Blade Runner 2049 SPOILERS THREAD (stay out if you haven't seen it).

Original Poster
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
I hate spoiler text.

Oct 8, 2017 1:08 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
The film was at it's worst when it dipped into nostalgia. Playing back clips from the original. Recycling sound from the original. Smacking you in the head with musical cues.

The fundamental problem with the assumption behind the film - the need for MORE Replicants than he can supply. He wants something intelligent, which can breed, and which can be put to work. We already have those, they're called humans. And they always have served as slaves. Prison labor, wage labor, sex trafficking, "workers" in Dubai. At the point that you make the Replicant almost indistinguishable from a human, then it is obvious that if you need something very much like a human, just use a human.

It is a terrible conceit that they would want or need Replicant slave labor. We're nearing the end of physical labor. We don't need muscle to move things around anymore. We would use heavy equipment to make the Pyramids today, not slaves. Even our cars are about to start driving themselves. As for intelligence, that can be outsourced machines. Joi, for example, is a machine intelligence that even offers an adequate simulacra of emotional life. There's nothing a Replicant will do for an Off-World colonist that a machine would not do better. K's car is equipped with drones with sensitive diagnostic equipment and weapons. Wallace has school of Phantasm balls do his bidding. The more you look at this world, the more you realize that there is no real need for Replicants. Hell, even Morgan's got it figured out. He's got little human kids working in his Apple factory.


Oct 8, 2017 1:57 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
It was a bit much to have Gosling lay down on the steps, covered in snow, apparently dying while they played Batty's death music from the original.
Oct 8, 2017 2:12 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 15458
Text in the beginning stated replicants have enhanced strength making them ideal for slave labor. And they are technically corporate property and disposable/replaceable. That's what I got out of the "why use or need replicants for slave labor?"
Oct 8, 2017 3:26 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
PsychoText in the beginning stated replicants have enhanced strength making them ideal for slave labor. And they are technically corporate property and disposable/replaceable. That's what I got out of the "why use or need replicants for slave labor?"

There are many things stronger than a human. Just about everything in the animal kingdom is stronger than a human. Just about every piece of heavy equipment humans operate is stronger than an animal.the idea that you need anthropoid apes (synthetic or organic) to move stuff around for you is a little antiquated.
Oct 8, 2017 3:51 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 403
Might as well call it the Puffin Nubbins thread, amirite?
Oct 8, 2017 4:23 AM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46783
It was excellent and the most sequel a sequel can be while not retreading the original.
Oct 8, 2017 8:08 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
MKSIt was excellent and the most sequel a sequel can be while not retreading the original.

It was much better than I expected.
During the film I was thinking, "This is as good or better than the original." The end of the film, however, left me a bit flat. It was a wee bit overlong.
The twist from Gosling to bubble-girl didn't really add much for me. K's death(?) on the stairs was a bit anti-climactic.
Oct 8, 2017 8:36 AM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46783
Puffin Nubbins
MKSIt was excellent and the most sequel a sequel can be while not retreading the original.

It was much better than I expected.
During the film I was thinking, "This is as good or better than the original." The end of the film, however, left me a bit flat. It was a wee bit overlong.
The twist from Gosling to bubble-girl didn't really add much for me. K's death(?) on the stairs was a bit anti-climactic.

I liked the ending and the remixed use of Batty's song. From water to snow, a sacrifice beyond oneself for the life of another, it all rhymed in the way Lucas could only have dreamed when doing the prequels.
I actually want an extended cut. I feel like there are some areas that rush while others maintain the deliciously drawn out pace.
I felt like that plot was telegraphed very well and took no issue with it as I was anticipating it. I think it was necessary as the alternative would have been trite. This emphasized his importance without needing some preordained birth or fate.
My only complaint is the opacity of how she got from the orphanage to the bubble and if she was actually ill from her lineage or if it was a ruse to push forth protection.
Oct 8, 2017 8:47 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKSIt was excellent and the most sequel a sequel can be while not retreading the original.

It was much better than I expected.
During the film I was thinking, "This is as good or better than the original." The end of the film, however, left me a bit flat. It was a wee bit overlong.
The twist from Gosling to bubble-girl didn't really add much for me. K's death(?) on the stairs was a bit anti-climactic.

I liked the ending and the remixed use of Batty's song. From water to snow, a sacrifice beyond oneself for the life of another, it all rhymed in the way Lucas could only have dreamed when doing the prequels.
I actually want an extended cut. I feel like there are some areas that rush while others maintain the deliciously drawn out pace.
I felt like that plot was telegraphed very well and took no issue with it as I was anticipating it. I think it was necessary as the alternative would have been trite. This emphasized his importance without needing some preordained birth or fate.
My only complaint is the opacity of how she got from the orphanage to the bubble and if she was actually ill from her lineage or if it was a ruse to push forth protection.

Meh, the reuse of the song was an anticlimax by comparison. Gosling gives a dude a ride. Hauer dies saving his own enemy.
Why does it matter if Ford finds his daughter? Feels like the happy ending tacked on to the theatrical cut.
The whole "find the miracle child thing" felt like Herod searching for Christ.
The business about Deckard being programmed for Rachael seemed forced. If Tyrell wanted robot babies, he simply would've done fertilization testing in a lab.
The Replicant uprising never came, so that was a let down.
Oct 8, 2017 9:09 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10006
The Nexus 6 replicants we know about were combat and pleasure models intended to assist Offworld settlers, presumably either as "companions" for sex or military defense. Humanoid design makes sense in both cases, particularly humanoids with superior strength and agility. More generally, it's of piece with the running commentary on simulation and disposability. Human beings under late capitalism want to simulate the real thing as much as possible, to interact with beings that can be objectified, but without bearing deep responsibility or duties to them. Laborers, presumably, typically have at least one of these dual functions (warrior slave or sex slave).

In 2049, it's no surprise that much of the AI we see are disposable units designed for wish fulfillment. They're commodities used to incentive human action. This includes the facsimile of Rachael who Wallace attempts to use for incentivizing Deckard. Humans can rationalize enslavement because replicants aren't real humans. They're less than that. They lack humanity. They have no souls. The Voight-Kampf tests for that, so the dividing lines can be clear. Or, alternatively, as in K's case, AI machines are springboards for projected hopes and fantasies, idealizations of humanity realized as constructs in the host's mind. The parallels to racism and the ideological rationalizations used in the attempts to justify the Trans-Atlantic slave trade are potent.

Another likely factor is the fact that much of it may just simply be a consequence of Tyrell's god-complex (and now apparently Wallace's). This would explain at least in part his perverse intention to engineer procreating replicants, even if the engineering has little, if any, practical import (although we may learn later that it does). And explains why, as the replicants become more advanced, Voight-Kampf tests become less effective, which speaks to Joshi's fear of the order and class structure collapsing. Wallace seems like, perhaps verging on caricature / parody, an extreme case of Tyrell's worst motivations. It's functionally, then, a matter of maniacal power.
Oct 8, 2017 2:54 PM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46783
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKSIt was excellent and the most sequel a sequel can be while not retreading the original.

It was much better than I expected.
During the film I was thinking, "This is as good or better than the original." The end of the film, however, left me a bit flat. It was a wee bit overlong.
The twist from Gosling to bubble-girl didn't really add much for me. K's death(?) on the stairs was a bit anti-climactic.

I liked the ending and the remixed use of Batty's song. From water to snow, a sacrifice beyond oneself for the life of another, it all rhymed in the way Lucas could only have dreamed when doing the prequels.
I actually want an extended cut. I feel like there are some areas that rush while others maintain the deliciously drawn out pace.
I felt like that plot was telegraphed very well and took no issue with it as I was anticipating it. I think it was necessary as the alternative would have been trite. This emphasized his importance without needing some preordained birth or fate.
My only complaint is the opacity of how she got from the orphanage to the bubble and if she was actually ill from her lineage or if it was a ruse to push forth protection.

Meh, the reuse of the song was an anticlimax by comparison. Gosling gives a dude a ride. Hauer dies saving his own enemy.
Why does it matter if Ford finds his daughter? Feels like the happy ending tacked on to the theatrical cut.
The whole "find the miracle child thing" felt like Herod searching for Christ.
The business about Deckard being programmed for Rachael seemed forced. If Tyrell wanted robot babies, he simply would've done fertilization testing in a lab.
The Replicant uprising never came, so that was a let down.

Saying "he gave a guy a ride" is about as reductive as saying "Roy picked a guy up." It ignores all context in a flaccid attempt to make a point that isn't there to make. "Meh."
It matters because it is a purpose that Gosling believes in that is beyond himself. Religious, spiritual, human, whatever you want to call it (as a religious person, I wouldn't think this would be something you take great offense to) and is rather the lynchpin of the thematic thesis of the film's expansion of what it means to be human. It matters because it matters to K.
Saying what an eccentric like Tyrell would do doesn't carry a lot of weight especially when it's in criticism of speculation by another eccentric. These men play games and play God. Your assertion is that Tyrell wouldn't have proven that he could do it in a lab before such an experiment is baseless. It is not stated that this would be the first and only time this had happened but rather, the only time it happened with permanence.
Oct 8, 2017 4:59 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
MKS
Saying "he gave a guy a ride" is about as reductive as saying "Roy picked a guy up." It ignores all context in a flaccid attempt to make a point that isn't there to make. "Meh."
It matters because it is a purpose that Gosling believes in that is beyond himself. Religious, spiritual, human, whatever you want to call it (as a religious person, I wouldn't think this would be something you take great offense to) and is rather the lynchpin of the thematic thesis of the film's expansion of what it means to be human. It matters because it matters to K.
Saying what an eccentric like Tyrell would do doesn't carry a lot of weight especially when it's in criticism of speculation by another eccentric. These men play games and play God. Your assertion is that Tyrell wouldn't have proven that he could do it in a lab before such an experiment is baseless. It is not stated that this would be the first and only time this had happened but rather, the only time it happened with permanence.


The emotional climax of K's arc is his lowest point, the nadir of his egoistic deflation, when the giant Joi hologram tells him he looks "like a good Joe." At this point, he has moved from believing himself to be special, to learning he was not, from thinking he had, at least, something special in his relationship with Joi to find out that he did not. The action climax of K's arc is over after the water rescue/fight of/for Deckard. After this, the movie is really over. K really has nothing left to do but give Deckard a ride.

If we're handing the ball off from K to Deckard, that's fine, but we don't need to make a meal out of K dying in the snow. If K really doesn't matter, then he should be off screen like Moss in NCFOM. Or, split the difference, give him a brief moment (like half the amount of time) and don't slather on the Batty music.

It tries to mirror the Batty scene too heavily and it comes nowhere near the emotional impact of Batty's death. It is less a reflection, more of a pale imitation. I'm sure we could spin some PoMo shit about how that is itself an aesthetic effect, but I don't think that that is how you read the scene (i.e., it simply worked for you on the surface). You like it, that's great.

Like I said, moments that aped the original were cringy for me. Moments that did there own thing were great for me.

And I am not wildly speculating about Tyrell. He is cold, scientific, obejective, and industrialist of the flesh. Most importantly, he is a slaver. If your creatures are capable of biological reproduction, then you have them reproduce. Slavers specifically bred slaves like animals.

Tyrell didn't order Deckard to come to him in the original. Bryant ordered Deckard to Tyrell Corporation, because he was the only person who had these new Nexus 6 Replicants Earthside. Deckard needed to catch Nexus 6 models. Tyrell was the only one who had one to look to inspect. That's it. Wallace is fucking with Deckard's head in the water room scene. If we're supposed to imagine the Tyrell is lying when he tells Deckard that Rachael is just an experiment with memory implants, we should at least consider that Wallace may be lying too (indeed he is much more brutal with Replicants - at least Tyrell wouldn't gut you like a fish when he was philosophizing). And his suggestion comes in the form of a question and the event itself was before the blackout, so how would he really know?

Tyrell is a capitalist to the bone. He sits in bed listening to stock quotes. He has built his humans with planned obsolescence. Replicants are like Iphones. You always have to buy a new one in four years. Today's agriculturalists create plants that create their own pesticides and which have terminator genes to prevent farmers from saving seeds to plant future crops. Tyrell was just trying to make a buck. He was about control. Creating Replicants that can procreate would take him completely out of the loop. Off-World slavers would just start breeding. Apple would never be stupid enough to create a phone that could replicate itself. Tyrell is not about the chaos and fecundity of the womb and genetic shuffling. He is about delivering a precise product that is entirely under his control.


?
Oct 8, 2017 8:00 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
Izzy BlackThe Nexus 6 replicants we know about were combat and pleasure models intended to assist Offworld settlers, presumably either as "companions" for sex or military defense. Humanoid design makes sense in both cases, particularly humanoids with superior strength and agility. More generally, it's of piece with the running commentary on simulation and disposability. Human beings under late capitalism want to simulate the real thing as much as possible, to interact with beings that can be objectified, but without bearing deep responsibility or duties to them. Laborers, presumably, ?typically have at least one of these dual functions (warrior slave or sex slave).

In 2049, it's no surprise that much of the AI we see are disposable units designed for wish fulfillment. They're commodities used to incentive human action. This includes the facsimile of Rachael who Wallace attempts to use for incentivizing Deckard. Humans can rationalize enslavement because replicants aren't real humans. They're less than that. They lack humanity. They have no souls. The Voight-Kampf tests for that, so the dividing lines can be clear. Or, alternatively, as in K's case, AI machines are springboards for projected hopes and fantasies, idealizations of humanity realized as constructs in the host's mind. The parallels to racism and ?the ideological rationalizations used in the attempts to justify the Trans-Atlantic slave trade are potent.

Another likely factor is the fact that much of it may just simply be a consequence of Tyrell's god-complex (and now apparently Wallace's). This would explain at least in part his perverse intention to engineer procreating replicants, even if the engineering has little, if any, practical import (although we may learn later that it does). And explains why, as the replicants become more advanced, Voight-Kampf tests become less effective, which speaks to Joshi's fear of the order and class structure collapsing. Wallace seems like, perhaps verging on caricature / parody, an extreme case of Tyrell's worst motivations. It's functionally, then, a matter of maniacal power.

Well, I'll touch on some of your other comments later, and I think I have, already in other posts, but I'd like to focus on the contrast between Wallace and Tyrell.

Wallace is a much more gothic character than Tyrell and yes he does stray a bit into caricature. It's almost like they were really trying to emphasize that "this is the bad guy." Needlessly gutting a new model and shooting knock-off Rachael in the head were a bit much.
Oct 8, 2017 8:09 PM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46783
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKSIt was excellent and the most sequel a sequel can be while not retreading the original.

It was much better than I expected.
During the film I was thinking, "This is as good or better than the original." The end of the film, however, left me a bit flat. It was a wee bit overlong.
The twist from Gosling to bubble-girl didn't really add much for me. K's death(?) on the stairs was a bit anti-climactic.

I liked the ending and the remixed use of Batty's song. From water to snow, a sacrifice beyond oneself for the life of another, it all rhymed in the way Lucas could only have dreamed when doing the prequels.
I actually want an extended cut. I feel like there are some areas that rush while others maintain the deliciously drawn out pace.
I felt like that plot was telegraphed very well and took no issue with it as I was anticipating it. I think it was necessary as the alternative would have been trite. This emphasized his importance without needing some preordained birth or fate.
My only complaint is the opacity of how she got from the orphanage to the bubble and if she was actually ill from her lineage or if it was a ruse to push forth protection.

Meh, the reuse of the song was an anticlimax by comparison. Gosling gives a dude a ride. Hauer dies saving his own enemy.
Why does it matter if Ford finds his daughter? Feels like the happy ending tacked on to the theatrical cut.
The whole "find the miracle child thing" felt like Herod searching for Christ.
The business about Deckard being programmed for Rachael seemed forced. If Tyrell wanted robot babies, he simply would've done fertilization testing in a lab.
The Replicant uprising never came, so that was a let down.

Saying "he gave a guy a ride" is about as reductive as saying "Roy picked a guy up." It ignores all context in a flaccid attempt to make a point that isn't there to make. "Meh."
It matters because it is a purpose that Gosling believes in that is beyond himself. Religious, spiritual, human, whatever you want to call it (as a religious person, I wouldn't think this would be something you take great offense to) and is rather the lynchpin of the thematic thesis of the film's expansion of what it means to be human. It matters because it matters to K.
Saying what an eccentric like Tyrell would do doesn't carry a lot of weight especially when it's in criticism of speculation by another eccentric. These men play games and play God. Your assertion is that Tyrell wouldn't have proven that he could do it in a lab before such an experiment is baseless. It is not stated that this would be the first and only time this had happened but rather, the only time it happened with permanence.

The emotional climax of K's arc is his lowest point, the nadir of his egoistic deflation, when the giant Joi hologram tells him he looks "like a good Joe." At this point, he has moved from believing himself to be special, to learning he was not, from thinking he had, at least, something special in his relationship with Joi to find out that he did not. The action climax of K's arc is over after the water rescue/fight of/for Deckard. After this, the movie is really over. K really has nothing left to do but give Deckard a ride.

If we're handing the ball off from K to Deckard, that's fine, but we don't need to make a meal out of K dying in the snow. If K really doesn't matter, then he should be off screen like Moss in NCFOM. Or, split the difference, give him a brief moment (like half the amount of time) and don't slather on the Batty music.

It tries to mirror the Batty scene too heavily and it comes nowhere near the emotional impact of Batty's death. It is less a reflection, more of a pale imitation. I'm sure we could spin some PoMo shit about how that is itself an aesthetic effect, but I don't think that that is how you read the scene (i.e., it simply worked for you on the surface). You like it, that's great.

Like I said, moments that aped the original were cringy for me. Moments that did there own thing were great for me.

And I am not wildly speculating about Tyrell. He is cold, scientific, obejective, and industrialist of the flesh. Most importantly, he is a slaver. If your creatures are capable of biological reproduction, then you have them reproduce. Slavers specifically bred slaves like animals.

Tyrell didn't order Deckard to come to him in the original. Bryant ordered Deckard to Tyrell Corporation, because he was the only person who had these new Nexus 6 Replicants Earthside. Deckard needed to catch Nexus 6 models. Tyrell was the only one who had one to look to inspect. That's it. Wallace is fucking with Deckard's head in the water room scene. If we're supposed to imagine the Tyrell is lying when he tells Deckard that Rachael is just an experiment with memory implants, we should at least consider that Wallace may be lying too (indeed he is much more brutal with Replicants - at least Tyrell wouldn't gut you like a fish when he was philosophizing). And his suggestion comes in the form of a question and the event itself was before the blackout, so how would he really know?

Tyrell is a capitalist to the bone. He sits in bed listening to stock quotes. He has built his humans with planned obsolescence. Replicants are like Iphones. You always have to buy a new one in four years. Today's agriculturalists create plants that create their own pesticides and which have terminator genes to prevent farmers from saving seeds to plant future crops. Tyrell was just trying to make a buck. He was about control. Creating Replicants that can procreate would take him completely out of the loop. Off-World slavers would just start breeding. Apple would never be stupid enough to create a phone that could replicate itself. Tyrell is not about the chaos and fecundity of the womb and genetic shuffling. He is about delivering a precise product that is entirely under his control.


?

That's an incredibly myopic way of looking at the characterization of K. At his lowest emotional moment, he's also on a mission to kill Deckard. He chooses not to. The water fight may be the climax but it is not his resolution. He chose to bring a father home to his daughter rather than kill the daughter (his original mission) or the father. He went far off baseline and found his humanity in their struggle. He WAS significant because of this action. His relationship with Joi may have been fake but it meant something to him. The threeway was more than programming, at least to him. To comment that it was clearly nothing is akin to proclaiming simplicity in the humanity of the first film. You're being extraordinarily reductive to cling to your point.
Tyrell is a capitalist but he's also an eccentric that toys with Deckard and Rachel. The entire purpose of testing her in the first is so he can egotistically flaunt how well his experiment is going, at the expense of Rachel's emotional state and Deckard's time. It is highly possible what Wendell is projecting his own penchant for machinations upon Tyrell but it doesn't negate the possibility that he is also correct. This area of the film survives through implication and opacity. I don't understand the insistence of the violation of anything concrete.
Oct 8, 2017 8:44 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
MKSThat's an incredibly myopic way of looking at the characterization of K. At his lowest emotional moment, he's also on a mission to kill Deckard. He chooses not to. The water fight may be the climax but it is not his resolution. He chose to bring a father home to his daughter rather than kill the daughter (his original mission) or the father. He went far off baseline and found his humanity in their struggle. He WAS significant because of this action. His relationship with Joi may have been fake but it meant something to him. The threeway was more than programming, at least to him. To comment that it was clearly nothing is akin to proclaiming simplicity in the humanity of the first film. You're being extraordinarily reductive to cling to your point.
Tyrell is a capitalist but he's also an eccentric that toys with Deckard and Rachel. The entire purpose of testing her in the first is so he can egotistically flaunt how well his experiment is going, at the expense of Rachel's emotional state and Deckard's time. It is highly possible what Wendell is projecting his own penchant for machinations upon Tyrell but it doesn't negate the possibility that he is also correct. This area of the film survives through implication and opacity. I don't understand the insistence of the violation of anything concrete.

All explanation is reductive, so I can hardly take being reductive to be a unique disadvantage.

His mission to kill Deckard has no real weight. He spent most of his life as a good cop, playing by the rules. K is basically kidnapped by wannabe revolutionaries and told to kill Deckard by some one-eyed old lady who wants to cover her own ass. It's not like defecting from that mission comes with a great price, especially when he's bleeding to death anyway. If he'd been dedicated to the cause of the revolutionaries and if their mission was clearly part of his value-set, then yeah, I could see this as "Wow, he really went off his own script here to serve his moral intuitions." But he didn't. He's been with the renegade Replicants for all of 15 minutes.

The only thing I am "clinging" to is my observation that the scene didn't work for me. Sorry, it didn't. It felt heavy-handed, contrived, and hollow. The moment didn't work for me. The only thing I can do is try to explain why. I cannot simply star liking Strawberry ice cream out being shamed for being reductive and clingy. At bottom, it just didn't work for me. Like I said, I am glad it worked for you. The only thing I can do is explain, as a well as I can, why I had that response.




Oct 8, 2017 9:02 PM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46783
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKSIt was excellent and the most sequel a sequel can be while not retreading the original.

It was much better than I expected.
During the film I was thinking, "This is as good or better than the original." The end of the film, however, left me a bit flat. It was a wee bit overlong.
The twist from Gosling to bubble-girl didn't really add much for me. K's death(?) on the stairs was a bit anti-climactic.

I liked the ending and the remixed use of Batty's song. From water to snow, a sacrifice beyond oneself for the life of another, it all rhymed in the way Lucas could only have dreamed when doing the prequels.
I actually want an extended cut. I feel like there are some areas that rush while others maintain the deliciously drawn out pace.
I felt like that plot was telegraphed very well and took no issue with it as I was anticipating it. I think it was necessary as the alternative would have been trite. This emphasized his importance without needing some preordained birth or fate.
My only complaint is the opacity of how she got from the orphanage to the bubble and if she was actually ill from her lineage or if it was a ruse to push forth protection.

Meh, the reuse of the song was an anticlimax by comparison. Gosling gives a dude a ride. Hauer dies saving his own enemy.
Why does it matter if Ford finds his daughter? Feels like the happy ending tacked on to the theatrical cut.
The whole "find the miracle child thing" felt like Herod searching for Christ.
The business about Deckard being programmed for Rachael seemed forced. If Tyrell wanted robot babies, he simply would've done fertilization testing in a lab.
The Replicant uprising never came, so that was a let down.

Saying "he gave a guy a ride" is about as reductive as saying "Roy picked a guy up." It ignores all context in a flaccid attempt to make a point that isn't there to make. "Meh."
It matters because it is a purpose that Gosling believes in that is beyond himself. Religious, spiritual, human, whatever you want to call it (as a religious person, I wouldn't think this would be something you take great offense to) and is rather the lynchpin of the thematic thesis of the film's expansion of what it means to be human. It matters because it matters to K.
Saying what an eccentric like Tyrell would do doesn't carry a lot of weight especially when it's in criticism of speculation by another eccentric. These men play games and play God. Your assertion is that Tyrell wouldn't have proven that he could do it in a lab before such an experiment is baseless. It is not stated that this would be the first and only time this had happened but rather, the only time it happened with permanence.

The emotional climax of K's arc is his lowest point, the nadir of his egoistic deflation, when the giant Joi hologram tells him he looks "like a good Joe." At this point, he has moved from believing himself to be special, to learning he was not, from thinking he had, at least, something special in his relationship with Joi to find out that he did not. The action climax of K's arc is over after the water rescue/fight of/for Deckard. After this, the movie is really over. K really has nothing left to do but give Deckard a ride.

If we're handing the ball off from K to Deckard, that's fine, but we don't need to make a meal out of K dying in the snow. If K really doesn't matter, then he should be off screen like Moss in NCFOM. Or, split the difference, give him a brief moment (like half the amount of time) and don't slather on the Batty music.

It tries to mirror the Batty scene too heavily and it comes nowhere near the emotional impact of Batty's death. It is less a reflection, more of a pale imitation. I'm sure we could spin some PoMo shit about how that is itself an aesthetic effect, but I don't think that that is how you read the scene (i.e., it simply worked for you on the surface). You like it, that's great.

Like I said, moments that aped the original were cringy for me. Moments that did there own thing were great for me.

And I am not wildly speculating about Tyrell. He is cold, scientific, obejective, and industrialist of the flesh. Most importantly, he is a slaver. If your creatures are capable of biological reproduction, then you have them reproduce. Slavers specifically bred slaves like animals.

Tyrell didn't order Deckard to come to him in the original. Bryant ordered Deckard to Tyrell Corporation, because he was the only person who had these new Nexus 6 Replicants Earthside. Deckard needed to catch Nexus 6 models. Tyrell was the only one who had one to look to inspect. That's it. Wallace is fucking with Deckard's head in the water room scene. If we're supposed to imagine the Tyrell is lying when he tells Deckard that Rachael is just an experiment with memory implants, we should at least consider that Wallace may be lying too (indeed he is much more brutal with Replicants - at least Tyrell wouldn't gut you like a fish when he was philosophizing). And his suggestion comes in the form of a question and the event itself was before the blackout, so how would he really know?

Tyrell is a capitalist to the bone. He sits in bed listening to stock quotes. He has built his humans with planned obsolescence. Replicants are like Iphones. You always have to buy a new one in four years. Today's agriculturalists create plants that create their own pesticides and which have terminator genes to prevent farmers from saving seeds to plant future crops. Tyrell was just trying to make a buck. He was about control. Creating Replicants that can procreate would take him completely out of the loop. Off-World slavers would just start breeding. Apple would never be stupid enough to create a phone that could replicate itself. Tyrell is not about the chaos and fecundity of the womb and genetic shuffling. He is about delivering a precise product that is entirely under his control.


?

That's an incredibly myopic way of looking at the characterization of K. At his lowest emotional moment, he's also on a mission to kill Deckard. He chooses not to. The water fight may be the climax but it is not his resolution. He chose to bring a father home to his daughter rather than kill the daughter (his original mission) or the father. He went far off baseline and found his humanity in their struggle. He WAS significant because of this action. His relationship with Joi may have been fake but it meant something to him. The threeway was more than programming, at least to him. To comment that it was clearly nothing is akin to proclaiming simplicity in the humanity of the first film. You're being extraordinarily reductive to cling to your point.
Tyrell is a capitalist but he's also an eccentric that toys with Deckard and Rachel. The entire purpose of testing her in the first is so he can egotistically flaunt how well his experiment is going, at the expense of Rachel's emotional state and Deckard's time. It is highly possible what Wendell is projecting his own penchant for machinations upon Tyrell but it doesn't negate the possibility that he is also correct. This area of the film survives through implication and opacity. I don't understand the insistence of the violation of anything concrete.

All explanation is reductive, so I can hardly take being reductive to be a unique disadvantage.

His mission to kill Deckard has no real weight. He spent most of his life as a good cop, playing by the rules. K is basically kidnapped by wannabe revolutionaries and told to kill Deckard by some one-eyed old lady who wants to cover her own ass. It's not like defecting from that mission comes with a great price, especially when he's bleeding to death anyway. If he'd been dedicated to the cause of the revolutionaries and if their mission was clearly part of his value-set, then yeah, I could see this as "Wow, he really went off his own script here to serve his moral intuitions." But he didn't. He's been with the renegade Replicants for all of 15 minutes.

The only thing I am "clinging" to is my observation that the scene didn't work for me. Sorry, it didn't. It felt heavy-handed, contrived, and hollow. The moment didn't work for me. The only thing I can do is try to explain why. I cannot simply star liking Strawberry ice cream out being shamed for being reductive and clingy. At bottom, it just didn't work for me. Like I said, I am glad it worked for you. The only thing I can do is explain, as a well as I can, why I had that response.


All explanation being redundant is a nonsense stance to take. Here, even relative to other explanations, you're being excessively and especially redundant. The entire climax is built upon him fighting to save Deckard and return him to the daughter. You're refusing to view those as extensions of the same act. That's especially reductive.
His allegiance to the rebels is simply an extension to the powers trying to control him. He worked forever for the system unquestioningly. He only begins to go "off base" out of self preservation. However, he is posed with two missions: kill the child and kill the father. One certainly has more narrative weight than the other but combined, his rejection of both and choice to save them and connect them is instrumental to his arc. He sacrifices himself not for either cause but to reunite a family.
I'm glad it worked for me too. Agreement!
Oct 8, 2017 9:10 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
MKS
All explanation being redundant is a nonsense stance to take. Here, even relative to other explanations, you're being excessively and especially redundant. The entire climax is built upon him fighting to save Deckard and return him to the daughter. You're refusing to view those as extensions of the same act. That's especially reductive.
His allegiance to the rebels is simply an extension to the powers trying to control him. He worked forever for the system unquestioningly. He only begins to go "off base" out of self preservation. However, he is posed with two missions: kill the child and kill the father. One certainly has more narrative weight than the other but combined, his rejection of both and choice to save them and connect them is instrumental to his arc. He sacrifices himself not for either cause but to reunite a family.
I'm glad it worked for me too. Agreement!


What I am saying is that for your charge to stick, you need to establish that I am being overly reductive. Being reductive, in itself, is no crime. But in what way am I being overyl reductive? We need criteria to not only make the charge stick, but to make better sense of it. Sometimes the charge is that of excluding other explanatory variables and focusing on some X as a silver-bullet. Sometimes it amounts to the very attempt to use logic as explanation. Sometimes it is a modal objection such that someone is allegedly assigning too much certainty to a claim. Sometimes it is a meaningless pejorative term (e.g., loosely calling someone a "fascist").

You seem to be in touch with what you see as deep patterns, symmetries, and meanings. And I suppose, if I squint hard enough, I can see them too, but the question for me is did the moment work? On the first viewing, it didn't.

There were other moments that did work. The love scene was great. We all knew that Joi was not long for this world when she hopped into the memory stick. When "Love" smashes Joi, that scene is just a little melodramatic, not so good. When Love kills Madame Police Chief, that's pretty good. There's a lot of up an down. The film is a bit uneven for me.


Oct 8, 2017 9:41 PM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46783
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
MKSIt was excellent and the most sequel a sequel can be while not retreading the original.

It was much better than I expected.
During the film I was thinking, "This is as good or better than the original." The end of the film, however, left me a bit flat. It was a wee bit overlong.
The twist from Gosling to bubble-girl didn't really add much for me. K's death(?) on the stairs was a bit anti-climactic.

I liked the ending and the remixed use of Batty's song. From water to snow, a sacrifice beyond oneself for the life of another, it all rhymed in the way Lucas could only have dreamed when doing the prequels.
I actually want an extended cut. I feel like there are some areas that rush while others maintain the deliciously drawn out pace.
I felt like that plot was telegraphed very well and took no issue with it as I was anticipating it. I think it was necessary as the alternative would have been trite. This emphasized his importance without needing some preordained birth or fate.
My only complaint is the opacity of how she got from the orphanage to the bubble and if she was actually ill from her lineage or if it was a ruse to push forth protection.

Meh, the reuse of the song was an anticlimax by comparison. Gosling gives a dude a ride. Hauer dies saving his own enemy.
Why does it matter if Ford finds his daughter? Feels like the happy ending tacked on to the theatrical cut.
The whole "find the miracle child thing" felt like Herod searching for Christ.
The business about Deckard being programmed for Rachael seemed forced. If Tyrell wanted robot babies, he simply would've done fertilization testing in a lab.
The Replicant uprising never came, so that was a let down.

Saying "he gave a guy a ride" is about as reductive as saying "Roy picked a guy up." It ignores all context in a flaccid attempt to make a point that isn't there to make. "Meh."
It matters because it is a purpose that Gosling believes in that is beyond himself. Religious, spiritual, human, whatever you want to call it (as a religious person, I wouldn't think this would be something you take great offense to) and is rather the lynchpin of the thematic thesis of the film's expansion of what it means to be human. It matters because it matters to K.
Saying what an eccentric like Tyrell would do doesn't carry a lot of weight especially when it's in criticism of speculation by another eccentric. These men play games and play God. Your assertion is that Tyrell wouldn't have proven that he could do it in a lab before such an experiment is baseless. It is not stated that this would be the first and only time this had happened but rather, the only time it happened with permanence.

The emotional climax of K's arc is his lowest point, the nadir of his egoistic deflation, when the giant Joi hologram tells him he looks "like a good Joe." At this point, he has moved from believing himself to be special, to learning he was not, from thinking he had, at least, something special in his relationship with Joi to find out that he did not. The action climax of K's arc is over after the water rescue/fight of/for Deckard. After this, the movie is really over. K really has nothing left to do but give Deckard a ride.

If we're handing the ball off from K to Deckard, that's fine, but we don't need to make a meal out of K dying in the snow. If K really doesn't matter, then he should be off screen like Moss in NCFOM. Or, split the difference, give him a brief moment (like half the amount of time) and don't slather on the Batty music.

It tries to mirror the Batty scene too heavily and it comes nowhere near the emotional impact of Batty's death. It is less a reflection, more of a pale imitation. I'm sure we could spin some PoMo shit about how that is itself an aesthetic effect, but I don't think that that is how you read the scene (i.e., it simply worked for you on the surface). You like it, that's great.

Like I said, moments that aped the original were cringy for me. Moments that did there own thing were great for me.

And I am not wildly speculating about Tyrell. He is cold, scientific, obejective, and industrialist of the flesh. Most importantly, he is a slaver. If your creatures are capable of biological reproduction, then you have them reproduce. Slavers specifically bred slaves like animals.

Tyrell didn't order Deckard to come to him in the original. Bryant ordered Deckard to Tyrell Corporation, because he was the only person who had these new Nexus 6 Replicants Earthside. Deckard needed to catch Nexus 6 models. Tyrell was the only one who had one to look to inspect. That's it. Wallace is fucking with Deckard's head in the water room scene. If we're supposed to imagine the Tyrell is lying when he tells Deckard that Rachael is just an experiment with memory implants, we should at least consider that Wallace may be lying too (indeed he is much more brutal with Replicants - at least Tyrell wouldn't gut you like a fish when he was philosophizing). And his suggestion comes in the form of a question and the event itself was before the blackout, so how would he really know?

Tyrell is a capitalist to the bone. He sits in bed listening to stock quotes. He has built his humans with planned obsolescence. Replicants are like Iphones. You always have to buy a new one in four years. Today's agriculturalists create plants that create their own pesticides and which have terminator genes to prevent farmers from saving seeds to plant future crops. Tyrell was just trying to make a buck. He was about control. Creating Replicants that can procreate would take him completely out of the loop. Off-World slavers would just start breeding. Apple would never be stupid enough to create a phone that could replicate itself. Tyrell is not about the chaos and fecundity of the womb and genetic shuffling. He is about delivering a precise product that is entirely under his control.


?

That's an incredibly myopic way of looking at the characterization of K. At his lowest emotional moment, he's also on a mission to kill Deckard. He chooses not to. The water fight may be the climax but it is not his resolution. He chose to bring a father home to his daughter rather than kill the daughter (his original mission) or the father. He went far off baseline and found his humanity in their struggle. He WAS significant because of this action. His relationship with Joi may have been fake but it meant something to him. The threeway was more than programming, at least to him. To comment that it was clearly nothing is akin to proclaiming simplicity in the humanity of the first film. You're being extraordinarily reductive to cling to your point.
Tyrell is a capitalist but he's also an eccentric that toys with Deckard and Rachel. The entire purpose of testing her in the first is so he can egotistically flaunt how well his experiment is going, at the expense of Rachel's emotional state and Deckard's time. It is highly possible what Wendell is projecting his own penchant for machinations upon Tyrell but it doesn't negate the possibility that he is also correct. This area of the film survives through implication and opacity. I don't understand the insistence of the violation of anything concrete.

All explanation is reductive, so I can hardly take being reductive to be a unique disadvantage.

His mission to kill Deckard has no real weight. He spent most of his life as a good cop, playing by the rules. K is basically kidnapped by wannabe revolutionaries and told to kill Deckard by some one-eyed old lady who wants to cover her own ass. It's not like defecting from that mission comes with a great price, especially when he's bleeding to death anyway. If he'd been dedicated to the cause of the revolutionaries and if their mission was clearly part of his value-set, then yeah, I could see this as "Wow, he really went off his own script here to serve his moral intuitions." But he didn't. He's been with the renegade Replicants for all of 15 minutes.

The only thing I am "clinging" to is my observation that the scene didn't work for me. Sorry, it didn't. It felt heavy-handed, contrived, and hollow. The moment didn't work for me. The only thing I can do is try to explain why. I cannot simply star liking Strawberry ice cream out being shamed for being reductive and clingy. At bottom, it just didn't work for me. Like I said, I am glad it worked for you. The only thing I can do is explain, as a well as I can, why I had that response.


All explanation being redundant is a nonsense stance to take. Here, even relative to other explanations, you're being excessively and especially redundant. The entire climax is built upon him fighting to save Deckard and return him to the daughter. You're refusing to view those as extensions of the same act. That's especially reductive.
His allegiance to the rebels is simply an extension to the powers trying to control him. He worked forever for the system unquestioningly. He only begins to go "off base" out of self preservation. However, he is posed with two missions: kill the child and kill the father. One certainly has more narrative weight than the other but combined, his rejection of both and choice to save them and connect them is instrumental to his arc. He sacrifices himself not for either cause but to reunite a family.
I'm glad it worked for me too. Agreement!


What I am saying is that for your charge to stick, you need to establish that I am being overly reductive. Being reductive, in itself, is no crime. But in what way am I being overyl reductive? We need criteria to not only make the charge stick, but to make better sense of it. Sometimes the charge is that of excluding other explanatory variables and focusing on some X as a silver-bullet. Sometimes it amounts to the very attempt to use logic as explanation. Sometimes it is a modal objection such that someone is allegedly assigning too much certainty to a claim. Sometimes it is a meaningless pejorative term (e.g., loosely calling someone a "fascist").

You seem to be in touch with what you see as deep patterns, symmetries, and meanings. And I suppose, if I squint hard enough, I can see them too, but the question for me is did the moment work? On the first viewing, it didn't.

There were other moments that did work. The love scene was great. We all knew that Joi was not long for this world when she hopped into the memory stick. When "Love" smashes Joi, that scene is just a little melodramatic, not so good. When Love kills Madame Police Chief, that's pretty good. There's a lot of up an down. The film is a bit uneven for me.



My criteria for overly reductive is that you ignore the context of said ride that K gives to Deckard. To ignore the emotional state of K, why that ride is significant and that it is the end of a rescue mission that was intended to be an assassination is overly reductive. As I used an analogy to demonstrate early, you could phrase Batty's actions as "all he did was pick Deckard up." It would ignore similarly important context of Batty's emotional state, why lifting Deckard up and that it is the end of a chase that was intended to be a murder.
I hope it works on a subsequent viewing for you, assuming you will watch it.
Luv smashing Joi was the obvious conclusion and it doesn't work perfectly in regards to K, but I think it works exceptionally well for Luv, whom was perhaps the character I'm most fascinated by. The implication that she is humanity dominated by programming is wonderfully hinted at and her performances, with the rage tears, sells it without having to say a thing explicitly. I think her frustration and resentment with K operates as projection towards her own feelings of inadequacy at being a Replicant. It's an utterly pretty moment and I'm glad it was her and not another EMP or some other means of plot fulfillment.
There wasn't really anything that didn't work for me in the film. Some things work a lot better than others but I struggle to think of anything that yanked me out of the movie. It was as close to exactly what I was wanting as I could have predicted.
Oct 8, 2017 9:54 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11718
MKS
My criteria for overly reductive is that you ignore the context of said ride that K gives to Deckard. To ignore the emotional state of K, why that ride is significant and that it is the end of a rescue mission that was intended to be an assassination is overly reductive. As I used an analogy to demonstrate early, you could phrase Batty's actions as "all he did was pick Deckard up." It would ignore similarly important context of Batty's emotional state, why lifting Deckard up and that it is the end of a chase that was intended to be a murder.
I hope it works on a subsequent viewing for you, assuming you will watch it.
Luv smashing Joi was the obvious conclusion and it doesn't work perfectly in regards to K, but I think it works exceptionally well for Luv, whom was perhaps the character I'm most fascinated by. The implication that she is humanity dominated by programming is wonderfully hinted at and her performances, with the rage tears, sells it without having to say a thing explicitly. I think her frustration and resentment with K operates as projection towards her own feelings of inadequacy at being a Replicant. It's an utterly pretty moment and I'm glad it was her and not another EMP or some other means of plot fulfillment.
There wasn't really anything that didn't work for me in the film. Some things work a lot better than others but I struggle to think of anything that yanked me out of the movie. It was as close to exactly what I was wanting as I could have predicted.

Part of what made things difficult for me is that I have pretty much memorized the first film (films, really, seeing as how there are endless cuts). Not just watching it, but editing it, reworking it, thinking about, reading about it, etc. When they pipe in the sound of Deckard's apartment in the background, that stands out like a Wilhelm Scream for me. If you're even going to approach Batty's moment, you had better deliver the goods because that was the moment that made the first film.

Two characters that could stand to be reeled in a bit are Luv (guess I was spelling it wrong) and Wallace. I think that they put too much stank on them to emphasize their bad guy credentials. There are moments where I dig both characters, but then we get mustache twirling moments "I hope you enjoyed our product!" SMASH is on the level on what a jock would do/say in Revenge of the Nerds. I don't need to see Wallace shooting and cutting to get that he is not the nicest guy in the world.

Also, there is real-world part of my brain that never really turns off, so I am perplexed at the notion of mere sexual reproduction being an enigma after you have successfully engineered the most complex of organisms from the ground up (from the cell level to the completed organism) being some trick that is too tough to master. I don't buy it. Nor do I buy the notion of biological self-replication being a plateau that makes Replicants super extra special. The whole point of the first film was establishing that it was the inner emotional life, empathy, etc., that mattered. Reproduction is just biology. As Tyrell said, "The facts of life... ...all of this is academic."

A point that I did take from this film which does ring true with my "real-world" sensibility, however, is that the future is going to be terribly confusing for us. Joi is really the interesting character here. Not pushing things so far towards the human that they just have kids and get cancer like the rest of us, but rather in the opposite direction where the line between product and person is not as clear and the emotions that we will doubtless have for machines which are Turing capable without necessarily having an inner life. Right now it's Siri and Alexa, but in time these simulacra will only become more convincing and inch their way into our emotional lives.?


Oct 8, 2017 10:13 PM
0 0