

Lacked action
Love interest was weak so not so much emotional engagement
Lacked the spark of a Rutger Hauer character, (as mentioned earlier) 
But mostly for me it lacked a transcendent moment (Roy's death in the first, Roy killing Tyrell) - they were the goosebump moments. It lacked an emotional crescendo.

It felt like (as do many of these sequels - Trainspotting 2 was similar) - a middle-aged version of the original, a bit slower, a bit more thoughtful, with characters in that the world has moved on from and they are struggling to understand it.

It only served to convince me that 'Bladerunner' is the best film ever made and all the time I've thought this I wasn't being overly attached or melodramatic about it. This sequel stands up well but does not stand equal.



Spoiler: Spoiler



Best moment - for me - when Rachel mk2 walked in. That was incredible seeing her again after so long seeing her in the same scenes over and over again... (for 35 yrs!)...... there she was...in a scene I never knew I'd ever see.


----------



## alsoknownas (Oct 19, 2017)

J Ed said:


> ...but this just seems like a v superficial reading of the film to me.


I actually think it's the other way around - that suggesting you can show what you like as long as you validate it by ensuring that it's 'bad guy stuff' is the superficial read.  
This is a very pretty film, and naked women are strung like baubles throughout, as a production design element (literally at some points!).  Simply repeating the endless denuding and parading of women on film is not a way of exposing misogynistic mechanisms in society, it is eventually a way of perpetuating them.
When we are seeing a female replicant subjected to firstly a humiliating examination and then mutiliation, a part of us is always aware that we are looking at a real woman (Sallie Harmsen in fact), now subject to our gaze as well as that of the sinister Mr Wallace, and whose flesh serves to provide the film with an uneasy frisson and not much else.
We've been seeing women stripped and chopped up for years now; there's nothing radical or revelatory about it at all.  I had the same problem (x1000) with Ex Machina - another film that was like, 'isn't it bad what men might do to girl robots? - we'll just show them all nude and slow-mo to illustrate the point, oh and we'll add sexy music and chop them up too - cool huh?'.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 19, 2017)

J Ed said:


> The portrayal of sex workers and holograms and replicants and the confusion between the three was obviously intended to disturb and provoke far more than it was intended to titillate. The head of the LAPD was a woman, very many of the male characters were replicants. There are plenty of takes online which argue that Blade Runner is a very feminist film, obviously it isn't for me to decide whether it is or not but this just seems like a v superficial reading of the film to me.


The cop who dressed and acted quite masculine to get up the ladder in a male dominated world? That one?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Watched this afternoon. Disappointed tbh. Was expecting more


Yeah, not bad but just a bit meh.



A380 said:


> Could easily have been 40 minutes shorter and wouldn’t have lost anything.


 Definitely agree with this. Needed some ruthless pruning .


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Oct 20, 2017)

It is a visually beautiful film, there are stunning moments that remain true to the original movie. The same can be said of the soundtrack - managing to adopt and resituate the feel and texture of the original score (does anyone know why Vangelis was not involved?). I applaud the fact it was prepared to abandon the mechanics seen in too many recent movies / franchises - with a far slower pace, allowing the story to unfold slowly, in itself making a demand of the audience. 

Is it perfect? No - but what film is? But it does manage to take the original story and develop it in a way that seems natural and not too contrived - and there are moments that I found deeply moving (for good and bad).

This is not a film for idiots.


And that may likely determine the reception in the broadest possible sense.

The poetry of snowflakes.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Oct 20, 2017)

Loved it, gonna watch it again.  Something is bugging the shit out of me about the ending though.  It's likely I'm reading into things that aren't there but...



Spoiler



K dies with snow falling on him.  It then cuts to Deckard meeting his daughter and she is creating a snow memory at the exact same time and she says 'just a moment... beautiful isn't it?' She says it like it's completely routine.  She also seems non chalent about having a visitor, something she was surprised about the first time she got the visit from K earlier in the film.  It was like she was expecting Deckard, like she knows who he is despite having never met him.  So does it mean she's creating this memory of snow for another replicant? That this is Deckard's memory, at least in part anyway? That perhaps this is memory of something pre blackout, Deckard said in Vegas 'We were being hunted' by who? Why? No one knew about the child then.... I'm probably talking bollocks eh? . Definitely gonna see it again, the visuals alone make another trip to the cinema worthwhile as I've never seen anything like that before

Edit: Yes! Seems I'm not the only one to have this theory. I'm not sure it's true but at least it's plausible.  This bloke put it a bit clearer than me.

Millar's Blade Runner theory thread - SPOILERS!!!


----------



## Gromit (Oct 20, 2017)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Loved it, gonna watch it again.  Something is bugging the shit out of me about the ending though.  It's likely I'm reading into things that aren't there but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Deckard was being hunted because he was with Rachel. Rachel was a runaway replicant. All runaways are hunted. 

She'd be hunted more than most as depending what version (of Bladerunner) you watch she has no expiration date, which makes her more dangerous than most.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Oct 20, 2017)

Gromit said:


> Deckard was being hunted because he was with Rachel. Rachel was a runaway replicant. All runaways are hunted.
> 
> She'd be hunted more than most as depending what version (of Bladerunner) you watch she has no expiration date, which makes her more dangerous than most.



Yeah I get why she would be hunted because replicants are but that doesn't automatically make clear who was hunting her specifically and for what purpose. 

All part of the fun in messing around with theories in this. Lots of dialogue can just either be throw away, hugely profound philosophically or a subtle clue to a deeper plot meaning. I'm talking about both Blade Runner films here.


----------



## iona (Oct 20, 2017)

Well, I don't claim to know the first thing about films and I barely ever even watch them but I thought that was fucking brilliant. Really glad I went and saw it at the cinema.


----------



## shifting gears (Oct 21, 2017)

My second viewing has been put back but I'm still gagging for it - watched Kermode's review earlier for the first time and was in near total agreement - he is a huge fan of the original and totally gets the new film IMO:


----------



## mwgdrwg (Oct 21, 2017)

I watched this last night and thought it was great. The visuals and especially the sound were incredible.

Yes it was a bit slow, and not up to the greatness of the original, but still better than anyone could've hoped for when it was announced.

I also loved every second that LUV was on the screen.


----------



## kalidarkone (Oct 21, 2017)

I did go and see it again with my son, and liked it even more, he liked it too- it is a beautiful film.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 22, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> I watched this last night and thought it was great. The visuals and especially the sound were incredible.
> 
> Yes it was a bit slow, and not up to the greatness of the original, but still better than anyone could've hoped for when it was announced.
> 
> I also loved every second that LUV was on the screen.



Luv was great.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 23, 2017)

A worthy sequel I thought....not slow either.....just had to soak it in ......so glad I didn't see any of the spoiler's.....as it's bit more than a hide and seek ...an audio and visual feast.....with just teasing hints of Vangellis

Going to see it again methinks


----------



## 8ball (Oct 24, 2017)

I thought it was great.
Amazing sound design and music, amazing visuals, gives itself lots of space to breathe...

I was really worried they'd fuck it up.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 24, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> ...others think it's boring.  It's long, not a lot of action, nothing's handed to you on a plate and it definitely requires multiple viewings for the full experience.



It wouldn't have lived up to the original if it was a film that everyone was going to like.


----------



## cybershot (Oct 28, 2017)

Finally watched it the other night, really enjoyed it.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 28, 2017)

I haven't seen this yet, but a lot of people say it seems too long. 

Maybe there'll be studio wranglings and we'll get four or five versions over the next 20 years before a superior final cut emerges which is the 120 minute definitive version


----------



## alsoknownas (Oct 28, 2017)

Really good look at the sound design:


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2017)

Went to see this yesterday. We're both still processing it. Both of us love the origianal(s) and this feels like a natural evolution from the Final Cut. Sure, the studios could have done a fan boy service and made KW Jeter's version with lots of action and familiar faces but they went with this slow burning dark beauty. Is it better than the first film? I don't think it is. But I think it's a damn fine sequel. Leto's character was fine; I don't get the hate there. Robin Wright was excellent; everyone was. Gosling in particular. And the cinematography; Deakins just filled the screen with amazing imagery. And as much as I was looking fwd to Johan Johannsonn's score; Hans Zimmer has just contributed the second best soundscape this yeat (Dunkirk being the winner).

Not for everyone and those who haven't watched the first I would say get that watched and then make your mind up about going to see this epic hard sci-fi detective story. Villeneuve has delivered on the promise of Arrival. It's the Director's Cut without waiting years for it to, er, arrive.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 29, 2017)

You don't have to see the first one in its variations to enjoy it.  I like it because it's a Denis Villeneuve film, more so than it being a sequel to Scott's film.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 30, 2017)

To clarify; it won't make a lot of sense if you haven't seen the first film (Final Cut). It's like going to see Godfather II without seeing the first.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 30, 2017)

Interesting article here; regarding depiction of women in the Blade Runner universe. Beware spoilers.

Blade Runner 2049: Bad Representation Is Not Representation


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 30, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> To clarify; it won't make a lot of sense if you haven't seen the first film (Final Cut). It's like going to see Godfather II without seeing the first.



It definitely helps and not just with background.  I'm also thinking here of the alternative world/retrofuturistic setting in which the story takes place, which makes some sense as seen from decades ago, with its anachronisms, the unrealistic far advancement in technologies but the absence of others, but to see the first film isn't essential.  BR2049 can stand on its own.


----------



## alsoknownas (Oct 30, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Interesting article here; regarding depiction of women in the Blade Runner universe. Beware spoilers.
> 
> Blade Runner 2049: Bad Representation Is Not Representation


This is the sort of thing I was going on about.  It's the elephant in the room.  Representation is a very good way of putting it - the ongoing tradition of how people are represented on film.
Don't get me wrong - there was plenty I enjoyed about the film.  Unlike it's partner in crime Ex Machina, the misogyny didn't completely ruin it for me, but it was there, looming large throughout.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 30, 2017)

Is the depiction of it (and there is plenty) an endorsement?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 30, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> It definitely helps and not just with background.  I'm also thinking here of the alternative world/retrofuturistic setting in which the story takes place, which makes some sense as seen from decades ago, with its anachronisms, the unrealistic far advancement in technologies but the absence of others, but to see the first film isn't essential.  BR2049 can stand on its own.



Mmmmm.... without revealing too much of the plot; don't you think that the central detective story makes the viewing of the first film important?

Do like the alternative world idea. Really comes to the fore with certain ads and all that...


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 30, 2017)

alsoknownas said:


> This is the sort of thing I was going on about.  It's the elephant in the room.  Representation is a very good way of putting it - the ongoing tradition of how people are represented on film.
> Don't get me wrong - there was plenty I enjoyed about the film.  Unlike it's partner in crime Ex Machina, the misogyny didn't completely ruin it for me, but it was there, looming large throughout.



In two minds over it. Is the misogyny deliberate? A natural follow on from where we are currently? And of course, there's the misogyny in the original film,too.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2017)

I thought Ryan Gosling's part was fascinating and he played it brilliantly.  I also loved the relationship between him and Joi and thought it was a fantastic way of developing the original film's central relationship between Deckard and Rachel.  First we had an exploration of a relationship between human and replicant -- now we have one into replicant and AI.

I also loved the following:


Spoiler



In the end, K truly was nothing special.  I hate it in a film where the person the story happens to also coincidentally happens to be to the most important person in the world.  This film subverted that by making us -- and K -- think he was that most important person and then pulling the rug away.

I also loved that K, being a replicant, was able to absorb the disappointment of that revelation and just accept his lot and die.



Things I didn't like:

- the chief villain.  Tyrell was never a _villain_ by intent -- he was a brilliant man who had created a brilliant resource but didn't understand his own creation and was undone accordingly.  This new villain was just an unmitigated and unrepentant prick _for no reason_.  I hated the whole "cackling bad guy" nonsense of it.  And why did he apparently spend his life in an utterly impractical room-come-pond with nothing to do other than lurk in shadow?

- it was too long because it had unhelpful padding.  The film would have been better if they had removed lots of brief, unnecessary scenes.  What was with the bees in the desert (we never have any further reference to them)?  Why did the car have to be shot down over the junkyard (K was going to the same destination anyway, so it served no plot point and didn't add to any atmosphere IMO)?.  I could go on.



Spoiler



- more controversially, I think the whole film would have been better by removing Deckard's reappearance in its entirety.  The whole Vegas scene was just a bit shit and it destroyed the pacing and plot development.

- the sex scene was just utterly shit



- and yes, I also thought the representation of women in the film was even more dubious than in the original, and justifying it by just saying "distopia lol!" doesn't really do it for me.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Things I didn't like:
> 
> - the chief villain.  Tyrell was never a _villain_ by intent -- he was a brilliant man who had created a brilliant resource but didn't understand his own creation and was undone accordingly.  This new villain was just an unmitigated and unrepentant prick _for no reason_.  I hated the whole "cackling bad guy" nonsense of it.  And why did he apparently spend his life in an utterly impractical room-come-pond with nothing to do other than lurk in shadow?
> 
> - and yes, I also thought the representation of women in the film was even more dubious than in the original, and justifying it by just saying "distopia lol!" doesn't really do it for me.



Tyrell comes across as a pretty depraved guy in the KW Jeter sequel; if you've read it. And even in the original, there's a cruelty when Rachael realises that her memories are not hers but Tyrell's niece. He made her to believe she was "real". To me, that's manipulative.

Oh, I'm not saying "dystopia lol"- I'm saying that the film is possibly showing us exactly where the treatment of women as secondary citizens, as commodities ends up. It's disturbing. It's a warning.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 30, 2017)

Bees in the desert were
a) Miraculous - read Do androids dream to know why
b) To help justify how Deckard could still be alive after years on his desert island.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 30, 2017)

'Dystopia lol.'

Nope.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 30, 2017)

Slightly off topic, I notice the film has been compared to Stalker. Is it worth getting the new version or will I get by watching it on youtube?

Reno - you still around?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2017)

I don't really care about books that people wrote later to continue the first film on.  They're irrelevant to the tale the first film tells.  The point is that Tyrell in the original film was a realistic character -- he had a clear and realistic motivation, which was simply to create the best tools he could for the purposes they were needed.  He isn't cruel for the sake of being cruel at any point, he just doesn't get that replicants have transcended his design.  He isn't a _prick_.

And it's a cop-out to excuse exploitative images on the grounds that they are a "warning".  At best, it's a warning against something we already have plenty of warning for, so it is banal.  At worst, it just allows you to include any imagery you like.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 30, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Mmmmm.... without revealing too much of the plot; don't you think that the central detective story makes the viewing of the first film important?
> 
> Do like the alternative world idea. Really comes to the fore with certain ads and all that...



I think someone with no prior experience of the first film could pick up the threads of what went before, as presented in BR2049, but I agree that it will be a more rewarding experience if they have, not least because of the good decision to show a progression of this future world that necessarily has to be an alternative one to our own (and I'm not a huge fan of the first film). 

I like the holographic hint of a Soviet Union still in existence, and an abandoned Las Vegas with its main highway and vast system of pedestrian walkways and overpasses linking buildings that look like they're out of a 1980s science fiction film.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I don't really care about books that people wrote later to continue the first film on.  They're irrelevant to the tale the first film tells.  The point is that Tyrell in the original film was a realistic character -- he had a clear and realistic motivation, which was simply to create the best tools he could for the purposes they were needed.  He isn't cruel for the sake of being cruel at any point, he just doesn't get that replicants have transcended his design.  He isn't a _prick_.
> 
> And it's a cop-out to excuse exploitative images on the grounds that they are a "warning".  At best, it's a warning against something we already have plenty of warning for, so it is banal.  At worst, it just allows you to include any imagery you like.



Tyrell is an elitist snob; witness the way he treats JF Sebastian; his chess opponent. It's kind of snooty. His grandstanding towards Deckard when showing off Rachael; as if she is merely a product - not a sentient being. He won't allow her to be a sentient being.

The subsequent film is a daring move to show just exactly how current attitudes to women end up. It's a natural progression from the first where Deckard forces himself on Rachael in his appartment. It's not pretty. Not supposed to be, imho.


----------



## alsoknownas (Oct 30, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Is the depiction of it (and there is plenty) an endorsement?


It's a good question, and goes a long way to explaining why some people think it is a damning indictment of society's commodification of women and where that will lead, and why others (myself included obviously) see it as a massive short-falling in that regard.

I think 'representation' is the best word for describing what I find wrong with it.  Part of the problem is that the visual image of women in film is one of being prettified, stripped, dangled, and even mutilated for the benefit of the viewer.  Continuing this imagery is not by itself a legitimate way of interrupting that tradition.

I always think a really good measure of a films integrity in these matters is - are the victims passive, or are we shown their ability to struggle/ fight back?  Films with sexist genes remind me of all the old racist films where 'savage' minions would succumb to indignity after indignity, defeat after defeat, but in the end the worst of the (White) brutes would get their comeuppance (at the hands of other, more heroic White men, obv.).

Rachel is made to participate in her own rape in BR I; and in BR II, Mariette (who I'm surprised is not called Fuk) and Joi 'sync' to become the ultimate woman-sex-object; meanwhile poor (let's call her Kut) is having her uterus sliced open for lols.  Where are all these character's agency?  As other's have pointed out - some big questions are being asked here about men's control over women - but what do we actually see?  For most of the film it is the brooding countenance of burdened men, K in particular obviously (please don't interrupt my flow to point out that he's not really a 'man' - we all know that's irrelevant!).  In a film made predominantly by men (with some notable exceptions) I'm sensitive to the lack of a central role women play in resisting the traps that have been quite elaborately prepared for them in this imagined future.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 30, 2017)

I found all of the above disturbing, although the most of all was Luv and her twisted relationship with Wallace, the internalised inferiority and engineered obedience.

Why have you taken my question in bad faith?


----------



## alsoknownas (Oct 30, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Why have you taken my question in bad faith?


I took it as a question.

eta: The convention is that when one person frames a question, another person is primed to provide a possible answer.  So that was my thinking.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 30, 2017)

Don't interrupt your flow...  Assumptive.


----------



## alsoknownas (Oct 30, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Don't interrupt your flow...  Assumptive.


Humorous .


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> - and yes, I also thought the representation of women in the film was even more dubious than in the original, and justifying it by just saying "distopia lol!" doesn't really do it for me.



There were quite a few female characters in this one.  
Which were the most problematic areas in the representation of women, do you reckon?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

8ball said:


> There were quite a few female characters in this one.
> Which were the most problematic areas in the representation of women, do you reckon?


Which woman wasn’t a victim?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Which woman wasn’t a victim?



Robin Wright?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Robin Wright?





Spoiler



The one who got murdered, you mean?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

Spoiler



From here



> Hey, remember that scene where Jared Leto decants a full grown and terrified woman from a Ziploc® bag, while making some speech about how his "angels" need to be able to breed and reproduce sexually in order to fill the universe? (This theology is as confused as the science, but moving on.) So this naked sticky woman falls out of the bag and he somehow immediately knows that she is infertile (presumably by sniffing her vag? I guess since he's "blind" he's "Matt Murdock, Ob-Gyn" now?) Right so he lets her be born, wake up, and then he straight-up murders her. How does that make any sense for the plot, or the character, or the world-building? How is this anything but the writer saying, "I'd like to see a nameless, naked crying woman get a knife to the uterus, that would be rad!"
> 
> By the way, this whole set-piece was also lifted wholesale from someone else's earlier, more interesting work. in this case Iris Van Herpen's 2014 runway show called Biopiracy.
> 
> Which brings us to: how does the goal of breeding replicants sexually make any kind of sense? If what you're after is a putatively-subhuman slave caste, decanting them from the Baby Grobags™ as fully grown, pre-brainwashed adults is way more efficient, especially if you've eliminated the accelerated decrepitude, which they clearly did long ago.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

Might want to put a spoiler on that reply...



Spoiler



But she's not the victim of a man; which is what I thought you meant


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Might want to put a spoiler on that reply...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Apart from the man who ordered it.  

But no, I meant victim, regardless of source.  In a way, her character really is the icing on the cake.  The one woman in the whole film that might have transcended victimhood, and she is murdered for her trouble.  Because heaven forefend we are left with any strong, independent women just getting on with their lives.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But aren't 


Spoiler



the replicants resistance leader and the dream maker still alive and strong? Ok, the latter is not in an ideal environment but she's not being harrassed or that kind of thing


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> But aren't
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Are we really at the level of arguing alive = not victim?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Are we really at the level of arguing alive = not victim?



Every film has a victim.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Every film has a victim.


And in some films, there are lots of victims. And in some of those, all the women are victims.  All of them.  Lots of women, *all of them* damaged, controlled, abused, murdered and fetishised.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> And in some films, there are lots of victims. And in some of those, all the women are victims.  All of them.  Lots of women, *all of them* damaged, controlled, abused, murdered and fetishised.



And video games, comics, litertature etc.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> And video games, comics, litertature etc.


Yes.  That’s right.  Hence why it needs commenting on. It would hardly be a problem if it were just one film.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Yes.  That’s right.  Hence why it needs commenting on. It would hardly be a problem if it were just one film.



I can't remember; you didn't like the film, then?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> I can't remember; you didn't like the film, then?


I liked the film very much, except for the stuff that I didn’t like.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I liked the film very much, except for the stuff that I didn’t like.



So more male victims would have helped.
As for 'damaged, controlled, abused, murdered and fetishised', I don't think many characters (if any) escape all of those.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

8ball said:


> So more male victims would have helped.
> As for 'damaged, controlled, abused, murdered and fetishised', I don't think many characters (if any) escape all of those.


No, more male victims would not have created any portrayal of female non-victims.

There were plenty of male bit-part characters going about their everyday business, like the cops in the station.  Where were the everyday women?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> No, more male victims would not have created any portrayal of female non-victims.
> 
> There were plenty of male bit-part characters going about their everyday business, like the cops in the station.  Where were the everyday women?



Can't the victims be considered "everyday" women as well? While it's shit that the shit happens to them in the film, surely they aren't solely defined by their victimhood?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Can't the victims be considered "everyday" women as well? While it's shit that the shit happens to them in the film, surely they aren't solely defined by their victimhood?


So the victims aren’t victims then?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> So the victims aren’t victims then?



I didn;t say they arent. I suggested that they are everyday people as well.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> I didn;t say they arent. I suggested that they are everyday people as well.


So what?  How does that change what I am saying?

Blade Runner includes no representations at all (at least from my memory) of women other than as victims.  Specifically, it includes a lot of women who are represented in various negative archetypes — victim of violence, victim of sexual assault, victim of oppression etc — and none at all that just live out their lives either in the background or as a major character.  This stands in contrast to the men in the film, some of whom are victims (although still represented as victims striving to overcome their victimhood) but many of whom are just background characters with nothing special to mark them out.  To be male is an unmarked identity, to be a woman means that you have to have a special reason for your presence.  This is not uncommon in films, which is why it is an issue.  It stood out as particularly egregious in this film, however.  It also detracted from my enjoyment of this film, because I was constantly very aware of this underlying context.

My acid test is always “how would the kabbess react?”.  She doesn’t read political forums or spend time wrapped in the majesty of sound and vision.  She just calls it as she sees it.  For example, her summation after three episodes of Game of Thrones was “too rapey” and she stopped watching it.  She wasn’t interested in Internet people telling her why it being rapey was alright really.  Well, I ended up watching this film without the kabbess and by the end, I was kind of glad of that fact.  Her presence would have made me squirm a bit.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> No, more male victims would not have created any portrayal of female non-victims.



So a female non-victim according to whatever description of non-victim you're going with (I'm unsure how important lack or otherwise of agency is) would have helped.

Fair enough.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

8ball said:


> So a female non-victim according to whatever description of non-victim you're going with (I'm unsure how important lack or otherwise of agency is) would have helped.
> 
> Fair enough.


Yeah, it’s about what is considered unremarkable.  How can it be normal not to be a victim when we literally never see women other than as victims?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> So what?  How does that change what I am saying?
> 
> Blade Runner includes no representations at all (at least from my memory) of women other than as victims.  Specifically, it includes a lot of women who are represented in various negative archetypes — victim of violence, victim of sexual assault, victim of oppression etc — and none at all that just live out their lives either in the background or as a major character.  This stands in contrast to the men in the film, some of whom are victims (although still represented as victims striving to overcome their victimhood) but many of whom are just background characters with nothing special to mark them out.  To be male is an unmarked identity, to be a woman means that you have to have a special reason for your presence.  This is not uncommon in films, which is why it is an issue.  It stood out as particularly egregious in this film, however.  It also detracted from my enjoyment of this film, because I was constantly very aware of this underlying context.
> 
> My acid test is always “how would the kabbess react?”.  She doesn’t read political forums or spend time wrapped in the majesty of sound and vision.  She just calls it as she sees it.  For example, her summation after three episodes of Game of Thrones was “too rapey” and she stopped watching it.  She wasn’t interested in Internet people telling her why it being rapey was alright really.  Well, I ended up watching this film without the kabbess and by the end, I was kind of glad of that fact.  Her presence would have made me squirm a bit.



I saw a lot of male victims in that film also


Spoiler



K; discriminated against by fellow workers and used by his boss. Deckard; having to hide out for decades, losing his other half and not getting to know his daughter, Coco; gets his brains bashed out, Sapper; living almost a solitary life get's "retired", Gaff; ending up in a nursing home - a victim of old age, even Wallace; a victim of disability and a messiah like complex (he's still a horrible being)


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> I saw a lot of male victims in that film also
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


So what?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, it’s about what is considered unremarkable.  How can it be normal not to be a victim when we literally never see women other than as victims?



There are plenty of points where the female characters are victims and other points where they are not, but I can see the sense in quite a few of the things you are saying.  I don't really think Joi or the memory maker were victims, though (or the resistance leader woman, though she's a very minor part).  

I'd agree that the worst examples of characters being totally stripped of agency (replicant programming notwithstanding) seem to happen to women, though.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> So what?



Well; that's most of the male characters. So whilst its depressing overall; it seems there's no winners in this science fiction film.
Maybe that's the point.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Well; that's most of the male characters. So whilst its depressing overall; it seems there's no winners in this science fiction film.
> Maybe that's the point.


No, that’s not the point at all.

For a proponent of identity politics, you really seem to struggle with the basics of identity issues.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> No, that’s not the point at all.



In the future; there can be only oppression and victims. Humanity is currently in erosion and this is where it ultimately leads to.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> In the future; there can be only oppression and victims. Humanity is currently in erosion and this is where it ultimately leads to.


Fuck the future, I'm worried about the here and now.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Fuck the future, I'm worried about the here and now.



Well, yes. I'm hoping most people here are worried. This film is a warning, like Modern Times, Metropolis, Threads etc of what could be in store.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, yes. I'm hoping most people here are worried. This film is a warning, like Modern Times, Metropolis, Threads etc of what could be in store.


You're missing the point utterly.  It's nothing to do with warnings.  It's about what impact current depictions of identity actually have on us in the here and now.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> You're missing the point utterly.  It's nothing to do with warnings.  It's about what impact current depictions of identity actually have on us in the here and now.



Which is a warning of where we could find ourselves in 30 years time or so.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)




----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 31, 2017)

Spoiler



As much as I think Luv is one of the best characters in it, she's still in thrall to her maker, and unlike K (who turns out to be unremarkable by the end) is unable to break completely from her engineering, her internalised subservient role seeing her go all out to prove she's the best slave, but not without the chafing dissonance.  The 'new model' murder scene is even more icky with Luv being simultaneously stared in the face by one of Wallace's camera bot 'eyes' while he slices her kin and she has to stand there and watch her bleed out.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


>



Yes,yes. I'm not meaning there will be replicants. It's a metaphor for where we're at now and the way women are treated/objectified/discriminated/used as commodities. And if the status quo remains this could be a grimmer future. There's other warnings in the film; climate change, over reliance on technology, slave labour, the power of huge corporations... but the misogyny is the most obvious on first viewing.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes,yes. I'm not meaning there will be replicants. It's a metaphor for where we're at now and the way women are treated/objectified/discriminated/used as commodities. And if the status quo remains this could be a grimmer future. There's other warnings in the film; climate change, over reliance on technology, slave labour, the power of huge corporations... but the misogyny is the most obvious on first viewing.


I don't give a shit about the banal and obvious "warnings" it is making.  I care about the fact that current depictions of women are so universally poor and this film is contributing to this state of affairs, which has real implications on our current society right here and now.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I don't give a shit about what banal and obvious "warnings" it is making.  I care about the fact that current depictions of women are so universally poor and this film is contributing to this state of affairs, which has real implications on our current society right here and now.



I think you're not giving any credit to the integrity and intelligence of audiences in regard to this film. Don't you think they get the implications here, considering how obvious they are?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> I think you're not giving any credit to the integrity and intelligence of audiences in regard to this film. Don't you think they get the implications here, considering how obvious they are?


The implications of what, exactly?  For a start, you clearly haven't picked up on the implications that I am worried about.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> The implications of what, exactly?  For a start, you clearly haven't picked up on the implications that I am worried about.



The implications of how society sees women. I doubt there's many who come out of the film thinking "can't wait until 2049 comes around". More like "that's a possible future to be avoided, how can we change things".


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> The implications of how society sees women. I doubt there's many who come out of the film thinking "can't wait until 2049 comes around". More like "that's a possible future to be avoided, how can we change things".


That has literally nothing to do with the problem I am identifying.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> That has literally nothing to do with the problem I am identifying.



That you would have preferred Blade Runner to be a fairytale where everyone lived happilly ever after & nothing bad happened to anyone. That everyone was represented in a positive way. Hey, I hear you. The one black person isn't a positive character. Nobody is being portrayed in a decent light. It's a violent, grim film.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> The one black person isn't a positive character.



You mean the guy working in a market stall who has trained himself in advanced biotechnology?
Structural inequalities aside, he sounds like quite the role model.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

8ball said:


> You mean the guy working in a market stall who has trained himself in advanced biotechnology?
> Structural inequalities aside, he sounds like quite the role model.



Good point. Completely forgot about him; I was thinking of Lenny James.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Good point. Completely forgot about him; I was thinking of Lenny James.



Oh yeah. Lennie has a much bigger part tbf.
Also, in Bladerunner it seems random people working in the market seem to be highly trained biotechs generally.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 1, 2017)

Spoiler



There's the bourgeois woman of colour ordering a slave workforce for her 'drill site' from Wallace Corp, and being given the option of buying replicants that can be tailored to her own sexual wants.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> There's the bourgeois woman of colour ordering a slave workforce for her 'drill site' from Wallace Corp, and being given the option of buying replicants that can be tailored to her own sexual wants.



Very fleetingly, though.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 1, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> There's the bourgeois woman of colour ordering a slave workforce for her 'drill site' from Wallace Corp, and being given the option of buying replicants that can be tailored to her own sexual wants.



Don't remember that scene! Is she protrayed in a positive or negative way?


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 1, 2017)

It was for the introduction of Luv.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 1, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Don't remember that scene! Is she protrayed in a positive or negative way?





Spoiler



She has no lines, just acting as the background guest of a business meeting.  I just mentioned that scene for illustrating the class inequality and slavery dimensions to this truly horrid over-driven capitalist world.

Luv herself is a slave, a product, but also has considerable status and power over those, for example, who at least have the 'privilege' and dignity of being 'free' and recognised as truly human but nevertheless exist in a giant rubbish dump.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 1, 2017)

Gah I just cannot abide this critique of Bladerunner's depictions of women.  I mean wtf else were you expecting? A main point of Bladerunner is depicting the world, as it is now, taken to extremes, perhaps even its logical extreme in many aspects.  

How is our world now? Well it's sexually objectifying, particularly of women, so why is it a surprise that women in a film about our world as it is now taken to logical extremes are further sexually objectified and the majority of the female droids, holograms, replicants and robots in it are used as sex slaves? 

How are women often treated in our world now? Well, they're often portrayed, nearly constantly, as victims, by plenty of feminists as well so why is it a surprise they're nearly constantly victims in a dystopic film about our world taken to its extremes? I mean really, criticism of it might as well be 'it didn't portray socialism in a positive light and not enough space was offered to alternative ways of organising the economy' or 'it didn't represent the working class very fairly, it presented them as slaves caught up in a system against their will' well duh!


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2017)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Gah...



That said (and I agree with the main thrust of what you say), I've been pondering kabbes' comments on the film.  I think in a film that is covering so much ground we'll all find things we do and don't like. 



Spoiler



For me, the clunkiest bit was the brief bringing back of Rachael.  She was really 'uncanny valley'.  And was really brutally and dispassionately dispatched in a way that jarred a bit for me.


 I don't agree with kabbes that all the female characters were victims, but the most extreme denial of agency seemed reserved for female characters... 



Spoiler



the other noteworthy case being the unfortunate 'newborn' that was dispatched in Leto's pond-lair.



I expect this is a film I'll see a few more times, and I was def blown away by the visuals and sound design and will probably question more elements of it on repeat viewings.  I thought it was a great piece of cinema, but I'm interested in the perspectives of those who reacted to certain elements differently to me.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 1, 2017)

8ball said:


> That said (and I agree with the main thrust of what you say), I've been pondering kabbes' comments on the film.  I think in a film that is covering so much ground we'll all find things we do and don't like.  For me, the clunkiest bit was the brief bringing back of Rachael.  She was really 'uncanny valley'.  And was really brutally and dispassionately dispatched in a way that jarred a bit for me.  I don't agree with kabbes that all the female characters were victims, but the most extreme denial of agency seemed reserved for female characters, the other noteworthy case being the unfortunate 'newborn' that was dispatched in Leto's pond-lair.
> 
> I expect this is a film I'll see a few more times, and I was def blown away by the visuals and sound design and will probably question more elements of it on repeat viewings.  I thought it was a great piece of cinema, but I'm interested in the perspectives of those who reacted to certain elements differently to me.



Spoilers, mate


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Spoilers, mate



Shit! Is this the 'avoid spoilers' thread?  I was *so* careful to avoid spoilers myself that I figured no one avoiding them would go on a thread like this. 

(edit) ok, I've added some spoiler code to what I said before...


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 1, 2017)

8ball said:


> Shit! Is this the 'avoid spoilers' thread?  I was *so* careful to avoid spoilers myself that I figured no one avoiding them would go on a thread like this.



Just being careful, like. I unsubscribed to the thread (before I'd seen the film) because someone mentioned 


Spoiler



that K is a replicant and even if it was revealed at the start it still took away a little for me



Film is still sinking in. Probably will end up owning it eventually. I just hope there isn't a sequel.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 1, 2017)

Yeah, I hope they stop it now too.
Well, unless they totally do another awesome one...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 1, 2017)

8ball said:


> That said (and I agree with the main thrust of what you say), I've been pondering kabbes' comments on the film.  I think in a film that is covering so much ground we'll all find things we do and don't like.  For me, the clunkiest bit was the brief bringing back of Rachael.  She was really 'uncanny valley'.  And was really brutally and dispassionately dispatched in a way that jarred a bit for me.  I don't agree with kabbes that all the female characters were victims, but the most extreme denial of agency seemed reserved for female characters, the other noteworthy case being the unfortunate 'newborn' that was dispatched in Leto's pond-lair.



Absolutely, it covered so much ground and it covers more the more I think about it.  I do take what you're saying about 



Spoiler



how she was brutally and dispassionately dispatched


 but I just can't go down the route of 'women had it worse.'  



Spoiler



take the scene where the people on that rubbish heap are blown to pieces by a drone, casually carried out by luv while she's getting her nails done

That is an incredible scene because of what it's saying about how things are now.  The victims of contemporary capitalism live on rubbish dumps, out the way in far away places and they're callously and casually blown to bits by people miles away with barely a second thought because, well, who gives a fuck about them? They just live on rubbish.  How many were killed in that scene? 15? 20? Did that jar you in the same way? It didn't jar me but it certainly struck me with the point it's making, we should've been extremely jarred by that.  As far as I can see all the people killed in that scene were men, helpless victims with no agency killed callously by a woman miles away who's not even human in the conventional sense. So the person doing that is dehumanised (that thought actually just occurred to me whilst writing this) and female.



So while I think it's interesting a worthy to discuss the gender roles, depictions, implications etc I don't think it for reasons of 'Bladerunner is bad because it depicts women poorly.'  So many people are victims without agency in the film because, as I said, it's meant to hold up a mirror to the contemporary world.  In fact I'd argue it does so more effectively than the first.  Rarely has a film cooked in my head for this long.



> I expect this is a film I'll see a few more times, and I was def blown away by the visuals and sound design and will probably question more elements of it on repeat viewings.  I thought it was a great piece of cinema, but I'm interested in the perspectives of those who reacted to certain elements differently to me.



I've seen it twice because the visuals alone make it an amazing experience. I'm debating seeing it a third time before it's run at the cinema ends.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> That you would have preferred Blade Runner to be a fairytale where everyone lived happilly ever after & nothing bad happened to anyone.


Whatever the hell gave you that idea?

You are a very bizarre person, krtek.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Whatever the hell gave you that idea?
> 
> You are a very bizarre person, krtek.



Very. So; in a film where most people are victims and the future is grim - where society (through the machinations of corportatism)treat people as commodities - how do you think it should have turned out?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Very. So; in a film where most people are victims and the future is grim - where society (through the machinations of corportatism)treat people as commodities - how do you think it should have turned out?


“Most people” victims? No, all women and some men, the latter of whom the story was built around.  There are plenty of unmarked male non-victims.

The story should have turned out just as it did.  Nothing wrong with the way it turned out, other than a bit of overblown nonsense involving Deckard and a plot line that made no sense.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> “Most people” victims? No, all women and some men, the latter of whom the story was built around.  There are plenty of unmarked male non-victims.
> 
> The story should have turned out just as it did.  Nothing wrong with the way it turned out, other than a bit of overblown nonsense involving Deckard and a plot line that made no sense.



I kinda like that 


Spoiler



Deckard was left until the last third of the film - the plot line making no sense; do you mean the daughter who,I guess, was a human/replicant hybrid?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

The plot line made no sense in that the whole motivation of the cartoon bad guy made no sense.  His aims were better served by the statue quo than by the thing he was trying to achieve. Did you read the thing I linked to earlier? It explained thus.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> The plot line made no sense in that the whole motivation of the cartoon bad guy made no sense.  His aims were better served by the statue quo than by the thing he was trying to achieve. Did you read the thing I linked to earlier? It explained thus.



Must have missed the link, sorry. Tends to be that messiah complex/meglomanical villains oft have lofty plans that don't quite add up on reflection...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Must have missed the link, sorry. Tends to be that messiah complex/meglomanical villains oft have lofty plans that don't quite add up on reflection...


In badly written stories, yeah.  In well written stories, not so much.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> In badly written stories, yeah.  In well written stories, not so much.



Finding it a bit hard to follow your train of thought on this film. You don't think it's well written?


----------



## Gromit (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> In badly written stories, yeah.  In well written stories, not so much.


But not in real life of course...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Finding it a bit hard to follow your train of thought on this film. You don't think it's well written?


Not tremendously so, no. Doesn’t stop it being sumptuously shot or enjoyable to watch. Doesn’t stop the acting being really good.  Doesn’t stop many (but by not means all) of the characters being interesting.  Doesn’t mean it is badly written either (my earlier comment applying to generic writing, rather than this specific film). Doesn’t mean there weren’t many positive things to take from it.  But I don’t think its writing is its strong point.

It had a terrible plot that made no sense, for a start.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Not tremendously so, no. Doesn’t stop it being sumptuously shot or enjoyable to watch. Doesn’t stop the acting being really good.  Doesn’t stop many (but by not means all) of the characters being interesting.  Doesn’t mean it is badly written either (my earlier comment applying to generic writing, rather than this specific film). Doesn’t mean there weren’t many positive things to take from it.  But I don’t think its writing is its strong point.
> 
> It had a terrible plot that made no sense, for a start.



It's a detective story. It's no Chinatown but I found it reasonably linear. Then again, I was swept away by the visuals and score - might have to watch it again. And again...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> It's a detective story. It's no Chinatown but I found it reasonably linear. Then again, I was swept away by the visuals and score - might have to watch it again. And again...


It’s not a very good detective story.  Without all its non-story good stuff, this fact would be laid bare.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It’s not a very good detective story.  Without all its non-story good stuff, this fact would be laid bare.



Ach, in that case, you could say the same of the first film. Detective hunts down escaped felons etc...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Ach, in that case, you could say the same of the first film. Detective hunts down escaped felons etc...


Well it’s kind of true that the original is brilliant but definitely well flawed.  But its story made perfect sense in and of itself. Motivations were clear and internally consistent.  It was well written in that way, if appallingly paced.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Well it’s kind of true that the original is brilliant but definitely well flawed.  But its story made perfect sense in and of itself. Motivations were clear and internally consistent.  It was well written in that way, if appallingly paced.



I tend to think of it as 'weirdly paced'.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 2, 2017)

Gromit said:


> But not in real life of course...




Real life _IS_ a badly written story....


----------



## micheal jack (Nov 3, 2017)

Despite the Blade Runner 2049 movie, what I really admire is the Black Leather Coat looking so good. I'm trying to find an exact match.   If anyone could help me out with this..?


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2017)

micheal jack said:


> Despite the Blade Runner 2049 movie, what I really admire is the Black Leather Coat looking so good. I'm trying to find an exact match.   If anyone could help me out with this..?



And just before he "discovers" where he can buy that coat, I'm going to ban him. But I thought you'd lie to see the coat.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 3, 2017)

editor said:


> And just before he "discovers" where he can buy that coat, I'm going to ban him. But I thought you'd lie to see the coat.


It's worth a discussion actually. 
The leather coat he wears in the film isn't leather. Props department made it from cotton and paint sprayed it n stuf to look like leather. 

Also it wouldn't have been real in the Bladerunner universe as live animals are rarer than rocking horse shit. 

Lots of people trying to copy his coat. Most of them look really shit. Shiny yucky leather.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Nov 3, 2017)

Spoiler



]


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 3, 2017)

Spoiler tag?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Nov 3, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Spoiler tag?



Sorry - edited as requested.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 9, 2017)

Far more miniature work in this than I thought


----------



## donkyboy (Dec 27, 2017)

finished this this morning. started watching it late last night, but got paast midnight and couldn't stay awake.

Enjoyed it. Great visuals. Nice score. Shame it didn't do well at the box office. Would have loved for it to have been another 30 minutes longer. Run time no issue for me.


----------



## phillm (Dec 27, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Some sexist nonsense as far as I can tell.



That's a good giveaway he's human as a robot would never possibly use that language ...or would it/he/she ?


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Feb 13, 2018)

Watched it at the weekend and it was good.

The Gosling is a bad actor though, could have replaced him with a balloon with a face painted on it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 13, 2018)

Rosemary Jest said:


> Watched it at the weekend and it was good.
> 
> The Gosling is a bad actor though, could have replaced him with a balloon with a face painted on it.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 13, 2018)

I think I like this more than the original  ....maybe the continual cut versions have diluted the import of the original 

The sapper fight in the pre short should have been in the film ...it sets the film up nicely


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 13, 2018)

Rosemary Jest said:


> Watched it at the weekend and it was good.
> 
> The Gosling is a bad actor though, could have replaced him with a balloon with a face painted on it.



I thought playing a replicant was an ideal fit for his acting style, namely imitating a cardboard cutout of himself.

Leto's scenery-chewing by contrast was the low point of the movie.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I thought playing a replicant was an ideal fit for his acting style, namely imitating a cardboard cutout of himself.
> 
> Leto's scenery-chewing by contrast was the low point of the movie.


This is true. Both points. 

Leto's scenes are the only thing that lets this work down. I don't know who to blame though. The actor or the director.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 13, 2018)

Have got tickets for the 'Blade Runner Double Bill' at Prince Charles Cinema next month. Am excited...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 13, 2018)

Gromit said:


> This is true. Both points.
> 
> Leto's scenes are the only thing that lets this work down. I don't know who to blame though. The actor or the director.



The bit with him murdering the new replicant was a bit much. It's already clear at that point that we're dealing with a mad bastard, but up until that moment he's a mad bastard explaining the rational basis for his actions. Then he does something completely pointless and irrational. Bad writing IMO.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The bit with him murdering the new replicant was a bit much. It's already clear at that point that we're dealing with a mad bastard, but up until that moment he's a mad bastard explaining the rational basis for his actions. Then he does something completely pointless and irrational. Bad writing IMO.


I'm reminded of the Charles Dance scene in Game of Thrones where he is explaining the facts of life whilst skinning a deer. Powerful in the book but omg even more powerful the way Dance delivers it. 

I think they were trying to do something similar but failed spectacularly. Then failed again by not leaving it on the cutting room floor.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 13, 2018)

Gromit said:


> I'm reminded of the Charles Dance scene in Game of Thrones where he is explaining the facts of life whilst skinning a deer. Powerful in the book but omg even more powerful the way Dance delivers it.
> 
> I think they were trying to do something similar but failed spectacularly. Then failed again by not leaving it on the cutting room floor.



Got a point there. I mean, Leto didn't bother me that much but how amazing would it be, having Dance in the role...


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Feb 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The bit with him murdering the new replicant was a bit much. It's already clear at that point that we're dealing with a mad bastard, but up until that moment he's a mad bastard explaining the rational basis for his actions. Then he does something completely pointless and irrational. Bad writing IMO.



See, I didn't think that was particularly bad and think the character and acting was ok, if a bit Jim Morrison from Wayne's World 2.

What put me off is that he's supposedly a bellend and sex pest in real life. And his shit band.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 13, 2018)

Rosemary Jest said:


> What put me off is that he's supposedly a bellend and sex pest in real life. And his shit band.



I've always found him a somehow off-putting presence on screen, him and James Franco and Mini James Franco. Maybe I have some kind of (alleged) sex pest detector


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The bit with him murdering the new replicant was a bit much. It's already clear at that point that we're dealing with a mad bastard, but up until that moment he's a mad bastard explaining the rational basis for his actions. Then he does something completely pointless and irrational. Bad writing IMO.


I thought he was trying to create one that could give birth.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 13, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> I thought he was trying to create one that could give birth.


So what, though?  That’s not a reason.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> So what, though?  That’s not a reason.


Yes it is.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 13, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> Yes it is.


It wasn't the reason for *that* brutality. 
She didn't meet his subjective criteria of perfection was his stated rational. 
We were supposed to surmise that its actually just because he is a twisted fuck not his rationalisation (cause there was nothing wrong with her).  
We are also meant to be disturbed by his assistant's distinct lack of giving a shit that he just killed her.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 13, 2018)

Gromit said:


> It wasn't the reason for *that* brutality.
> She didn't meet his subjective criteria of perfection was his stated rational.
> We were supposed to surmise that its actually just because he is a twisted fuck not his rationalisation (cause there was nothing wrong with her).
> We are also meant to be disturbed by his assistant's distinct lack of giving a shit that he just killed her.


Wallace is trying to make replicants that can have babies.  That one couldn't have babies.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 13, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> Wallace is trying to make replicants that can have babies.  That one couldn't have babies.


It was just a new model. As in new facial features. 
He knew none of his replicants could make babies. Foregone fact.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 13, 2018)

New facial features?  He killed her by cutting her womb after examining her.   He makes a speech about needing replicant babies.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 13, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> New facial features?  He killed her by cutting her womb after examining her.   He makes a speech about needing replicant babies.


Yeah she's like here's a new model we made, good init.  

He's like yeah like I give a fuck none of em can make babies. 
Eviserates her to prove point. It's not like you can see just by looking at a womb. 

It's just underlining how obsessed he is at uncoverering how his predecessor achieved it by hunting down the child.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 14, 2018)

Gromit said:


> ..It's not like you can see just by looking at a womb...


That's why he uses his little science flying machines to examine her.


----------



## moody (Feb 15, 2018)

finally found a decent stream on the net for this,  twice I have tried to watch it now but only managed a third at best so far,  it is quite slow but does share the atmosphere of the original.

Goslin IMO is a good choice for the lead, I mean who else would you choose?

His preformance in Drive prob helped massively, a film i have watched a few times now.... slow but full of atmosphere and a good story and camera work.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I thought playing a replicant was an ideal fit for his acting style, namely imitating a cardboard cutout of himself.



Indeed.  You could argue it was perfect casting in the same way Keanu Reeves was perfect to play Neo in _The Matrix_.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 15, 2018)

Arnie in Conan or the terminator


----------



## gosub (Feb 20, 2018)

Rutger Hauer Shares His Frustrations About ’Blade Runner 2049’


----------



## shifting gears (Feb 20, 2018)

8ball said:


> Indeed.  You could argue it was perfect casting in the same way Keanu Reeves was perfect to play Neo in _The Matrix_.



A lot of people don't seem to get that ironing out the human/emotional traits of the blade runners has been one of the overriding aims of replicant production. They just want another Roy Batty character, which would've been a daft, cliched plot line.


----------



## nuffsaid (Feb 20, 2018)

I wish they'd do a prequel to Bladerunner - I reckon the story about how the replicants made it back to earth would make a great story. Trouble is how could you replace Rutger Hauer as Batty?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 20, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> I wish they'd do a prequel to Bladerruner - I reckon the story about how the replicants made it back to earth would make a great story. Trouble is how could you replace Rutger Hauer as Batty?


Do it in anime.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2018)

you could talk about Kipple and world war terminus in anime. In fact all of PK Dicks more surreal edges could go in there. Penfield Mood Organs


----------



## donkyboy (Feb 20, 2018)

gosub said:


> Rutger Hauer Shares His Frustrations About ’Blade Runner 2049’



meh. i liked it. wished it was 30 minutes longer.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 20, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> I wish they'd do a prequel to Bladerunner


Don't encourage them FFS


----------



## Reno (Feb 20, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> I wish they'd do a prequel to Bladerunner - I reckon the story about how the replicants made it back to earth would make a great story. Trouble is how could you replace Rutger Hauer as Batty?



Considering Blade Runner takes place in 2019, they’d better hurry !


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 20, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> I wish they'd do a prequel to Bladerunner - I reckon the story about how the replicants made it back to earth would make a great story. Trouble is how could you replace Rutger Hauer as Batty?


There is 

Kinda.   Soldier starring Kurt Russel.   Check it out.


----------



## nuffsaid (Feb 20, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> There is
> 
> Kinda.   Soldier starring Kurt Russel.   Check it out.




Whoa! that says sequel, I said prequel, a before plot following the Replicants escape from off-world and get to Earth.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 20, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> Whoa! that says sequel, I said prequel...


It's worth a watch.  No-one's forcing you though


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2018)

I just watched this. It could have been longer, with more women being killed, and maybe a final monologue where a man explained why the film wasn't problematic.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 25, 2018)

ferrelhadley said:


> The whole film is suffused with the alienation, dislocation and loss of identity in a megacity. At the time perhaps playing on fears of over population, now it may pull more to fears of multiculturalism. The crowds, masses of languages and alieness of it all while the white, clean upper layers were riddled with nostalgia for the 50s, in part set by the film noir lighting and tone. Deckards journey from a alienated soul in the swarm of humanity to a plot resolution of him finding a place where he belonged even if it was one soon to be dead android worked. Well in my daft opinion.



I watched the film for the first time last night and this was _exactly _what it might made feel. You've actually captured it beautifully and your point about the nostalgia for the 1950's didn't occur to me at the time but is spot on.

The endless rain/snow/winter, the grey murk, the empty commodification of sex and love, the sense of anomie was overwhelming and very very sad. It was like Mark Fisher's idea of an endless nostalgia for lost futures set to film and music. I thought it was absolutely breathtaking. I've never seen aything quite like it on the TV.

I'm not sure I understand loads of the film - is so and so a human etc - and I'm not too interested either because the post industrial city is haunting me and makes me want to the film again and again. The lingering shots of cars flying over LA are unforgettable. The broken rements of Las Vegas, the development of San Diego into a tip/wasteland superbly realised. 

The Mockingbird in Brum shows this on the big screen periodically and I am going the next time becuase I want to see it in the dark on a massive screen.


----------



## mx wcfc (Jun 25, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I watched the film for the first time last night and this was _exactly _what it might made feel. You've actually captured it beautifully and your point about the nostalgia for the 1950's didn't occur to me at the time but is spot on.
> 
> The endless rain/snow/winter, the grey murk, the empty commodification of sex and love, the sense of anomie was overwhelming and very very sad. It was like Mark Fisher's idea of an endless nostalgia for lost futures set to film and music. I thought it was absolutely breathtaking. I've never seen aything quite like it on the TV.
> 
> ...


I watched it first on the big screen then again on a flight last week. I think I'm beginning to understand it now. Possibly due to being focused on a tiny screen, listening with earplugs. I've probably got half of it wrong though.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 5, 2018)

Just watched tonight.  Can't remember the last film I saw that was so overlong and uninvolving, but I always thought the original was overrated too.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 5, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Just watched tonight.  Can't remember the last film I saw that was so overlong and uninvolving, but I always thought the original was overrated too.


Its is very long , dont know if it would stand by itself if it wasnt a sequel tbh. I half liked it half tolerated it but was glad i watched it otherwise it would have been on an endless to do list.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 6, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> Its is very long , dont know if it would stand by itself if it wasnt a sequel tbh. I half liked it half tolerated it but was glad i watched it otherwise it would have been on an endless to do list.



Despite my opinion of the original, I was looking forward to it.  I tend to like slow, ponderous, arty films more than most, but not this one...  Still, I guess in the age of non-stop superhero films, there is something reassuring in that a film as strange as this can make it to the multiplexes (not that I ever go to the cinema these days ).


----------



## Reno (Aug 6, 2018)

I liked it a lot better on a second watch. First time round my expectations may have been too high as I love the original. It’s not as good as Blade Runner. Unlike that film, which felt rooted in the central question of what makes us human, 2049 feels like it’s just telling another story in that universe. There are dystopian cliches which aren’t properly explored, like the replicant resistance. Rachael gets brought back only to immediately be discarded, no more than a callback. But with my expectations adjusted I found a lot to enjoy in what is an unusually ambitious film for a big, modern blockbuster. Certainly a more worthwhile extension of that universe than the mess Ridley Scott made with his return to the Alien universe.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 6, 2018)

Reno said:


> I liked it a lot better on a second watch. First time round my expectations may have been too high as I love the original. It’s not as good as Blade Runner. Unlike that film, which felt rooted in the central question of what makes us human, 2049 feels like it’s just telling another story in that universe. There are dystopian cliches which aren’t properly explored, like the replicant resistance. Rachael gets brought back only to immediately be discarded, no more than a callback. But with my expectations adjusted I found a lot to enjoy in what is an unusually ambitious film for a big, modern blockbuster. Certainly a more worthwhile extension of that universe than the mess Ridley Scott made with his return to the Alien universe.



Yes, the replicant resistance felt tacked on - like setting up a 3rd instalment. I'm quite happy for the BR universe to remain with these 2 films.


----------



## May Kasahara (Sep 8, 2018)

Reno said:


> I liked it a lot better on a second watch. First time round my expectations may have been too high as I love the original. It’s not as good as Blade Runner. Unlike that film, which felt rooted in the central question of what makes us human, 2049 feels like it’s just telling another story in that universe. There are dystopian cliches which aren’t properly explored, like the replicant resistance. Rachael gets brought back only to immediately be discarded, no more than a callback. But with my expectations adjusted I found a lot to enjoy in what is an unusually ambitious film for a big, modern blockbuster. Certainly a more worthwhile extension of that universe than the mess Ridley Scott made with his return to the Alien universe.



Watched it for the first time last night and yes, all of this. While the overt plottiness was disappointing (replicant resistance as above, plus the central concept reminded me a bit too much of BSG which was distracting) and some of the characterisation was poor (cardboard rambling bad guy was particularly pointless), it is a gorgeous and intriguing film that I would like to watch again.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 28, 2018)

I watched it just now. gutted I didn't see it on a big screen. It's a really good movie, great plot, good acting - they're meant to be stilted, they're robots. Proper sci-fi. It's a good exploration of virtualisation and the realities we construct. Re-makes or Re-boots are often shit, it's a relief to get one that's good.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 28, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> I watched it just now. gutted I didn't see it on a big screen. It's a really good movie, great plot, good acting - they're meant to be stilted, they're robots. Proper sci-fi. It's a good exploration of virtualisation and the realities we construct. Re-makes or Re-boots are often shit, it's a relief to get one that's good.


It's a relief to get a good Bladerunner one, that's for sure.

It gets better with multiple viewings, just like the original.

Colour is used better.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2018)

If they'd only cut all of Jared Leto's scenes this would have been a minor masterpiece.


----------



## stdP (Oct 29, 2018)

Reno said:


> I liked it a lot better on a second watch. First time round my expectations may have been too high as I love the original. It’s not as good as Blade Runner. Unlike that film, which felt rooted in the central question of what makes us human, 2049 feels like it’s just telling another story in that universe. There are dystopian cliches which aren’t properly explored, like the replicant resistance. Rachael gets brought back only to immediately be discarded, no more than a callback. But with my expectations adjusted I found a lot to enjoy in what is an unusually ambitious film for a big, modern blockbuster. Certainly a more worthwhile extension of that universe than the mess Ridley Scott made with his return to the Alien universe.



I've just finished watching it for the second time and also liked it much better on the second watch, but as you say I don't think it's got half the sense of narrative purpose the original did. For all of its philosophical pondering, the original has a much clearer sense of where it was going, lots of cryptic background and seemingly incongruous dialogue all building towards the same whole. 2049 by comparison felt a bit like it had been written by committee - to my understanding the plot seemed to be trying to do too many things at once and only succeeding at a few of them.

It was overly long and I felt they could have discarded with the whole "oh it's a replicant with a VR girlfriend!" subplot completely - I didn't feel like it added anything to the story at all other than as an excuse for some fancy CGI, whereas the replicant resistance (and anti-replicant speciesism) was a much richer vein to mine for stories and motivation IMHO, much more so than Ryan Gosling believing himself to be Pinnochio.

That said, the cinematography in combination with the production design was almost as jaw-dropping as I found it was in the first film and they utterly captured the look and feel of a future human race that is just _fucked_ beyond all recognition or hope. Wallace's psychotic PA was brilliant (don't know who the actress was but I enjoyed her performance very much), similarly Dr. Stelline I also wanted to see much more of. The relentlessly oppressive pounding, grinding, growling soundtrack was a thing of perverse beauty and a worthy follow-up to Vangelis' masterwork.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2018)

Second time watching it and some of the scenes don't feel as long as they did first time round. Also, finally got the implanted memories and who's they were this time (duh). The misogyny and commodification of women is still there but (along with the environmental ruin) it kind of fits into the world we live in right now.


----------



## stdP (Dec 11, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> The misogyny and commodification of women is still there but (along with the environmental ruin) it kind of fits into the world we live in right now.



Surely the exploitation angle is completely conscious choice though...? Men, women, children, the entire biosphere it seems, have already been sold and fucked thrice over in this universe - I figured, just like the Vegas sex-scape, that wholesale capitalisation of absolutely anything and everything was just de rigeur here.. humans are drowning in the waste of their own excesses, and everyday misogyny was a very convenient and socially relevant short-cut to that.

In itself it just seems like a logical extrapolation of the first film to me, rather than merely a topical thing. But on a similar note I'd liked to have seen more on what made Mackenzie Davis' prostitute engage with the resistance than I would see Gosling's fake girlfriend not really engage with anything.


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2018)

stdP said:


> Surely the exploitation angle is completely conscious choice though...? Men, women, children, the entire biosphere it seems, have already been sold and fucked thrice over in this universe - I figured, just like the Vegas sex-scape, that wholesale capitalisation of absolutely anything and everything was just de rigeur here.. humans are drowning in the waste of their own excesses, and everyday misogyny was a very convenient and socially relevant short-cut to that.
> 
> In itself it just seems like a logical extrapolation of the first film to me, rather than merely a topical thing. But on a similar note I'd liked to have seen more on what made Mackenzie Davis' prostitute engage with the resistance than I would see Gosling's fake girlfriend not really engage with anything.



I hated the resistance subplot, it’s the most routine aspect of the movie and that’s the last thing I wanted to see more of. It’s not even developed beyond the set up for a sequel, which now thankfully will never materialise because it all was heading towards Matrix Revolutions.

You are right that Joi (Gosling’s fake girlfriend) gets back to the questions of the original Blade Runner, as to where an A.I. becomes sentient and to what degree she has been programmed. The misogyny isn’t accidental, it’s a theme of the movie. I’d much rather ponder that than a replicant sex-worker on the path to liberating her people from the shackles of oppressive and bringing on the revolution. That’s the type of wish fulfillment fantasy which is the ruin of any dystopian fiction.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2018)

Yeah, the whole resistance thing worried me. In the sense that the next installment seemed to be signposted - _Blade Runner Resistance..._
Unlikely a third part will materialise now, though. That scene jarred with me the most, after both viewings.


----------

