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
10-09-17, 09:27 PM
#151
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I'm with you on this analysis. I think it's also pertinent that the only character in the movie who represents a sense of hope is female (Deckard's daughter). Her original savior is also female and currently the leader of the replicant revolutionary army. And despite the fact that some of them meet their demise, pretty much every character in this movie in a real position of power is female, with Wallace being the one exception.
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 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.
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 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.
10-09-17, 10:21 PM
#153
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
And I guess because the core story is uninteresting, nothing else works for me either.
10-10-17, 09:53 AM
#154
Moderator
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.
<deletia>
<deletia>
Last edited by wendersfan; 10-10-17 at 09:59 AM.
10-10-17, 10:33 AM
#155
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
While I can appreciate this point of view, I really think you're overthinking it (and IMO the movie's not worth it) and also excusing its misogyny as an attack on misogyny. Based on your analysis, it wants to exploit and objectify women in an attempt to show that exploiting and objectifying women is wrong. Well, you can't have it both ways. If your argument that exploitation and objectification is bad is so subtle that it's lost on a majority of viewers, who instead get their thrills from your overt exploitation and objectification, then you've failed.
10-10-17, 11:20 AM
#156
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Was it deliberate that Joi is also a well-known acronym in porn for "jerk off instructions"?
Also, I think it's fun to see Los Angeles in 2017 and compare it to Ridley's vision from 1982. In 1982, you look at the screen and think, "that's how it's going to be"! Then 2019 will roll around, and it's really just a bunch of $9 coffee restaurants and whatnot.
Also, I think it's fun to see Los Angeles in 2017 and compare it to Ridley's vision from 1982. In 1982, you look at the screen and think, "that's how it's going to be"! Then 2019 will roll around, and it's really just a bunch of $9 coffee restaurants and whatnot.
10-10-17, 12:31 PM
#157
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Was it deliberate that Joi is also a well-known acronym in porn for "jerk off instructions"?
Also, I think it's fun to see Los Angeles in 2017 and compare it to Ridley's vision from 1982. In 1982, you look at the screen and think, "that's how it's going to be"! Then 2019 will roll around, and it's really just a bunch of $9 coffee restaurants and whatnot.
Also, I think it's fun to see Los Angeles in 2017 and compare it to Ridley's vision from 1982. In 1982, you look at the screen and think, "that's how it's going to be"! Then 2019 will roll around, and it's really just a bunch of $9 coffee restaurants and whatnot.
I watch my fair share of porn and I did not know this.
#mindblown
10-10-17, 07:03 PM
#160
DVD Talk Hero
10-11-17, 09:15 AM
#161
10-11-17, 12:35 PM
#163
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I'm an internet dork and I've never hear of "joi" before. But I stay clear of Reddit and 4chan so what do I know.
10-11-17, 12:41 PM
#164
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
10-11-17, 12:55 PM
#165
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I'm actually surprised that people found this boring. I thought it was fascinating. The time flew by for me, so much so, that I thought maybe there was still an hour left when it ended.
10-12-17, 08:08 PM
#166
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Saw it for a second time. I’d say this falls short of being a masterpiece but is a very fine film noir/mystery. It’s a worthy follow up to the original given that virtually nothing could match, let alone top the first film. Both Gosling and Ford have really strong, subtle performances.
The biggest missed opportunity of the movie was the soundtrack. They didn’t have to copy or reuse the Vangelis score but the music should have been as memorable as the visuals.
The biggest missed opportunity of the movie was the soundtrack. They didn’t have to copy or reuse the Vangelis score but the music should have been as memorable as the visuals.
10-12-17, 08:36 PM
#167
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Saw it for a second time. I’d say this falls short of being a masterpiece but is a very fine film noir/mystery. It’s a worthy follow up to the original given that virtually nothing could match, let alone top the first film. Both Gosling and Ford have really strong, subtle performances.
The biggest missed opportunity of the movie was the soundtrack. They didn’t have to copy or reuse the Vangelis score but the music should have been as memorable as the visuals.
The biggest missed opportunity of the movie was the soundtrack. They didn’t have to copy or reuse the Vangelis score but the music should have been as memorable as the visuals.
Nah, this one was colder and had way less saxophone. I appreciated the dark wave/ambient of it.
10-12-17, 08:43 PM
#168
Banned by request
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I’m not saying it specifically needed more saxophone, just some identifiable themes.
10-12-17, 09:12 PM
#169
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Saw it in a Dolby Cinema and holy shit. Five stars, easy. The ending brought an emotion I wasn't expecting. Whomever said Ford phoned it in, I sure didn't see that. Outstanding effects with so much practical.
If Deakins doesn't get his Oscar, I will burn the Academy down.
Can't wait to see it again.
If Deakins doesn't get his Oscar, I will burn the Academy down.
Can't wait to see it again.
10-12-17, 11:13 PM
#170
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
This looked and sounded incredible on imax
I really liked it but it did feel long to me
I really liked it but it did feel long to me
10-13-17, 05:33 AM
#171
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Props to you Supermallet for your very interesting analysis of the film. It's been a good read and will make for an interesting viewing experience when I see it again. I didn't catch everything you did the first time around, but saying nothing happens in this movie is a bit ridiculous. If nothing happens in this movie, Ingmar Bergman wasted his entire life making movies where nothing happens. For some people, if its not right in your face on the very surface of the thing, it isn't there at all.
I loved it. It's the role Ryan Gosling was born to play. The debate in the original as to whether or not Deckard was a replicant is the same one I've been having about Ryan Gosling for years.
In fact I thought all the acting was top notch, much like the original. Although no one quite gave the performance Rutger Hauer did. Then again thats like asking someone "Hey, go be better than De Niro in Raging Bull". It's a pretty tall order.
The gripes people are having about certain elements of the story not having an onscreen payoff is something I don't understand. Doesn't every shitty Hollywood movie ever have a big payoff? Doesn't Marvel give everyone exactly the payoff they expected everytime they shell out 15 bucks. I like a movie that has the balls to follow its own logic and rhythm and not feel it necessary for everything to be wrapped up neatly. I've seen the loner hero take down the big corrupt indestructable villain too many times. I actually think 2049 did the audience a service by not subjecting us to it.
Also, the irony wasn't lost on me that in the film they make a replicant of Rachael and the only way they could achieve this was by making a replicant of Sean Young. Or at the very least did something similar to putting Koi's image over a host body.
I gave it 4.5/5 and am going to see it again.
I loved it. It's the role Ryan Gosling was born to play. The debate in the original as to whether or not Deckard was a replicant is the same one I've been having about Ryan Gosling for years.
In fact I thought all the acting was top notch, much like the original. Although no one quite gave the performance Rutger Hauer did. Then again thats like asking someone "Hey, go be better than De Niro in Raging Bull". It's a pretty tall order.
The gripes people are having about certain elements of the story not having an onscreen payoff is something I don't understand. Doesn't every shitty Hollywood movie ever have a big payoff? Doesn't Marvel give everyone exactly the payoff they expected everytime they shell out 15 bucks. I like a movie that has the balls to follow its own logic and rhythm and not feel it necessary for everything to be wrapped up neatly. I've seen the loner hero take down the big corrupt indestructable villain too many times. I actually think 2049 did the audience a service by not subjecting us to it.
Also, the irony wasn't lost on me that in the film they make a replicant of Rachael and the only way they could achieve this was by making a replicant of Sean Young. Or at the very least did something similar to putting Koi's image over a host body.
I gave it 4.5/5 and am going to see it again.
10-13-17, 07:07 AM
#172
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Man, I just tried going over to blu-ray.com to see what everyone thought of it there, but that messageboard is impossible. 85 pages since opening night. Thats a homework assignment.
10-13-17, 08:16 PM
#173
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
It was beautiful, but probably the most punishing nerdgasm to date. Cinematic coke dick... It lasted way to long and by the time it climaxed I couldn't decipher if I was bored or furious. I loved it, but I can't accept the egregious dead space that left me feeling like I was being hate fucked by the dreamy weirdo I've been crushing on for too long. I dunno. Maybe I'm just salty because I worked all day & fangirled out too hard on the way to the theater. Three decades waiting for the return of my dystopian wet dream, only to be dry humped into catatonia. At least Harrison Ford gave me motivation to masturbate myself to sleep without crying. Good man. As far as artistry, overall performance value, story line, and dialogue... It was brilliant. Did it need to consume nearly three hours though? The answer is no... There is no acceptable argument... Period, point blank, the end. For anyone to feel justified or, worse yet, elated, by pissing away such a grotesque time slot only proves that their hyper-glorification is rooted in not only grand delusion/ morbid fandom, but also a pitiful display of laziness and wasted life. If the content had been compressed a bit it would have been infinitely more powerful and effective. I haven't a single negative thing to say about any of the actors, they fucking NAILED every word, expression, and movement. I am mildly offended that their efforts were diluted by chronic voids. Bladerunner was the first (and greatest) love in my life... My first encounter with tragic romance... My daydream love affair perfectly embodied. Blade Runner2049... Passed out drunk with it's beautiful dick in my mouth.
Christ, your English and way of simply expressing yourself is absurd. Were you inebriated when you posted this?
--
10-13-17, 08:21 PM
#174
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-13-17, 08:54 PM
#175
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 29,260
Received 1,244 Likes
on
855 Posts
Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, 2017) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
As always, going to try to avoid repeating anything already said ...
I'm not sure about it. I'm going out of town next week and I hope to catch it again. I did feel the length, but it could be because I went to a shitty local theater with old uncomfortable seating.
Here is a take/theory I have not heard yet ... maybe it takes some scientific suspension of belief, but no more than the rest of the movie ... the examination of Rachel's bones showed both childbirth (the pushing out of the pelvic bones) and a C-section (which I don't understand why cutting would have happened to the bone, but OK) ... the orphanage records showed both a boy and a girl with identical DNA ... what if that was not part of he cover up? What if there were actually identical twins? After the Blackout (which they say was done to cover the birth up) one - the girl - is hidden in the human world while the other - a boy - is hidden as a Replicant.
OK, shoot holes in that for me please.
Here is something else for conversation ... I keep hearing people refer to Replicants as robots who were built. I am under the impression (from both movies) they are synthetic beings -- organic, not mechanical. If that is the case, why are humans willing to eat synthetic food (via the text intro) but not willing to accept synthetic people?
Re: Luv's tears -- somebody mentioned this before. I was under the impression she did not want to kill (being a Replicant she had a high value on life). She was able to show emotion and conflict, but unable to disobey her command to kill.
I get Supermallet's discomfort with the "on-female violence" but I don't agree with most of his assessments. There is only one case where it is violence because the character is a female, and I will agree there. That is the senseless killing of the unnamed Replicant by Wallace. In all the other cases, gender had no impact on the story -- the characters (Joshi and Luv) could have easily been cast with a male or a female and the violence was a function of the character's role, not gender.
I'm not sure about it. I'm going out of town next week and I hope to catch it again. I did feel the length, but it could be because I went to a shitty local theater with old uncomfortable seating.
Here is a take/theory I have not heard yet ... maybe it takes some scientific suspension of belief, but no more than the rest of the movie ... the examination of Rachel's bones showed both childbirth (the pushing out of the pelvic bones) and a C-section (which I don't understand why cutting would have happened to the bone, but OK) ... the orphanage records showed both a boy and a girl with identical DNA ... what if that was not part of he cover up? What if there were actually identical twins? After the Blackout (which they say was done to cover the birth up) one - the girl - is hidden in the human world while the other - a boy - is hidden as a Replicant.
OK, shoot holes in that for me please.
Here is something else for conversation ... I keep hearing people refer to Replicants as robots who were built. I am under the impression (from both movies) they are synthetic beings -- organic, not mechanical. If that is the case, why are humans willing to eat synthetic food (via the text intro) but not willing to accept synthetic people?
Re: Luv's tears -- somebody mentioned this before. I was under the impression she did not want to kill (being a Replicant she had a high value on life). She was able to show emotion and conflict, but unable to disobey her command to kill.
I get Supermallet's discomfort with the "on-female violence" but I don't agree with most of his assessments. There is only one case where it is violence because the character is a female, and I will agree there. That is the senseless killing of the unnamed Replicant by Wallace. In all the other cases, gender had no impact on the story -- the characters (Joshi and Luv) could have easily been cast with a male or a female and the violence was a function of the character's role, not gender.
Last edited by Abob Teff; 10-13-17 at 09:07 PM.