This is an awesome perspective on Joi. It just did not strike me that way, but what do I know? Sometimes things like that sail right over my head. This is something, I’ll focus on the second time through and see if I can see this for myself.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Blade Runner/Harrison Ford
- Thread starter JamesMike
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm anxious to see the movie, but it appears to have laid an egg at the theaters. I think the movie going public is getting tired of both the reboots and returning to older movies.
I had concerns way back, when the movies was announced but I think I was wrong on the part of Ford being too old. I'm not sure his portrayal was the cause of the failure to draw people into the movie.
I had concerns way back, when the movies was announced but I think I was wrong on the part of Ford being too old. I'm not sure his portrayal was the cause of the failure to draw people into the movie.
It's not a reboot though but a sequel, anyway the critical reviews have been very good so this is just like the original in that sense.
Oh I know, but I was making a point that Hollywood is trotting out old movies in reboots or sequel storylines.
If you liked Blade Runner, then go see the sequel and don't worry about ticket sales.
People have no taste. I'm sure Spiderman Reboot #16 or whatever will sell a lot of tickets, but that doesn't make it a good movie.
Oh yeah, I plan too, either in the theaters or on demand
The nearly-3-hour runtime probably didn't help. Personally I'd tighten it up by about half an hour since it didn't quite warrant the excessive length, but other than that it's fine. It actually had a reason for existing, story-wise, and wasn't just more-of-the-same-but-with-an-old-Harrison-Ford.
--Eric
--Eric
One of the things that hit me in retrospect several days after seeing the movie...
...is that K's life is nothing like that of the impression that I'd have for a replicant/slave. My impression would be that slaves would have no pay or benefits, and would work in the most dangerous jobs with the most terrible conditions. This is certainly established in Blade Runner.
Yet we see K having an apartment with a window view in a city where most rooms aren't going to have a window. His apartment even has has interior walls and distinct areas. He has money for personal luxuries like Joi, her mobile emitter/lightbee, drinking alcohol, and eating out. In fact, his lifestyle seems significantly better than the humans camping in the building's hallway and stairwell.
I would think, at best, LAPD replicants would be living in a police dorm with group sleeping quarters, group cafeteria with basic needs food, no time off, and no luxuries whatsoever. Yet K seems to be solidly in upper middle class territory (relative to the standards of the human residents of LA in 2049).
I ask myself why I didn't notice this during the film and I think it is because K's lifestyle mirrored Deckard's closely enough that I just sort of accepted it as how an LAPD employee lived. But in retrospect, Deckard's lifestyle was necessary cover so that he would think he was human. (Or, if you insist that he is human, then that too is justification for him having property.) On the other hand, K knows he is a replicant and so does the audience, so there's no need for the facade. He's supposed to be a slave.
Yet we see K having an apartment with a window view in a city where most rooms aren't going to have a window. His apartment even has has interior walls and distinct areas. He has money for personal luxuries like Joi, her mobile emitter/lightbee, drinking alcohol, and eating out. In fact, his lifestyle seems significantly better than the humans camping in the building's hallway and stairwell.
I would think, at best, LAPD replicants would be living in a police dorm with group sleeping quarters, group cafeteria with basic needs food, no time off, and no luxuries whatsoever. Yet K seems to be solidly in upper middle class territory (relative to the standards of the human residents of LA in 2049).
I ask myself why I didn't notice this during the film and I think it is because K's lifestyle mirrored Deckard's closely enough that I just sort of accepted it as how an LAPD employee lived. But in retrospect, Deckard's lifestyle was necessary cover so that he would think he was human. (Or, if you insist that he is human, then that too is justification for him having property.) On the other hand, K knows he is a replicant and so does the audience, so there's no need for the facade. He's supposed to be a slave.
Last edited:
Sounds like most of your posts.
I keep them too short to be narcotic.
[doublepost=1509585670][/doublepost]
I agree about “tightening it up,” because that doesn’t just affect the last half hour, it would affect the pace of the entire movie.
Here’s a quibble ... the movie depicts Los Angeles as an unbelievably densely populated and sprawling city, yet every shot showing the city from the air depicts very little air traffic despite the capability of flying cars. Shouldn’t the air be filled will traffic? How on earth do people get around?
Last edited:
Pretty much nobody can afford flying cars, only officials or a few rich people. That and/or it's outlawed—again, aside from police etc.—which is very easy to imagine what would realistically happen in a city. (I mean, this is Blade Runner, not The Fifth Element.) People get around by walking or using mass transit, which is standard for large, densely-populated cities of the current day. Come on, that wasn't even slightly hard.
--Eric
--Eric
Pretty much nobody can afford flying cars, only officials or a few rich people. That and/or it's outlawed—again, aside from police etc.—which is very easy to imagine what would realistically happen in a city. (I mean, this is Blade Runner, not The Fifth Element.) People get around by walking or using mass transit, which is standard for large, densely-populated cities of the current day. Come on, that wasn't even slightly hard.
--Eric
I wish you had tried a little harder.
You have what looks like a hundred million people stacked in building upon building packed end to end. How do they get around? Even if individuals can’t afford a flying car, why isn’t the sky filled with flying “buses”? You have a megalopolis that isn’t taking advantage of a virtually empty airspace. No mass air transit? If the technology existed to use it, it would be used.
it was pretty clearly stated in the first film that only law enforcement/emergency services/army/etc and the wealthy had spinners (flying cars) and that the rest of the people had to take the "tubes" (both underground and above, connecting buildings).
Oh. Well, shame on me for not remembering a line from a 25 year-old movie.
Yeah that’s ok. I made it up. Fake news. I have no idea, I figure the sky should
Be just as filled as it was in the fifth element and that movie did have massive trains and buses in it.
It only makes sense in that "I'll believe anything they say in a science fiction movie," kind of way.
No need to apologize. I probably am coming off rougher than I should. I actually find diving into the minutiae interesting.
But here’s part of the logical problem with writing it off to the dystopian nature: if it’s so dystopian, how do they manage to succeed so well in creating replicants, personal holographic girlfriends, etc. They are trying to have it both ways, depicting technological success and proficiency in one area, while being incapable in another.
Another part of the problem is that there would be money to be made providing air transportation. Surely some entrepreneur would realize that they could ferry passengers and make a fortune off that business, let alone ship freight, food, mail, or packages. It would cripple the economy of this massive city to force all transportation and the shipping of goods to the ground. It doesn’t make economic sense.
I’d say no, Ford was fine in the movie. I think the issue is the story and the emphasis of the story, while the big picture is mostly absent.
[doublepost=1509752357][/doublepost]
Way too often. This movie had great potential but squandered it, and could have been better. It does have an atmosphere true to the original. That aspect is very compelling if you are vested in the original.
[doublepost=1509752506][/doublepost]
I can agree with this perspective other than too much time devoted to a single story aspect and an ending that leaves you asking so what now?
Last edited:
Marketing problem, no real issues here:
- People are tired of lame reboots
- People are tired of product placement
- Casting (not Ford)
Slave with benefits...
[doublepost=1509752919][/doublepost]
Not picking a fight, but:
- People are tired of lame reboots- not me, would not describe them as lame.
- People are tired of product placement- a neutral for me.
- Casting (not Ford)- not bothered by it.
What I’m really tired of is zombies, vampires, and super heroes.
This is the only Blade Runner thread in this forum? Apparently so.
I apologize. It seems I have been dreaming of electric sheep.
Quote brought over from the movie thread. Now that some time has past since the sequel has been released and we’ve had time to digest it, what is your verdict? I thought about making a poll, but then decided against it.
For myself, despite some critiques (long and slow story telling), this movie gets a big thumbs up. It is a worthy sequel imo. You knew Rachel and Deckard’s future could not be that happy, although this movie adds significant details and perspective to that future. Accepting the director’s intention, it’s about as perfect a sequel as I can imagine.
Thus movie was a moody detective story, with decidedly violent elements as the new immoral King of the Replicants (Wallace) seeks a key for the future of his creations. The next movie imo, will be a tricky story to tell and make it satisfying, a long, slow moody narrative, or will the Replicant rebellion really take off?
Good reading if you need/want to know more or remember more about the original movie. If for some reason you’ve not seen this movie, this link (previously posted in this thread, I think) is full of spoilers:
What is a Blade Runner? And other questions you may have before seeing the sequel
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/blade-runner-questions-may-have-seeing-sequel/
If Deckard is also a replicant, than it appears that the Tyrell Corporation did a very good job of engineering human beings which really changes the dynamic of the story. You can’t even call them A.I. which might bring up an interesting discussion of what is real?
I apologize. It seems I have been dreaming of electric sheep.
Quote brought over from the movie thread. Now that some time has past since the sequel has been released and we’ve had time to digest it, what is your verdict? I thought about making a poll, but then decided against it.
For myself, despite some critiques (long and slow story telling), this movie gets a big thumbs up. It is a worthy sequel imo. You knew Rachel and Deckard’s future could not be that happy, although this movie adds significant details and perspective to that future. Accepting the director’s intention, it’s about as perfect a sequel as I can imagine.
Thus movie was a moody detective story, with decidedly violent elements as the new immoral King of the Replicants (Wallace) seeks a key for the future of his creations. The next movie imo, will be a tricky story to tell and make it satisfying, a long, slow moody narrative, or will the Replicant rebellion really take off?
Ref: Bladerunner 2049, I rewatched it tonight. Very atmospheric, true to the original, long and mostly slow, but intriguing, with both sadness and hope. The most interesting idea is that at least one replicant does not think he has a soul because he was not born. The Earth looks like it’s a mess. The time frame seems to be about right.
This is my favorite line from either movie:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Good reading if you need/want to know more or remember more
about the original movie. If for some reason you’ve not seen this movie, this link (previously posted in this thread, I think) is full of spoilers:What is a Blade Runner? And other questions you may have before seeing the sequel
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/blade-runner-questions-may-have-seeing-sequel/
If Deckard is also a replicant, than it appears that the Tyrell Corporation did a very good job of engineering human beings which really changes the dynamic of the story. You can’t even call them A.I. which might bring up an interesting discussion of what is real?
Last edited: