Abob Teff

Couple of technical things I forgot to add ...

3-D -- skip it. It should have been magnificent for a film this beautiful. Instead all it did was darken up an already overly dark image. When I go again I will go to a 2-D showing.

The sound was amazing though ... I thought I was going to explode from the bass vibrations.

Abob Teff

Of course it isn't a trilogy. Ridley Scott is contemplating 7 more.

Azor Ahai

You're not.

--

Azor Ahai

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it may actually be.

Azor Ahai

Neither were "red herrings". Just a bit of backround info, nothing more.

This. Film. Is. About. K.


--

Why So Blu?

It's not background info when it's in the forefront. If it were mentioned in passing then yes, it would be background. If it is EXPLICITLY stating something and nothing comes of it then those are two sub-plots that went nowhere.

Get. Over. Yourself.

Azor Ahai

What the fuck film did you think you were even watching as you were supposedly, actually watching this one?


--

Azor Ahai

The film has been out, let's go into specifics.

What "subplots" were you actually referring to here, specifically, actually?

Lt Ripley

OK, you start. What specifics do you have?

kefrank

In my opinion, you have a very broad definition of "sub-plot". I would not call one scene in the third act of the movie that mentions a coming replicant revolution a "sub-plot". It's just another element of the main plot that adds some weight to K's subsequent actions. If it was established earlier in the film and revisited in various ways throughout, then I'd call it a sub-plot.

To that end, I think it is more valid to complain about Wallace's fate not being resolved. That said, I personally liked that the ambiguity bucked convention. It worked for me, but I can see how it wouldn't work for everyone.

Why So Blu?

Well, I don't think it's that broad. You see that all of the Replicants are gathering about -- building their army and then they have an actual leader -- that female, I forget her name. That's pretty big, because it's like it foreshadows a fight or revolt of some kind, which never came. Hell, after K and Deckard leave, it's never referenced again. And you've already mentioned Wallace.

And as I've said -- I enjoyed the film a lot, with exception to these two bits.

Troy Stiffler

That's still the plot of a lesser movie. Nothing wrong with leaving things unseen. I would have been sooo disappointed if this turned into Alex Proyas' "I, Robot" at the end. The way it unfolded and the story stayed personal, with the ambiguous ending, was perfect.

It's kind of like criticizing Blade Runner for not showing a getaway chase after they enter the elevator at the end.

I personally love that feeling when a plot gestates and holds those feelings and events under the surface. It forces your mind to fill in the blanks. Much like reading a book and creating your own vision of the story. Michael Mann is the king of that. It can be seen here. It can be seen in the first Matrix movie. Christopher Nolan has a good feel for it too.

Why So Blu?

Even showing a Replicant standing army getting ready to fight Wallace's army would have been neat -- two birds with one stone. And I'm not even alluding to there being an actual big blow out. A few lines here and there and that could have been closed instead of leaving it wide open. Yes, I understand that your mind forces you to fill in the blanks, but it also makes my mind assume there will be, at the very least, a third film to fill in the blanks and tell us what happened after 2049.

Troy Stiffler

That sounds good, in theory. Then I remember what happened with The Matrix sequels, the newest Die Hard movies, etc.

It's not common that you get a big win with a sequel like Fury Road, Die Hard 3, Blade Runner 2049, Blade 2. I think it's better to keep imagining how good the sequels may have been, instead of forcing them into existence.

Part of Blade Runner's gravitas was that there was so much happening that we never saw. You hear about Off-World. But do we really want to see Off-World? I think the answer is no.

Anyways ... everyone remember to watch the anime short if they didn't already. It's amazing.

Why So Blu?

I'd be down with an "Animatrix" version of Blade Runner -- that would be great and it could definitely fill in the blanks in an animated/anime anthology. Maybe the Blu-ray will have more short films?

kefrank

I've been meaning to come back to this. My impression from reading you in the politics forum is that you're generally level-headed and data driven, so I was surprised to see this statement from you. What data is there to support the notion that this is lost on the majority of viewers? If you take a sample of most of the reviewers, I just don't see the majority of them saying the film is misogynist while missing the film's criticism of that misogyny.

I also am curious what makes you say it is so subtle? Is it that the majority of the violence against women in the film is committed by a female character (Luv)? The film is not very subtle about making it clear Luv is just Wallace's slave. She's practically an incarnation of Wallace himself. Likewise, the movie practically beats us over the head with what Joi represents. There are multiple huge flashing advertisements for her that say, "Everything You Want To Hear" and the Wallace logo is literally shown in her place when she clicks off every time. The pivotal moment in the movie for K in the third act is when he recognizes what Joi really is and rejects it - taking action to try to liberate the character in the movie (notably a female) who represents real hope. I'd accept that the movie treats all of this with a level of complexity, but it just doesn't seem very subtle to me.

Ash Ketchum

I might have gone to see this if they'd cast my favorite replicant:

Supermallet

I’m not trying to be dismissive here but it seems like you’re more used to movies that spell things out more. This sort of elliptical storytelling isn’t common in Hollywood these days.

I will say I do find it weird that you had issues with this but loved Prometheus, which left way more unanswered but in the most ham fisted, unsatisfying way.

kefrank

I think we just fundamentally disagree on what that scene shows and what it means to the story. You see it as kicking off a major point of conflict to be resolved, despite it being introduced very late in the movie. I see it as adding an important sense of gravitas to the story that is already happening - K's journey of discovery in which he finds purpose in trying to save the girl who offers hope to his kind. In my opinion, it shows exactly and only what's necessary in the context of the established story for this film. And I like the fact that it adds a richness to the universe of the film that could be explored in other mediums (short films, graphic novels, etc).

Why So Blu?

Prometheus was set up for a sequel, so it only told what it needed to in that first film.

Blade Runner 2049 wanted to be its own film (standalone) and didn't quite succeed.

BuckNaked2k

I saw this yesterday at a 4:00 matinee. It was a lot to take in and I'll definitely need to see it again. Thematically and visually it was great. I do believe it could have benefited from a script revision or two, and possibly some careful but minimal additional editing. Not the masterpiece laurels some have bestowed upon it, but an excellent, cerebral sci-fi, and a worthy sequel to my all-time favorite film.

Edit: It was nice of the theater to schedule a private screening for me.

Nick Danger

I disagree. We're shown several advertisements for Joi bots. The ads tell us in thirty foot tall letters: She'll be what you want her to be. She'll say what you want her to say.

This one said, I love you. I need you. I want to have sex with you. I'll be like a real girlfriend. There exists one special child, and you are The One!

But she doesn't love him. She's a mass-produced bot. She's merely a more sophisticated version of the Facebook feed which populates with stories that are most likely to interest you.

Nick Danger

I finished reading the thread. Great analysis by Suprmallet and kefrank.

I have one other thing to add. By my count of the major characters, there are only three humans. There's the police lieutenant, Wallace, and the orphanage manager. Everyone else is either slaves or escaped slaves. It makes me wonder just how many humans are left on Earth.

Supermallet

I take it you think Deckard is a Replicant then?

Nick Danger

In this version, yes. That's why Wallace wanted to see what made his gonads tick. He was the male half of the replicant couple that made a baby.