Dec-28-2017 1:35 AM
what id guess is take the book with a pinch of salt. wer seeing this with the alien franchise and as the movie came first, id take what the movie states over the book. not everyone who sees the film will read the book.
on the film. didn't fancy it but watched it last night. WAW. between IT and BR2049 for film of the year for me.
Dec-28-2017 1:48 AM
Yes but the book came at least 15 years before that the original, and i still highlighted some consistency between the movies.
After rewatching it still says nothing to me... sorry. I had time to check what the russian inscription means at the start... it is Tselina which translate as virgin land (also a programme of the USSR under Hruschov to feed the population after ww2). Also I did get that the double meaning of the Joe character as both the biblical figure of Joseph (born of the barren Rachael and finally meeting his brothers) and as Joseph K from Kafka, with the absurd system. But still it did not click with me.
Dec-28-2017 2:03 AM
that's right the book came out first. makes it hard to discredit the book material. I think the only way to describe the film makers view of the book is that they saw it as an early draft script and made some changes that they felt would fit better on screen?
Dec-28-2017 2:14 AM
It is highly doubtful that everyone involved read it. If I recall correctly RS did not, and PK Dick (the author) did not like at all how Replicants were portrayed and if you ask David from Prometheus seemed a much more better replicant from the book. Especially when he is perplexed why Shaw still believes after all is very reminiscent of a plot line in the book where the Replicants manage to debunk the prevalent religion of the humans yet they don't realize that it is in vain.
In my opinion, Lindelof knows better he's sci-fi then others and surely would like more people like that....
I Moon Girl
Dec-28-2017 7:02 PM
ali81 said,"between IT and BR2049 for film of the year for me."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that! I'm siding for Blade Runner 2049 because I usually watch more sci-fi than straight up horror.
BOTH WERE BLOODY PHENOMENAL THOUGH!!!
You said it ali81!
Dec-28-2017 7:51 PM
I Moon Girl
Well It in many ways is a coming of age story first then horror. Glad you liked them, but for they did not do that much.
I Moon Girl
Dec-28-2017 8:47 PM
I consider IT a true horror movie because there is actually a story. As you say, "a coming of age story." If there is no story, to me, it is no better than Transformers with an R rating. Transformers is just fancy CGI. The first one wasn't bad, but the rest... ehhh. Of course, Transformers are made for the short attention span that children typically have. The movies are more for those kids who probably watched the cartoons when they were little. Of course, now those kids are grown up.
I don't like movies that don't have a story. Blade Runner 2049 had a great story, symbolism, and addressed widely thought of issues and tried to bring new light on them. In addition, there was great sci-fi visuals.
I would say Prometheus had better sci-fi visuals though.
Still, any good movie, or book, needs a story. Well, that's typically...
IT had TONS of horror thrown in on that story. Even when there wasn't something obviously scary, there was suspense to the point where I still didn't want to watch because I was afraid of what was going to happen. IT played with my imagination.
If IT didn't have any horror, I don't think it would've done nearly as well. Instead, I see it as a horror movie with a story, which makes it a legit movie. Everything was perfect, so it is up on my list for top movies of the year. Second place actually, right behind Blade Runner 2049.
EDIT: I mean, if you took the horror (and suspense) out of IT, we would probably loose around an hour an a half of the movie. It's around 2 hours long too.
Dec-28-2017 9:06 PM
"Blade Runner 2049 had a great story, symbolism, and addressed widely thought of issues and tried to bring new light on them. " Could you mention some that impressed you that much and was shedding new light unto something?
And a fact which I really did not like is that the actor playing Pennywise was emulating too much his brother's character from Vikings.
I Moon Girl
Dec-30-2017 6:51 PM
Sorry for the delay. I was trying to remember everything in Blade Runner 2049. I decided to read a few things that I read after watching Blade Runner 2049 again to help me remember. Blade Runner 2049 has a thick story and I really wished I watched it twice, but I'm cheap. I am going to watch it again when it's available for rent. Since I didn't see it again in the theaters, some articles on the internet really helped to break down what the story is about and brought some of the smaller into the light that helped be understand the movie as a whole better.
Widely thought addressed issues would include, which are really philosophical in nature...
- What it means to be human? (Ex: The ironic contrast between K and Wallace)
- What is true love? (Ex: The relationship between K and Joi(I love how the movie gets you to REALLY think about this and allows the average viewers to decide for themselves))
- What it means to live? (Ex: K choosing to look beyond himself and, in the end, trying to do the right thing.)
- What could humans’ future technology be capable of? (Ex: Joi’s AI…I have never seen another movie expressed with this kind of technology in the way anywhere close to the way it was expressed in Blade Runner 2049.)
- Where is the line between technology and life? (Ex.#1: Rachel’s child and it’s meaning in the Blade Runner Universe; Ex.#2: Joi’s existence)
- What’s in the future besides floating cars? (Which are just another broken promise. Those floating cars should be mainstream by now!)(Ex: Everything in the movie.)
I think the new light on widely thought issues is most obvious in point #2, the relationship between K and Joi. Point #2 also leads to shedding new light on Point #4 and even Point #5. I did also enjoy Point #6 and I think that was something the original Blade Runner addressed in the time of its release as well. Blade Runner surely has twisted what we think the future could be like.
The true star character of the whole Blade Runner 2049 movie, for me, was Joi. That character is what really made the movie for me. The next would have to be Luv. (There’s symbolism in those names too. EVEN BETTER! I love symbolism). Yet, K was a good character, but he also comes to be the main focus of the whole film as it follows him (and Joi) throughout the movie. The idea of Joi was just a phenomenal idea; plus, she had a real and important part to the whole Blade Runner 2049 movie. The writers just didn’t throw in some cool high-tech ideas and left it there. Joi has a big part to the whole story in addition to serving as symbolism. Blade Runner 2049 is a very multi-layered story down to the details and I respect the people who have worked on it. They did an amazing job. The Blade Runner franchise may not be making big bucks, but it sure is making a big impression. 10 out of 10 for me! I give Alien: Covenant an 8/10 sadly. I am kind of worried what Blade Runner 2049 would have been like if Ridley Scott directed it.
"And a fact which I really did not like is that the actor playing Pennywise was emulating too much his brother's character from Vikings."
I've never seen Vikings and, after reading what you said, I'm glad I haven't because I thought the actor playing Pennywise did a great job. The opening scene with Pennywise in the sewer is just perfect.
IT and Blade Runner 2049 should definitely be up for movie of the year.
Dec-30-2017 7:43 PM
Well, glad you liked it, but to answer some questions:
- the relationship between K and Joi, is in many ways similar to what happens in Spike Jones' Her (man falls in love with an AI ....even there is a Sex Surrogate, albeit not that flashy). But in world of Blade Runner, why would a replicant required to be emotionless (judging the K has to pass that test at the section) and obedient even allowed to possess such tech?
- the love between AI and human is also explored in the under-rated Spielberg movie AI, and the giant Women statues from Las Vegas is ripped straight out of there.
- Rachael's child ... this sound similar to Children of Men to me.... and the Replicants idea that is a wonder is only a delusion (is this feature was engineered and perfected by Tyrell - who/when), without any doubt, so to build a religion around this and to claim it is the most human thing to do is to give your life for a cause is bordering religious fanaticism. Again, Ai developing religion see AI. Nitpick: If replicants from the first movie had serial numbers on their bones why did they need to perform the empathy test on them? And if two replicants have babies they inherit the serial number from one of them?
Visually the movie is great, but what's in it is no way near as groundbreaking as the original was in his day. Even the music was not as great. And if you take into account the original novel from the sixties which better even than the 82 movie.
And a final remark, you could imagine the drama if Luv and Joi would have been played by the same actress, so if K would have wanted to save his "father" he should have killed some like his gf? Well atleast that is in the novel, where the hardest replicant for Deckard to retire is not Roy, but Pris because she is from the same product line as Rachael.
Dec-30-2017 7:52 PM
Sorry guys, ive moved this thread to the Blade Runner 2 fandom forum
Dec-31-2017 1:08 AM
When comparing a book to its big screen adaptation(s) you have to view them as separate entities. What works on the page may not necessarily work on the screen, while other times the screen adaptation may interpret the story differently, and other times the screen adaptation may evolve elements of the story. For example:
Hellraiser - In the Hellbound Heart novella, Kirsty is a friend, whereas in the movie she is the daughter. Clive Barker made this change to add more incentive on Kirsty's part to rise as the protagonist, yet such a change eliminated the multilayered adulterous undertones of the novella.
The Shining - In the original novel the characters are more developed and that of Jack Torrance is a much more redeemable character, whereas in the movie he is virtually a one-dimensional nutcase.
The War of The worlds - the book is set in late Victorian England, whereas the 50's version is set in small-town America and features mantis-like flying machines. The Spielberg version brings back the tripods, but does not infer they came from Mars and does not feature the Martain pods. Also neither big screen adaptation feature the black smoke weapon used in the original novel.
Batman - Probably the best example. The original Batman created by Bob Kane was a dark and solitary character who fought and solved crime. Both within the comics and on screen (big and small) we have seen multiple reiterations of the character, with the original now virtually lost to audiences. Recent big screen adaptations that have avoided using Robin have given a glimpse of the original Batman but each is just another interpretation, an adaptation of the original character.
In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep the use of Pris and Rachael being the same model allows for various dynamics - can Deckard kill Pris, is Rachael nothing more than a sexual fantasy. Whereas in Blade Runner Rachael is shown to be something different and those dynamics are lost, but in 2049 they retcon it so that Tyrell had secretly developed the Nexus 7's, Rachael, with the ability to get pregnant, adding a dynamic unseen in the book.
Dec-31-2017 1:36 AM
I understand your point, that a film is separate entity but, a sequels that retcons the original cannot be praised for it's fidelity however. I was citing the book only when clarifying parts of the original, maybe I was wrong.
But '49 retcons other stuff also, like what is the reason of a Voigt-Kompff test in the original if all replicants have a serial number on the bone? To have a movie that's why. If both Deckard (yes he is) and Rachael are a new gen of replicants that can sexually reproduce and live normal lives does this fact undermine the tragic but beautiful ending of the first movie? In the same logic, why would Tyrell lie to Roy in the first movie that he cannot solve the lifetime problem (as it was also in the book) but he secretly already solved and died with his "secret" when in less then a year Nexus 8 (with normal life span) runaways were already on earth?
Rachael's ability to reproduce however is clearly contradicts the book when Rachael says clearly the she cannot have babies and in this she remains a "virgin" (or something similar).
And why would such pregnancy would more feasible than building fully matured replicants? Their traits would surely not be controllable by birth (some skills might even be missing in a generation of replicants) and you have to raise it for several years before becoming a good product.
Sorry, I might be nitpicky but these stuff made enjoy the film less and to not considered the smartest movie of the year.
I Moon Girl
Dec-31-2017 4:06 AM
"why would a replicant required to be emotionless (judging the K has to pass that test at the section) and obedient even allowed to possess such tech?"
That way K can blend in and also seems like a regular human being. It's more for K to be happy than anything. I never thought of K as being emotionless either. If you want to argue that he is, well then Joi is there for his mental health. Either way, Joi is in K's presence to help him cope with life and try to make him not feel so shut-out from society (which he kind of is because of what we see at the beginning of the movie where some people treat K like dirt.).
I never saw "Her" and that is a fairly recent movie (2013).It sounded interested, yet stupid, which is why I didn't see it. Blade Runner 2049 is the format that I like, so I saw it. I didn't go to Blade Runner 2049 for some twisted love story, yet in the movie, it had one. It was just presented in a more entertaining way.
"Spielberg movie AI" That is an old movie and I don't think that can be compared to Blade Runner 2049 because it came out in 2001.
In today's world, there are so many things that have been done that it would be hard to do anything that hasn't been done before in some way. There is something that some people think. I can't remember it very well, but these people think that every story in the history of the world all follows, I think, 8 stories. Every story is just a reiteration of those stories. So, in theory, nothing is original. For me, Blade Runner 2049 was legendary. Plus, it has apparently been 4 years ("Her") since any movie that deals with AI and love in such an extreme way and I don't remember anything at the box office dealing with these issues when Blade Runner 2049 was released. Alien: Covenant deals with AI and love, yet it is in a much different way. That is just the movie that I know about. There could be movies are TV shows that deal with many of the same issues as Blade Runner 2049 that aren't even that old either. We live in a world where it is hard to make something original. Some may even say that it is impossible. Still, the packaging of all of the themes in Blade Runner 2049 is what makes it attractive to me, which is why I saw it. It's my kind of movie.
"this feature was engineered and perfected by Tyrell"
We don't know that as a fact. It could be open for debate like, "Is Deckard human?" There is a lot of arguing over that. In Blade Runner 2049, we are led to believe that Tyrell engineered Rachel to reproduce, yet that could just be a purposal by Wallace, just like how Wallace said Deckard was made to have a child with Rachel. Maybe Rachel's reproductive organs developed by accident out of creating her with newer Replicant technology? We do know that Tyrell made Rachel with one intention in mind... which was to make it harder to tell she was a replicant. I don't think Tyrell ever stated that Rachel was made to be able to have babies. This is what Wallace thinks though and we all know Wallace just wants to be more powerful.
By the way, I think Deckard is a replicant, yet, some peple apparently haven't decided to this day.
Dec-31-2017 4:33 AM
"this feature was engineered and perfected by Tyrell" as said by Wallace himself who is the most qualified to tell such thing having what has been left of the archives. Why would he believe such a thing without evidence? Especially the perfected part.
It is clear that Deckard is a replicant as Gaff says in Hungarian and then in English (to hit the hammer on the head) that he was retired (a term used for killed replicants) and that he had problems with his eyes (Yes all fans of the Original know that short glimpse when Deckard's glow as of those of replicants). Furthermore, that underground leader lady includes Deckard as us in her speech to K. It is pretty evident, but here another problem rise as this means that Deckard himself most be fertile, two happy accidents?
Ok, I respect your opinions regarding older movies, but I strongly disagree.
I Moon Girl
Dec-31-2017 7:13 AM
"Why would he believe such a thing without evidence?"
Because Wallace would say something like that to get what he wants. Deckard is just in his way.
The only reason why I would be skeptical of Wallace's claims is because he also purposes that Deckard was created to reproduce. He knows Deckard could never know that answer, so Wallace hopes that it would eventually get to him as Deckard gets interrogated. Or maybe there is another reason.
Wallace could be mistaken on there being knowledge on how to create reproductive organs on purpose. I assume Rachel was fairly new when Deckard met her. Those reproductive organ generation could have been a by product of new technology. Then, Deckard takes her before Tyrell fully understands it or maybe before he can record it down in the archives.
Wallace knows that there was a Replicant child, so he finds out that there is technology that can be done to mass produce this tech. This is when he starts to search for that Replicant so he can acquire the technology he supposes was perfect by Tyrell.
Wallace could just be mistaken. If he had the information in the Tyrell archives on how to create Replicants to reproduce, then he wouldn't be following Officer K.
It's been awhile since I saw Blade Runner 2049, so I'm a bit fuzzy on all the details.
I don't know how else Wallace would have known to look for a Replicant child unless Officer K started the investigation. If he really knew there was a child that came from Replicant reproduction, wouldn't he have been looking for it before the movie even began? As far as I can remember, it was because Officer K found the bones and knew those replicant bones gave birth that started the whole purpose of Wallace looking for this child.
Dec-31-2017 7:43 AM
The speech is give to Luv the first time we see him we she cuts open the poor replicants belly up because he is frustrated that the technology ("Tyrell's final trick") was lost and he cannot reproduce it. Wallace orders after that Luv to find the child the police found. And if Tyrell dies (in 2019) before Rachael gets pregnant (which is in 2020, as the child is born) so how do we know that the technology even works ? Were there other pregnancies?
Dec-31-2017 9:37 AM
@red0guy. I'll try and answer your questions as best as I can.
Both Blade Runner movies are only loosely based on PKD's book. Btw, if you look closely, Sapper Morton has what appears to be a mood organ sitting on a table in his home.
There are no other pregnancies. It's only Rachel, she was a new prototype designed by Tyrell to be fertile (This is why it's hailed as a miracle by the other replicants). The secret as to how died with him. Wallace is trying to get to the child to reverse engineer the technology and use it as his own. We know the tech works because she got pregnant, carried the fetus to term and delivered the child via C-section. Sadly she died in the process. Wallace knows she was designed to reproduce because he took over the company and we have to assume has read the files on her that were not destroyed in the blackout. Most likely he's missing info because of that. He learns of the child thanks to K's discovery.
The newer models have the serial numbers on their eyes/bones. The older models didn't, hence the need for the Voight-Kampff test.
It's not clear in this movie if Deckard is a replicant or not, this is something that differs from what Scott has said. Scott is pretty clear he's a replicant, whereas this movie is ambiguous about it.
Tyrell didn't lie to Roy, he litterally could not reverse the process in those replicants. He explains why, it's some genetic thing I can't remember. Rachel and Deckard are prototypes (if you believe he is a replicant, the movie is ambiguous about it), they are different or at least Rachel is, from the rest.
Btw, I agree with you. I noticed a lot of recycled ideas in the movie, not just the ones you mentioned. There are at least 4. The 3-way scene screamed of the movie Her, like you said. It's almost exactly the same, even down to the part where each digital woman gets angry/jealous and throws out the prostitute/sex surrogate.
As for the soundtrack, I thought it was beautiful and did homage to Vangelis. This track in particular is stunning.
Dec-31-2017 10:23 AM
If Rachael is unique, Tyrael would have not known that his experiment work because Rachael presumably dies in child birth on 6.10.21(mostly likely the day of death/birth) after more than 2 years after the events of the original movie (20.11.19). Even the bald clerk from Wallace says about Rachael's file that contains nothing special, but soon after that Luv appears, so it must possible that Wallace knew about Rachael's file and had special instruction to his employees regarding that file. But he could not have known if Rachael was truly fertile if she disappeared, unless the police station was hacked, as K says nothing about the pregnancy.
Regarding the mood organ, Replicants don't have to use in the novel, people when use it they become like androids.
Dec-31-2017 10:43 AM
@red0guy Tyrell didn't know if it worked or not, Wallace didn't either, until agent K found the body. What Wallace did know is she was designed to be able to reproduce.
The mood organ in the scene is an homage to the book, it's just a nice touch is all.