View Poll Results: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
What are you high?
0
0%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll
Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
#127
Banned
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Yawn. You want a trilogy. None is needed. Your big revolution movie would end up as nothing more than a cliche, as others have put it.
Blade Runner left things to the wonder, so does 49.
Blade Runner left things to the wonder, so does 49.
#128
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Look, I liked it enough, but that was my gripe. I'm still going to get the music score on vinyl and whatever "Art of" book they decide to release along with the BD. That was just my peeve. You loved it and that's great.
#129
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
You want a trilogy, doesn’t mean this was meant to be part of a trilogy (although if it did gangbusters I’m sure the studios would have been happy to make another, but that doesn’t mean it was intended as part of a trilogy).
#130
Banned
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
#131
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I dunno, I found the Joi side-story to be pretty important. What makes things human? That was the point of the original Blade Runner and Joi - by shedding even the physical - can the human experience be replicated? Really when it comes down to it, the physical replicants and the virtual ones are the same. Except one has a body. The Joi that is stuck naked on the big screen can never learn, but one that interacts with a human (well I guess a replicant) may have the capability to discover humanity. Thats the irony Joi was learning humanity from a replicant. The rooftop rain scene with Joi - man what a callback to Blade Runner - was really her birth while Roy's rooftop scene was his death. Loved it.
I could see why virtual partners are better than replicants. Cheaper, doesn't require any physical parts at all. No maintence.
It seemed to me that the world was slowly dying. Raw materials may not have been available on Earth to continue making replicants. We see the trash kids scavenging parts (LOL - I kept waiting for Rey to make a guest appearance here). By having replicants that could reproduce, the need for raw materials would be eliminated. That was the point. Wallace needed raw materials to continue his exploration into deep space or whatever, and he simply did not have the raw materials to do so. Replicants that could reproduce - while remaining loyal - would be unbelievably valuable in that world.
I could see why virtual partners are better than replicants. Cheaper, doesn't require any physical parts at all. No maintence.
It seemed to me that the world was slowly dying. Raw materials may not have been available on Earth to continue making replicants. We see the trash kids scavenging parts (LOL - I kept waiting for Rey to make a guest appearance here). By having replicants that could reproduce, the need for raw materials would be eliminated. That was the point. Wallace needed raw materials to continue his exploration into deep space or whatever, and he simply did not have the raw materials to do so. Replicants that could reproduce - while remaining loyal - would be unbelievably valuable in that world.
Last edited by chanster; 10-09-17 at 11:29 AM.
#132
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I don't know -- Ridley is the boss man on this project. Just cuz Denis directed it doesn't mean he has final say. Scott also contributed to the screenplay (uncredited), so I wouldn't be surprised if he told Denis to insert things that could be taken further in a future installment. Doesn't necessarily have to be a 3rd film, but it can be a future short film, animated series, etc.
#133
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I couldn't get past the thought that she was just a pawn linked to the big corporation. They gave the few subtle warning signs. I never cared for her as a character and I kept waiting for her betrayal.
The 'wonder in her eyes' was fine but she had no skin. I couldn't believe she was anything more than faking her whole existence. A replicant by design is more susceptible to the human condition and independent thought (rebellion) because it is so much closer to human: Skin, eyes, heartbeat, genitals.
The theme from the original Blade Runner is that when you make something so human, you get the added results of surprising human behavior.
The virtual girlfriend in BR 2049 is so much further removed from the human experince. Shes more computer than human because of her limited input and lack of 'fleshy' hardware.
The 'wonder in her eyes' was fine but she had no skin. I couldn't believe she was anything more than faking her whole existence. A replicant by design is more susceptible to the human condition and independent thought (rebellion) because it is so much closer to human: Skin, eyes, heartbeat, genitals.
The theme from the original Blade Runner is that when you make something so human, you get the added results of surprising human behavior.
The virtual girlfriend in BR 2049 is so much further removed from the human experince. Shes more computer than human because of her limited input and lack of 'fleshy' hardware.
The entire film, K moves away from his baseline (which keeps him docile/subservient) because he is being fed false information. He has memories but he knows they are implants. He has a girlfriend that he knows is a simulation. He has a level of distance from the world due to what he is but also due to how he perceives things to be, and that appears to be intentional on the part of the Wallace Corporation to help keep their Replicants in line.
K’s actions hinge on a pair of assumptions: That the childhood memory is his and that Joi, despite not being “real”, has real feelings. He goes off his baseline because he believes he is the born child, and this feeling is reinforced by Joi, who even gives him a human name. However, the memory is an illegal implant and Joi is doing what she is programmed to do, please her user. As a result, K is manipulated throughout the film, believing he is acting with his own agency, when in fact he’s merely responding to stimuli.
At the end of the film, he receives a revelation. He is not the born Replicant. He is acting off of a false assumption. He is then tasked with killing Deckard to save the real child. As he is on his way to do this, he receives a second revelation, that Joi never had nor was capable of actual feeling, and that even her name for him, Joe, was the result of her being programmed as a sex bot. This is the first time in the film that K actually has all the information and truth, and can act fully of his own free will. Again, K is tasked with killing Deckard, but chooses to save him so he can be reunited with his daughter. Deckard even asks K why he would do that, and K declines to answer.
Earlier in the film, K hesitates when tasked with killing the child, saying he’s never killed something that has been born before, and speculates that being born gives a being a soul. The police chief says K has been getting along just fine without a soul. By saving Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter, K reveals that he does have a soul. He is not giving the middle finger to the resistance by sparing Deckard, because as he says people will assume that Deckard drowned in the attack. He makes a conscious choice, at great personal risk, to prioritize a real relationship, because he now recognizes how fake his own relationships had been. He also recognizes how Deckard, living alone for 25+ years, is as alone as K has been despite the fact that K had been living among other people.
K makes a selfless decision to aid a man (and whether Deckard is a real human or a unique Replicant is immaterial to the story being told here, thankfully) that he identifies with, based on K’s real circumstances, devoid of illusions. That is evidence of his soul, and the capability for the soul in all Replicants.
The fight with Luv is small in scope but large in implication. It is materially a battle for Deckard but it is fundamentally a battle for K’s soul.
I’m not sure if I’d call 2049 a masterpiece but it is not as paper thin as it’s detractors are claiming. It has depth and the story works in service to the themes, which I think AO Scott misses in his review that was posted a few posts back. The narrative twist in the film isn't a Sixth Sense sort of “look at how clever we are” twist that makes the movie meaningless after two viewings, the revelation of K’s identity is an essential moment in his development as a character, and knowing it in advance changes how you view the film, which allows for endless repeat viewings.
#135
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
This is why I wanted to get my thoughts out before being swayed by reading here. However the more I read from the detractors and the fans of the movie push me more and more towards really liking this movie. To me the relationship with Joi is central to my enjoyment, him figuring out that she was just doing what she was programmed to do thus leading him to go against his programming in my opinion led him to being more than just K.
#136
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
What's interesting about Joi being programmed to "love" K is that we also have Wallace taunting Deckard, saying that Rachael was programmed to love him (and he to love her).
The choice of Deckard to reject the new model is something someone smarter than me can drill down on (looking at you Supermallet). Obviously it was more than her eyes, and he doesn't have the shared experiences with this Rachael as he did with the original--the same reason K freaks out about losing Joi. He could buy a new model or "product", but it wouldn't have the experiences they had (apparently lots of eating fake food and listening to Sinatra).
The choice of Deckard to reject the new model is something someone smarter than me can drill down on (looking at you Supermallet). Obviously it was more than her eyes, and he doesn't have the shared experiences with this Rachael as he did with the original--the same reason K freaks out about losing Joi. He could buy a new model or "product", but it wouldn't have the experiences they had (apparently lots of eating fake food and listening to Sinatra).
#137
Moderator
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Maybe I am just not a sophisticated enough viewer or just nor mainstream enough or something but this movie was a complete miss for me. I really did not like it all.
First of all, it is boring. The long long shots and slow movements, just seemed to be screaming "look at me, this is profound, this is important" But none of it was. This was a story that could have easily been told in 50 minutes but is over 3 times that.
The plot is dull, uber-derivative and cliched and just not really all that interesting. And the climax is just ludicrous crap stolen from a zillion B grade movies.
The score was terrible. It added nothing to the movie, was uber loud and unintersting, Seemed like it consisted of like 4 very loud slightly discordant distorted notes, and rumbling.Seriously, rumbling was the main component of the soundtrack.
More than all that it really had nothing to say. The main them was essentially exposition 30 minutes into the movie.
I did like Joi and her arc, it was the only interesting thing in the entire movie.
And Ford's role may have been the least interesting role he has ever had. I mean he has a ludicrous and completely extraneous battle in front of Vegas holograms that I guess ended on what was supposed to be a funny note, and then he gets tied into a shuttle and sits there for 10 minutes playing with his handcuffs, And then they end with a forced Han Solo smirk.
Jared Leto was awful and boring.
I have not seen this mentioned elsewhere but to me, a guy, it seemed amazingly misogynistic. The only woman actually treated with respect in this movie is a hologram, and it just seemed to view women as objects, bitches and kind of disposable.
The whole movie would have been better with Rachel in hiding and Deckard dead.
I don't hate the movie, I am just sort of indifferent to it. It is boring, cliched, overlong and has nothing to say. A mere shadow of the original.
2.5 stars for some decent cinematography and the Joi subplot. Production value was high, visuals were redundant and not all that interesting for the most art.
First of all, it is boring. The long long shots and slow movements, just seemed to be screaming "look at me, this is profound, this is important" But none of it was. This was a story that could have easily been told in 50 minutes but is over 3 times that.
The plot is dull, uber-derivative and cliched and just not really all that interesting. And the climax is just ludicrous crap stolen from a zillion B grade movies.
The score was terrible. It added nothing to the movie, was uber loud and unintersting, Seemed like it consisted of like 4 very loud slightly discordant distorted notes, and rumbling.Seriously, rumbling was the main component of the soundtrack.
More than all that it really had nothing to say. The main them was essentially exposition 30 minutes into the movie.
I did like Joi and her arc, it was the only interesting thing in the entire movie.
And Ford's role may have been the least interesting role he has ever had. I mean he has a ludicrous and completely extraneous battle in front of Vegas holograms that I guess ended on what was supposed to be a funny note, and then he gets tied into a shuttle and sits there for 10 minutes playing with his handcuffs, And then they end with a forced Han Solo smirk.
Jared Leto was awful and boring.
I have not seen this mentioned elsewhere but to me, a guy, it seemed amazingly misogynistic. The only woman actually treated with respect in this movie is a hologram, and it just seemed to view women as objects, bitches and kind of disposable.
The whole movie would have been better with Rachel in hiding and Deckard dead.
I don't hate the movie, I am just sort of indifferent to it. It is boring, cliched, overlong and has nothing to say. A mere shadow of the original.
2.5 stars for some decent cinematography and the Joi subplot. Production value was high, visuals were redundant and not all that interesting for the most art.
Not to mention the misogyny.
#138
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
What's interesting about Joi being programmed to "love" K is that we also have Wallace taunting Deckard, saying that Rachael was programmed to love him (and he to love her).
The choice of Deckard to reject the new model is something someone smarter than me can drill down on (looking at you Supermallet). Obviously it was more than her eyes, and he doesn't have the shared experiences with this Rachael as he did with the original--the same reason K freaks out about losing Joi. He could buy a new model or "product", but it wouldn't have the experiences they had (apparently lots of eating fake food and listening to Sinatra).
The choice of Deckard to reject the new model is something someone smarter than me can drill down on (looking at you Supermallet). Obviously it was more than her eyes, and he doesn't have the shared experiences with this Rachael as he did with the original--the same reason K freaks out about losing Joi. He could buy a new model or "product", but it wouldn't have the experiences they had (apparently lots of eating fake food and listening to Sinatra).
#139
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
This is something I’ve been wrangling with. On the surface the film does appear to treat women pretty terribly. The most prominent female characters are a sex bot, a vicious killer, a prostitute, a woman stuck in a glass cage, and a police chief. The only seemingly positive portrayal is Robin Wright, who is dimensional and in a position of power.
However, Villeneuve just made two films with strong, well developed female leads. He doesn’t strike me as a misogynistic filmmaker. So I wonder if there’s something more going on here. In the world of Blade Runner, people are commodities. Replicants are slave laborers with no agency of their own. But we don’t see regular people living good lives either. There’s the disconnected ultra rich who think they are gods, there is the exploited underclass of the Replicants, and the few regular people we encounter seem to be just trudging along (the street vendors in the original film and the other residents of K’s apartment in the new movie). Others are actively fighting to survive, like the scavengers in the garbage dumps. The industrialists believe they are improving society with their products, but everyone outside of their walls is exploited and suffering.
The women in the film, as their own form of underclass (as they are in real life), are even more exploited. A female Replicant is eviscerated for her inability to have children (how poignant given that there are sections of our society who seem to only value women for their ability to procreate and raise children). Luv has to minimize her emotions to survive in a man’s world (and how often are women told they’re too emotional?), and be even more ruthless than those around her to succeed (a tactic many working women will recognize). The presence of digital companions push men and women away from each other, something we’re seeing happening in Japan and people who form online relationships and forgo in person relationships.
It is possible I’m reading too much into it, and the script is just shitty to women. However, I think the treatment of the women in the film is a conscious attempt to reflect how we treat women in the here and now, something good sci-fi strives for.
However, Villeneuve just made two films with strong, well developed female leads. He doesn’t strike me as a misogynistic filmmaker. So I wonder if there’s something more going on here. In the world of Blade Runner, people are commodities. Replicants are slave laborers with no agency of their own. But we don’t see regular people living good lives either. There’s the disconnected ultra rich who think they are gods, there is the exploited underclass of the Replicants, and the few regular people we encounter seem to be just trudging along (the street vendors in the original film and the other residents of K’s apartment in the new movie). Others are actively fighting to survive, like the scavengers in the garbage dumps. The industrialists believe they are improving society with their products, but everyone outside of their walls is exploited and suffering.
The women in the film, as their own form of underclass (as they are in real life), are even more exploited. A female Replicant is eviscerated for her inability to have children (how poignant given that there are sections of our society who seem to only value women for their ability to procreate and raise children). Luv has to minimize her emotions to survive in a man’s world (and how often are women told they’re too emotional?), and be even more ruthless than those around her to succeed (a tactic many working women will recognize). The presence of digital companions push men and women away from each other, something we’re seeing happening in Japan and people who form online relationships and forgo in person relationships.
It is possible I’m reading too much into it, and the script is just shitty to women. However, I think the treatment of the women in the film is a conscious attempt to reflect how we treat women in the here and now, something good sci-fi strives for.
Last edited by Supermallet; 10-09-17 at 02:50 PM.
#140
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 27,989
Received 1,181 Likes
on
834 Posts
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
This is something I’ve been wrangling with. On the surface the film does appear to treat women pretty terribly. The most prominent female characters are a sex bot, a vicious killer, a prostitute, a woman stuck in a glass cage, and a police chief. The only seemingly positive portrayal is Robin Wright, who is dimensional and in a position of power.
However, Villeneuve just made two films with strong, well developed female leads. He doesn’t strike me as a misogynistic filmmaker. So I wonder if there’s something more going on here. In the world of Blade Runner, people are commodities. Replicants are slave laborers with no agency of their own. But we don’t see regular people living good lives either. There’s the disconnected ultra rich who think they are gods, there is the exploited underclass of the Replicants, and the few regular people we encounter seem to be just trudging along (the street vendors in the original film and the other residents of K’s apartment in the new movie). Others are actively fighting to survive, like the scavengers in the garbage dumps. The industrialists believe they are improving society with their products, but everyone outside of their walls is exploited and suffering.
The women in the film, as their own form of underclass (as they are in real life), are even more exploited. A female Replicant is eviscerated for her inability to have children (how poignant given that there are sections of our society who seem to only value women for their ability to procreate and raise children). Luv has to minimize her emotions to survive in a man’s world (and how often are women told they’re too emotional?), and be even more ruthless than those around her to succeed (a tactic many working women will recognize). The presence of digital companions push men and women away from each other, something we’re seeing happening in Japan and people who form online relationships and forgo in person relationships.
It is possible I’m reading too much into it, and the script is just shorty to women. However, I think the treatment of the women in the film is a conscious attempt to reflect how we treat women in the here and now, something good sci-fi strives for.
However, Villeneuve just made two films with strong, well developed female leads. He doesn’t strike me as a misogynistic filmmaker. So I wonder if there’s something more going on here. In the world of Blade Runner, people are commodities. Replicants are slave laborers with no agency of their own. But we don’t see regular people living good lives either. There’s the disconnected ultra rich who think they are gods, there is the exploited underclass of the Replicants, and the few regular people we encounter seem to be just trudging along (the street vendors in the original film and the other residents of K’s apartment in the new movie). Others are actively fighting to survive, like the scavengers in the garbage dumps. The industrialists believe they are improving society with their products, but everyone outside of their walls is exploited and suffering.
The women in the film, as their own form of underclass (as they are in real life), are even more exploited. A female Replicant is eviscerated for her inability to have children (how poignant given that there are sections of our society who seem to only value women for their ability to procreate and raise children). Luv has to minimize her emotions to survive in a man’s world (and how often are women told they’re too emotional?), and be even more ruthless than those around her to succeed (a tactic many working women will recognize). The presence of digital companions push men and women away from each other, something we’re seeing happening in Japan and people who form online relationships and forgo in person relationships.
It is possible I’m reading too much into it, and the script is just shorty to women. However, I think the treatment of the women in the film is a conscious attempt to reflect how we treat women in the here and now, something good sci-fi strives for.
#141
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I seriously doubt that Villeneuve directed "Polytechnique" in order to glorify the wacko misogynist who shot a bunch of female engineering students in Montreal.
#142
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Question:
Spoiler:
#143
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I figured it was a look-alike, mixed with CG (mapping the face from Blade Runner). That kind of stuff has gotten pretty good. And I'm sure it helped that the scene was darkly lit.
#144
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
The best I've ever seen it so far were the examples I used. And even those looked a bit odd. The CGI characters in "Rogue One" were abysmal. Villeneuve hit a grand slam with this. And set the bar really high. The close up scene wasn't all that darkly lit.
#145
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
It was flawless.
Edit: The CGI Rachael I mean. The movie I thought was very good.
Edit: The CGI Rachael I mean. The movie I thought was very good.
Last edited by JeremyM; 10-09-17 at 06:42 PM.
#146
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I think you are correct that Joi is just acting as she is programmed and is not akin to a Replicant. However, I think you’re also missing something in the story.
The entire film, K moves away from his baseline (which keeps him docile/subservient) because he is being fed false information. He has memories but he knows they are implants. He has a girlfriend that he knows is a simulation. He has a level of distance from the world due to what he is but also due to how he perceives things to be, and that appears to be intentional on the part of the Wallace Corporation to help keep their Replicants in line.
K’s actions hinge on a pair of assumptions: That the childhood memory is his and that Joi, despite not being “real”, has real feelings. He goes off his baseline because he believes he is the born child, and this feeling is reinforced by Joi, who even gives him a human name. However, the memory is an illegal implant and Joi is doing what she is programmed to do, please her user. As a result, K is manipulated throughout the film, believing he is acting with his own agency, when in fact he’s merely responding to stimuli.
At the end of the film, he receives a revelation. He is not the born Replicant. He is acting off of a false assumption. He is then tasked with killing Deckard to save the real child. As he is on his way to do this, he receives a second revelation, that Joi never had nor was capable of actual feeling, and that even her name for him, Joe, was the result of her being programmed as a sex bot. This is the first time in the film that K actually has all the information and truth, and can act fully of his own free will. Again, K is tasked with killing Deckard, but chooses to save him so he can be reunited with his daughter. Deckard even asks K why he would do that, and K declines to answer.
Earlier in the film, K hesitates when tasked with killing the child, saying he’s never killed something that has been born before, and speculates that being born gives a being a soul. The police chief says K has been getting along just fine without a soul. By saving Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter, K reveals that he does have a soul. He is not giving the middle finger to the resistance by sparing Deckard, because as he says people will assume that Deckard drowned in the attack. He makes a conscious choice, at great personal risk, to prioritize a real relationship, because he now recognizes how fake his own relationships had been. He also recognizes how Deckard, living alone for 25+ years, is as alone as K has been despite the fact that K had been living among other people.
K makes a selfless decision to aid a man (and whether Deckard is a real human or a unique Replicant is immaterial to the story being told here, thankfully) that he identifies with, based on K’s real circumstances, devoid of illusions. That is evidence of his soul, and the capability for the soul in all Replicants.
The fight with Luv is small in scope but large in implication. It is materially a battle for Deckard but it is fundamentally a battle for K’s soul.
I’m not sure if I’d call 2049 a masterpiece but it is not as paper thin as it’s detractors are claiming. It has depth and the story works in service to the themes, which I think AO Scott misses in his review that was posted a few posts back. The narrative twist in the film isn't a Sixth Sense sort of “look at how clever we are” twist that makes the movie meaningless after two viewings, the revelation of K’s identity is an essential moment in his development as a character, and knowing it in advance changes how you view the film, which allows for endless repeat viewings.
The entire film, K moves away from his baseline (which keeps him docile/subservient) because he is being fed false information. He has memories but he knows they are implants. He has a girlfriend that he knows is a simulation. He has a level of distance from the world due to what he is but also due to how he perceives things to be, and that appears to be intentional on the part of the Wallace Corporation to help keep their Replicants in line.
K’s actions hinge on a pair of assumptions: That the childhood memory is his and that Joi, despite not being “real”, has real feelings. He goes off his baseline because he believes he is the born child, and this feeling is reinforced by Joi, who even gives him a human name. However, the memory is an illegal implant and Joi is doing what she is programmed to do, please her user. As a result, K is manipulated throughout the film, believing he is acting with his own agency, when in fact he’s merely responding to stimuli.
At the end of the film, he receives a revelation. He is not the born Replicant. He is acting off of a false assumption. He is then tasked with killing Deckard to save the real child. As he is on his way to do this, he receives a second revelation, that Joi never had nor was capable of actual feeling, and that even her name for him, Joe, was the result of her being programmed as a sex bot. This is the first time in the film that K actually has all the information and truth, and can act fully of his own free will. Again, K is tasked with killing Deckard, but chooses to save him so he can be reunited with his daughter. Deckard even asks K why he would do that, and K declines to answer.
Earlier in the film, K hesitates when tasked with killing the child, saying he’s never killed something that has been born before, and speculates that being born gives a being a soul. The police chief says K has been getting along just fine without a soul. By saving Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter, K reveals that he does have a soul. He is not giving the middle finger to the resistance by sparing Deckard, because as he says people will assume that Deckard drowned in the attack. He makes a conscious choice, at great personal risk, to prioritize a real relationship, because he now recognizes how fake his own relationships had been. He also recognizes how Deckard, living alone for 25+ years, is as alone as K has been despite the fact that K had been living among other people.
K makes a selfless decision to aid a man (and whether Deckard is a real human or a unique Replicant is immaterial to the story being told here, thankfully) that he identifies with, based on K’s real circumstances, devoid of illusions. That is evidence of his soul, and the capability for the soul in all Replicants.
The fight with Luv is small in scope but large in implication. It is materially a battle for Deckard but it is fundamentally a battle for K’s soul.
I’m not sure if I’d call 2049 a masterpiece but it is not as paper thin as it’s detractors are claiming. It has depth and the story works in service to the themes, which I think AO Scott misses in his review that was posted a few posts back. The narrative twist in the film isn't a Sixth Sense sort of “look at how clever we are” twist that makes the movie meaningless after two viewings, the revelation of K’s identity is an essential moment in his development as a character, and knowing it in advance changes how you view the film, which allows for endless repeat viewings.
#148
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Im still conflicted on Joi being "programmed". After the syncing session with K out of the room Joi gets pissy with the prostitute and tells her that shes done with her. Catty could be used to describe her attitude. It struck me as something human and vulnerable from something that was "programmed". She apparently felt jealous and incomplete that a fleshy human could be closer to K than she ever could.
Nitpick: the drones drove me nuts. Never saw BR as a conduit of what tech would evolve into. It just screams "present day movie!" every time one was on screen as drones are a popular topic of discussion. BR was always, to me, about humanity and society.
Nitpick: the drones drove me nuts. Never saw BR as a conduit of what tech would evolve into. It just screams "present day movie!" every time one was on screen as drones are a popular topic of discussion. BR was always, to me, about humanity and society.
#149
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
That's very thin. And I actually got all that. He never thought the memory was real until he realized the date on the tree was same as the horse so I think you got that a little wrong. But that arc has been told a zillion times, and better, and that is not enough for almost a 3 hour film. And the battle with Luv does not play that way. You can think of it that way, but it is a real stretch. Like I said, WAY too artsy and esoteric for me, while also being really simplistic and boring. And the score was painful to listen to. Those themes could be played in a different movie much better and tighter.
And it sounds like the movie just wasn’t for you. I’m going to see it again tomorrow to get a better sense of it. At this moment I don’t think it’s a masterpiece on par with the original but I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it since Thursday and that’s a sign of a great movie to me.
The CGI Rachael was a million times better than Tarkin or Leia in Rogue One but it still looked off to me, especially since they used a clip from the actual film right before revealing her. It didn’t take me out of the flow of the movie the way the Rogue One CGI characters did.
#150
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
This is something I’ve been wrangling with. On the surface the film does appear to treat women pretty terribly. The most prominent female characters are a sex bot, a vicious killer, a prostitute, a woman stuck in a glass cage, and a police chief. The only seemingly positive portrayal is Robin Wright, who is dimensional and in a position of power.
However, Villeneuve just made two films with strong, well developed female leads. He doesn’t strike me as a misogynistic filmmaker. So I wonder if there’s something more going on here. In the world of Blade Runner, people are commodities. Replicants are slave laborers with no agency of their own. But we don’t see regular people living good lives either. There’s the disconnected ultra rich who think they are gods, there is the exploited underclass of the Replicants, and the few regular people we encounter seem to be just trudging along (the street vendors in the original film and the other residents of K’s apartment in the new movie). Others are actively fighting to survive, like the scavengers in the garbage dumps. The industrialists believe they are improving society with their products, but everyone outside of their walls is exploited and suffering.
The women in the film, as their own form of underclass (as they are in real life), are even more exploited. A female Replicant is eviscerated for her inability to have children (how poignant given that there are sections of our society who seem to only value women for their ability to procreate and raise children). Luv has to minimize her emotions to survive in a man’s world (and how often are women told they’re too emotional?), and be even more ruthless than those around her to succeed (a tactic many working women will recognize). The presence of digital companions push men and women away from each other, something we’re seeing happening in Japan and people who form online relationships and forgo in person relationships.
It is possible I’m reading too much into it, and the script is just shitty to women. However, I think the treatment of the women in the film is a conscious attempt to reflect how we treat women in the here and now, something good sci-fi strives for.
However, Villeneuve just made two films with strong, well developed female leads. He doesn’t strike me as a misogynistic filmmaker. So I wonder if there’s something more going on here. In the world of Blade Runner, people are commodities. Replicants are slave laborers with no agency of their own. But we don’t see regular people living good lives either. There’s the disconnected ultra rich who think they are gods, there is the exploited underclass of the Replicants, and the few regular people we encounter seem to be just trudging along (the street vendors in the original film and the other residents of K’s apartment in the new movie). Others are actively fighting to survive, like the scavengers in the garbage dumps. The industrialists believe they are improving society with their products, but everyone outside of their walls is exploited and suffering.
The women in the film, as their own form of underclass (as they are in real life), are even more exploited. A female Replicant is eviscerated for her inability to have children (how poignant given that there are sections of our society who seem to only value women for their ability to procreate and raise children). Luv has to minimize her emotions to survive in a man’s world (and how often are women told they’re too emotional?), and be even more ruthless than those around her to succeed (a tactic many working women will recognize). The presence of digital companions push men and women away from each other, something we’re seeing happening in Japan and people who form online relationships and forgo in person relationships.
It is possible I’m reading too much into it, and the script is just shitty to women. However, I think the treatment of the women in the film is a conscious attempt to reflect how we treat women in the here and now, something good sci-fi strives for.
That exception is notable because all of the supposed "misogynistic" violence toward female characters comes at the hands of Wallace (either directly or indirectly via his surrogate, Luv). Luv is the only female character killed by a different man and K destroys her to save Deckard, and more importantly, Deckard's daughter (from also being mistreated/dissected by Wallace). In my opinion, there's a pretty obvious subtext to all of this: Wallace represents the devaluing of women - he sees them merely as reproductive hosts, dispensable sexual manipulators, slaves to do his dirty work, or threats to his power - none of which is glorified in the story. Wallace is the villain. The character of Joi is central to all of this. In many ways, she is a microcosm of Wallace's view of women. It's no coincidence that the Wallace logo shows up every time she clicks off. K ultimately comes to recognize that view for the fallacy that it is and is then motivated to try to save the object of hope for "his kind" - a female with unique and original gifts.
Last edited by kefrank; 10-09-17 at 09:38 PM.