Blade Runner 2049

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by ponkine, Dec 19, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Runicen

    Runicen Forum Resident

    In reading over this, I think I finally unlocked what my misgiving is in BR2049. I don't really care what happens to anyone. Granted, aside from Wallace and Luv, I don't hate the characters (see: my reaction to Akira for "I want everyone on screen to die in a fire"), but there's no sense of, "Oh, I hope nothing bad happens."

    Going back to the original BR, this affects the romance between Deckard and Rachel. There's zero chemistry between them and it's actually very uncomfortable to watch, but we're supposed to believe as the audience that we're watching a blossoming romance. It's a cold sale. It almost invokes a reaction of, "Ok, so we're doing this then. Whatever..."

    Moving up to the movie at hand, the only character I felt for really was probably Joi with K being a distant second. As for the plot, where was the jeopardy? What or who am I supposed to care about?

    If I'm worried about Wallace finding out how to make replicants that can reproduce... why? Yeah, he's a creep and a pretentious git, but if the colonies are as craptastic as Earth is depicted to be, why do I care if he floods all of the known universe with breeding replicants? I'm not made to care about the status quo, so what is there to create a sense of danger here? I may not like the guy, but there's no sense of, "It'd be horrible if he got his way."

    Rachel is dead and Deckard is kind of just there. Their relationship, short of being the origin of a child that's supposed to be the lynchpin, is irrelevant for anything other than nostalgia for the first movie (which, again, offered a short sale on the romance subplot). I like Deckard's character, but he's pretty much just waiting to live out his remaining days and he thinks his part in all of this is done. He didn't know the kid, so there's no reason to care about that relationship - especially since nobody seems to know where or who she is until the ending. In truth, she's probably at greater risk for having been found by K. So, our protagonists have messed the whole thing up by the end of the movie.

    As for the replicant uprising... Again, why do I care? I cared about Roy Batty and his cohorts because I had screen time with them. I got to understand their personalities and their fight for life. Who do we get that kind of experience with in this movie? K. But this isn't K's fight, so the movie ingratiates him to the audience only to introduce a struggle that has nothing to do with him. The capital is misspent.

    In some ways, feeling attached to Joi and/or being moved by her relationship to K almost feels like a sucker punch when she's destroyed because the movie then seems to make the point that she was a sort of personality mirage (which isn't a huge leap, but with the whole "what is human?" theme, you suspend disbelief). It almost begs the question, "Why did I care?"
     
    zobalob and SteveM like this.
  2. Ronnie Potchie

    Ronnie Potchie Forum Resident

    Yes... I understand, it was quite silly of me to ask you to compare the two... "Almost completely two different beasts" as you've stated.


    I get your point about the two books (old and new),but saying the two are written from a different angle, is being more than kind; I would say it's more like a book,with many re-writes,trying to expand on its story, while forgetting some of the major details of the previous installment, and if taken literally,makes very little sense -- a spiritual book that has value in its lessons to be learned.
    :hide:

    I'm willing to assess that I may have put more meaning into the movies, than what is actually presented within them. And the sequel most certainly wears the original on its sleeve-- the recycled "More Human Than Human" line as an example, was a cringe worthy moment, as you and others have said. However, I found the scene with Rachael,Deckard,Luv and Wallace to be quite powerful, and in my experience, triggered an emotional response.
    There were many moments such as these... as opposed to the few that made me question its worth, but that's besides the point.

    The question asked was if these movies are deep...

    You've done more than enough to answer my question,and have given me quite a bit to reflect upon.
    Thank You
     
    Runicen likes this.
  3. agentalbert

    agentalbert Senior Member

    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    That line was the only thing I can absolutely say I disliked about the movie. There are parts that I could do without - the flashbacks to Saphor from the beginning of the film, but I didn't hate them. The recycled "More human than humans" line was cringe inducing, though.
     
    cwd and Ronnie Potchie like this.
  4. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    [Face palm] But perhaps the obvious explanation is the correct one: Villeneuve isn't as good with action as Scott is (IMO, of course).
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017
    Karnak likes this.
  5. Bryan

    Bryan Starman Jr.

    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    You do know Scott didn't direct 2049, right?
     
  6. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US

    The context under which it was slipped in barely made sense.
     
  7. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    Um, yeah. Knew but forgot. See post above yours . . .
     
    Bryan likes this.
  8. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US


    I think the only character we're meant to really relate to is Ryan Gosling's. We follow him throughout the entire film from beginning to end, which makes him the film's hero. I think he's quite likeable and certain close enough to human to be worthy of empathy.

    BUT I agree that the other characters in the film we WAY below the quality of the lesser characters in Blade Runner (orig.). I rewatched Blade Runner and you get nice portraits of everyone from dummy Leon to JF Sebastian to the Japanese eyeball guy. Ridley's original is a much better film for its characters. Just think of the amazing looking Tyrell and his all-knowing eyes. The story is also tighter and more propulsive. After you watch 2046, revisit the original and suddenly the somewhat dreary original seems to move like gangbusters. Great movies like the aforementioned "The Godfather" are great because every secondary character also shines. God, think of all the great characters "Alien!"

    Thats why I liked Lennie James in this film so much. At least gave off the suggestion of someone with a little character (Dicken's Fagen). It wasn't until I was goofing around watching parts of fav movies this week that it dawned on me he was in "Snatch!" I haven't seen him for such a long time! Lennie had the only small role that was equal to the neat characters in the original.

    I loved "2049" for all it's flaws, but I think Dennis Villeneuve is still a far lesser director than Ridley Scott. Yes, he's an excellent stylist, but he's a bit wooden working with actors. Far too many people confuse being a visual stylist with being a great director. There's a huge difference. You can make the most stunning tv commercials in the world that look heavenly, but films are about people, and Villeneuve doesn't have a way with actors that the truly great directors do. I hated "Arrival" because it was so flat and felt like a wooden "Lifetime Channel" movie. He pulls off enough visuals in "2049" to make it soar, but he still isn't a Coppola, or Houston, or Altman or Scorsese when it comes to creating breathing characters.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017
  9. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    He was pissed off he couldn't create one with a working womb, so he sliced her belly open.
     
  10. Ronnie Potchie

    Ronnie Potchie Forum Resident

    Your welcome

    Luv said that line to K,not Deckard... my mistake.
    She may have said "off world baby" or something like that... as CWD stated.
     
  11. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    Oh, hell, I'm interpreting. I thought I was through with that in college ;)

    But I believe, that since he kills his creation, he doesn't have a God complex -- he has a Satan complex, or is Satan. As the Radiohead song says....
     
  12. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Yeah, God never killed everybody on Earth (well, almost everybody) by flood when they disappointed him.
     
    Ronnie Potchie likes this.
  13. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    Luv says to Deckard, "Off World is waiting."

    Another theater that was so loud, I could hear everything fine through my earplugs placed strategically to block out the worst of the harshness. The screen was even shaking during extra rumbly scenes (25% of movie? 35?) making the image blur.

    Nevertheless, on second screening and having read through much of the various opinions in this thread, I can assure everyone that this film is perfect.

    Thus, I will take the advice I got early on and exit now as I take my bubble of pleasure into the future and reflect on a film that I find more than lives up to its place alongside the original. I'm free of the desire to discuss anyone's concerns who may have found it unappealing in any way. I was even grateful for the long walk to the furnace for the time it gave me to make a casual trek to the bathroom!

    See many of you, I assume, in the Blu ray discussion next year and around the forums otherwise. Joi to all! May you see and hear exactly what you want!
     
    Ronnie Potchie and cwd like this.
  14. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    Oh, and it turns out...that guy on Reddit was right!!

    How 'Blade Runner 2049' Was Able to Pull Off That One Incredible Cameo
    (Article is a slideshow with a photo of the actress in "Rachel" garb.)

    Loren Peta, an English actress, was cast and put in full makeup and hair to be shot alongside Harrison Ford during the film's production. Sean Young herself was on the set that day (her son also worked on the film as a production assistant) as an advisor. "It was all very secret -- this was our seriously-can't-talk-about-it thing," says Nelson. (The character's code name, even amongst the crew, was "Rita.") Peta had dots on her face so that everything from the neck up could be replaced and rebuilt with CG.[/spoiler]
     
    Ronnie Potchie and agentalbert like this.
  15. Bryan

    Bryan Starman Jr.

    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    Ah, so it wasn't a de-aged Sean Young after all.
     
  16. Ronnie Potchie

    Ronnie Potchie Forum Resident

    When Rachael appears out of the shadows, my initial thought was-- oh no,what are they doing... here we go again,until we see her face and mannerisms (no uncanny valley)-- it was quite impressive !
    The special effects department did an excellent job with this scene; had it resembled Princess Lea's cameo in R1 it would have taken me right out of movie.
     
  17. PhilBorder

    PhilBorder Senior Member

    Location:
    Sheboygan, WI
    I wonder how Sean Young felt about that. Was she was paid as a 'consultant'?
     
  18. lbangs

    lbangs Senior Member

    She was in the cast credits, so I bet she was paid as an actress.

    Shalom, y'all!

    L. Bangs
     
    Ronnie Potchie and The Revealer like this.
  19. Ronnie Potchie

    Ronnie Potchie Forum Resident

    So is it Sean's voice that we hear ?
     
  20. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    From the Screen Rant version of this topic: When Peta was on stage in production, Young was there as well as an advisor. She was also secretly shot in a facial motion-capture rig, where she recited Rachael’s lines from 2049.

    "Don't you love me?"

    I want to be clear that this movie totally leaves the Deckard as Replicant question open. Wallace's remarks to Deckard are purposefully written to leave both possibilities in the air. If Deckard is a human, and he and Rachel fathered a human-replicant child, it would add more impact to Madame/Lt. Joshi's statement about the wall between kinds coming down. Finding this out was the primary focus of my seeing this a second time - other than completely enjoying myself. Also seems to me to make the Daughter's character more understandable if she was a human-replicant mix. Either way, I find all the possible outcomes fully under the umbrella of "suspension of disbelief." It's all a metaphor designed to provoke us into thinking about what is human, who deserves human rights, etc.... All in all, more Blade Runner than Blade Runner if you ask me.

    Bye!
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
    Ronnie Potchie likes this.
  21. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    What do you mean "'incubated' via Replicant?"
     
  22. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    Edited. Sorry for the unclarity.
     
  23. Saw the movie last night & was devastated by it. So fantastic I couldn't believe it. Still reeling, in fact. But boy o boy is that one tough mirror of the future to look into. Bleak & lifeless hardly scratches the surface...

    [​IMG]
     
  24. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Cool-it seemed to me that the original text insinuated Daughter was "baby in a bag" when we all obviously know she was birthed from Rachel-just caught me off guard.
     
    The Revealer likes this.
  25. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Devastated-you nailed it. That's what I felt.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine