Agree that the run time may have detracted from it a bit. The scenes were beautiful, but sometimes too indulgent. Gonna have to spend a few days unpacking the themes, but thought Gosling did a great job carrying the weight of 'someone' searching for their soul or life meaning. The twist that he wasn't 'special' was pretty wrenching.

And yeah usually I'm not a fan of expanding the universe when the narrow perspective in certain fiction is so rich, but they've done blade runner so all I'm definitively up for exploring more elements in the universe/canon.

Not living up to box office predications for opening week.

Oh wow. $35M? Wtf people?

original bombed as well

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Oh wow. $35M? Wtf people?

---

I guess I must repent I guess for my transgression to not go Friday or Saturday. I'm up in the DC area for some job stuff, and decided to go walk around The Mall and go to Arlington National Cemetery.

It's on my list of things to do today though.

Just saw it.

Firstly, I of course have to chime in about the cinematography. I love dystopias and Brutal architecture and grime everywhere and this film had it all!

I liked that the included a few more call backs to the book (which you should read if you haven't), including the purchasing of fake animals, mood organs, etc.

Overall it was better than the original, just slow at times. Too slow.

A few questions:

1. Why didn't they kill K in the casino? That was too convenient...

2. Wallace said he had instruments of pain to use on Deckard offworld. Why can't he use them on Earth? Is it against the law? Does he just not have any onworld? I don't think it being illegal would stop a man like Wallace. What's wrong with good 'ol regular torture? Hell, they have memory machine technology, just read his thoughts! Guess they had to do something with the plot.

3. In the final act when the three ships are flying into restricted airspace you think they are going to outer space, but they wind up going "home" to some illuminated island. Is there a rocket ship there to take them to space or something? I don't think it was explained.

4. They kinda left the Wallace storyline open (probably for a sequel). If the key to all your work and your best replicant were both supposedly killed, wouldn't you investigate? They could've at least shown his reaction to the news.

I thought the original movie was very slow and found the last 20 minutes to be cornball.

The new movie was pretty to look at, but could have been trimmed up 30 minutes. Did enjoy this one though.

The sheep figure

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Quote:

---

INALLY, AN ADMISSION

I'm almost embarrassed to admit this as it's so obvious now, but all these years I always thought that replicants were part machine. And that the eye test was just to avoid having to cut them open or whatever to check for sure. Yes, I realize that Tyrell's motto was literally, "More human than human," but I guess I always took that to mean in the replicants' mannerism, appearance, etc. Not that they were actual, albeit manufactured, flesh-and-blood super humans with legit organs, blood, and bones and what not. It makes total sense now, and again, I can't believe I missed that, but it took the bone analyzation scene toward the beginning for me to finally get it.

---

Go back and watch the original. When Deckard blasts a hole in Pris' (Darryl Hannah) gut, that is all blood and innards that we see. They were not machines. They were engineered, yes, but they were completely biological, albeit with enhancements beyond what real humans would ever have.

---

I watched both yesterday and admittedly thought the same thing years ago. I now know it was beacause of the opening foreword in which it explains that the Tyrell corporation reached the pinnacle of "robotics". I think the concept of cloning and / or bioengineering would've been hard to explain in 1982 to the general audience. In fact, I distinctly remember being surprised that the replicant bled when they were shot as I thought they were robotic. There were also the "friends" of the bioengineer in the first film that were odd creations and somewhat robotic. I now think it was all supposed to be genetically engineered / enhanced creations but the original blade runner definitely confused the two concepts.

That was a general question, not to Texags in particular, much less to this thread. (Preaching to the choir.)

Say what you want, but I'd 100% go see a show with a hologram Elvis, and I'd give a paycheck for a jukebox that plays "One For My Baby" by a miniature hologram Frank Sinatra.

As far as Villeneuve goes, I've enjoyed both Arrival and Sicario, but what others am I missing that I should see?

Empire had a podcast with him and Ridley Scott the other day some of you might enjoy:
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/blade-runner-2049/empire-podcast-283-ridley-scott-denis-villeneuve/

MW03 said:

---

Say what you want, but I'd 100% go see a show with a hologram Elvis, and I'd give a paycheck for a jukebox that plays "One For My Baby" by a miniature hologram Frank Sinatra.

As far as Villeneuve goes, I've enjoyed both Arrival and Sicario, but what others am I missing that I should see?

Empire had a podcast with him and Ridley Scott the other day some of you might enjoy:
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/blade-runner-2049/empire-podcast-283-ridley-scott-denis-villeneuve/

---

Prisoners

MW03 said:

---

Say what you want, but I'd 100% go see a show with a hologram Elvis, and I'd give a paycheck for a jukebox that plays "One For My Baby" by a miniature hologram Frank Sinatra.

As far as Villeneuve goes, I've enjoyed both Arrival and Sicario, but what others am I missing that I should see?

---

Definitely Prisoners... excellent movie.

His other English film is Enemy... this one is really polarizing. I think most of TexAgs that saw it did not like it, and believe me that's really understandable... I personally enjoyed it, but kind of only after seeing some explanations on it. It's really, really, really weird. Also pretty slow, but it has a lot of his signature touches, and is definitely well made.


I think you would like it. If you watch it, let me know and I'll send you a youtube video that does a phenomenal job explaining it, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Right before he leaves for Vegas I think she tells him to delete her profile altogether to help cover his tracks, which she says is "my gift to you." He refuses to do that and only deletes it from the home console and then, per her instructions, breaks the antenna in the emanator (which is how Luv was tracking him).

---

Not really. She wants to go with him and tells him to put her program onto "his gift for her" (aka the emulator) and delete the version that is on the home unit. This will make her be more like a real person since if the emulator is broken, she will "die" and be gone forever. She does tell him to break the antenna so Luv can't track him anymore.

I just saw it. Was supremely worried it would ruin or take away from the philosophical complexities of PKD. And that fear is gone.

Let's talk about the syncing scene for a moment. It gave me chills, not "omg this is so well done" but "oh sht this tears in me."

There are different levels to unpack.

1. We live in a time with porn. The women are not there with you. Using a prostitute to illicit textile stimulation of a fantasy: wut!

2. What is real for K, was it the prostitute? Was it joi? How would one interpret who you slept with?

3. Maybe I'm an asshle but I think everyone has been with someone, and imagined they were someone else. This thought brought about extreme conviction and dehumanization of my so.

4. And this is the one that kills: joi recognizes her inadequacies and finds a way to make K happy despite those inadequacies, even to the point of what WE would consider adultery.

5. Without the prostitute he is, in a real sense, isolated sexually and relationally but not emotionally. Notice the moment robin Wright tried to fk him, or the prostitute on the street, K retreated into his false relationship (isolation).

6. Those inadequacies of "not being there" but being present in his mind is a parallel to a widower (which he actually becomes). The romantic longing of an untouchable lover is often the drive of a widow(er).

The scene challenges your concept of love and humanity, intimacy vs throwaway, isolation vs interaction. And wtf is interaction if not THIS?

It's such a hard scene to process (emotionally and intellectually).

Alright I read through now and a few other points:

I had watched the original (Final Cut) Sunday so it was pretty fresh when I saw 2049. Sure there were cute Easter eggs here and there (Edward James Olmos, Atari, I think PanAm made an appearance, even an origami sheep to reference the novel [I think that was the point]) but I've never noticed thematic Easter eggs before in a movie. Maybe thats the wrong way to categorize it but the use of the same motifs as the original felt weirdly and ironically fresh: eyes, flying over the cities, photographs.

I really hope this gets another sequel - I know box office results weren't what was expected but this film did a great job of continuing the promising world building of the original. Expanding on the pervasiveness of technology; the wastelands; that far away, never seen, almost fantastical "old-world"; the LAPD. Such a fascinating world and I want to see more.

Finally the use of Peter and the Wolf as the ringtone has me so intrigued. Anyone find any reasoning behind this? No other song has a stronger pull on me which takes me back to my early childhood.

Great to hear. Yeah, it definitely offers some fantastic insight.

Very cool - thanks for sharing.