The long overdue _Blade Runner_ thread

if anything the movie is a 164-minute riposte to the idea that that question ever needed answering in the first place

This was great, perhaps even more compelling than the original. Catching it on the silver screen when it came out likely helped.

otm

I complained to a friend that it was hollow spectacle with no substance, he said that's exactly why he liked it.

Counterpoint - it was really terrible, but also I would like to rewatch it - some stupidly long movies can be better appreciated as meditative when I can stop the viewing for a piss.

it’s an elegant extension of the themes of the first film which examines philip k dick’s obsession with what it means to be human from a couple of interesting new angles

i dunno what else anyone could want from it tbh

The artificiality of all created life, especially the paradox of a freely autonomous being set in motion like clockwork by a Deus absconditus-type figure that happens to be 'human', further destabilizing this very category in the process… I fail to see how it lacks substance.

it’s all substance! it’s a really clever script!

The artificiality of all created life, especially the paradox of a freely autonomous being set in motion like clockwork by a Deus absconditus-type figure that happens to be 'human', further destabilizing this very category in the process

This fog looks solid but when I try to grasp it it just slips through my fingers.

Put differently: human makes machine. Machine not alive, by definition. Yet this particular machine is so life-like that it might as well be alive, even human.

First question: does this kind of artificial creation differ significantly from 'natural' birth?

Second question: if human can achieve this, is human not a manner of god, or God?

Third question: if humans can create other 'humans' in this fashion, could it be that the original 'humans' were also created in a similar fashion, by a demiurge that has since retired?

All hypothetical, of course.

I would totally watch that film, but it wasn't showing anywhere.

No, No, and No.

That settles it then.

I mean the first question is not uninteresting, but fleshing it out as the first film did (intentionally or otherwise) in terms of a master/slave relationship is much more compelling than the religious angle.

I'm more interested in the latter two tbh.

Anyhow, I don't recall the problem of birth being foregrounded in the first film. It's been a while, though.

Like, the whole master/slave thing is just… how things are? It's description rather than speculation, which is more exciting to me.

have you missed the central premise of 2049, which is that the 'humans' can now seemingly procreate themselves, or is that built in to 'as well to be human'?

tbh i cannot see how you could have looked forward to this based on the original (well, whichever original) and then not thought it a miraculously worthy addition.

imo yr objections would almost have to be objections in principle.

You're conversing with ledge, right?

Like, the whole master/slave thing is just… how things are? It's description rather than speculation, which is more exciting to me.

How should we and how will we treat artificial beings is pretty speculative?

xp first q was (clumsily) checking with your three pillar questions to see if that element was taken into account

second post was a fuck yall to anyone claiming this wasnt excellent

xp its not speculative in the movie, is it

ofc you could argue that any future/science fiction is a question, but

xp first q was (clumsily) checking with your three pillar questions to see if that element was taken into account

Ah, I see. Then yes, at least to my mind.

xp its not speculative in the movie, is it

the speculation is in whether that's how things should be or will be.

you may argue that the answer to those questions is clearly a) definitely not and b) most likely.

Sounds like there's a bit of substance there after all.

in the original, yep :)

I would watch 2049 again, I only really appreciated the original the second or third time around.

It’s not like those questions didn’t carry over into 2049.

ledge, if you rewatch id be interested to see what elements you think it falls down on (ito whats not yknow finn-critique "imo they shouldve done this but where you think whats there botches or is lacking)

I do remember the obviously sexist elements (low maintenance pleasure gal, giant blue tits) being pretty offputting.

It’s a dystopia iirc.

i’d be with you there if the ‘low maintenance pleasure gal’ didn’t represent one of the most interesting existential questions in a movie which is filled with them

i remember, just last night, thinking about how ilx would engage with depiction of things they did not themselves agree with in this movie, a work of fiction showing bad things that clearly invites us to think about these bad things as bad things

State-sponsored misogyny is an uninteresting question?

i had missed k's boss possibly giving him a come-on during a drinking scene tbh, which would at least provide some measure of .... idk balance but yknow

a work of fiction

c'mon

showing bad things that clearly invites us to think about these bad things as bad things

in a medium and genre where same bad things are frequently presented as good things.

‘k

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://miro.medium.com/max/1313/0*aMrKipFLO1ZsheWJ.

I should watch this again, I'm just worried that I won't like it as much as the first time. Seeing this on a really good IMAX screen is one of the best movie going experiences I've had.

i thought this was a very good piece on why 2049 rules ass
https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/10/14/the-poetry-of-blade-runner-2049

yeah, that's a great piece

So I watched this again, I liked it better than the first time, I had a bit more sympathy for K, but still found it hard to really care. That piece above says "No one shines like Rutger Hauer’s magnetic Roy Batty", and it suffers for it. Joshi and Wallace are horrible characters - I don't mean just evil, or unconvincing, but unpleasant to be around, speaking in crappy portentous prose-poetry. The CGI is effortlessly impressive, not as thrilling as Trumbull's model work, and it feels strangely empty - I think there's like one crowd scene? In short, technically impressive, hard to love.

Also given that K can be so easily tracked it seems a bit of a doofus move for him to take Deckard straight to his daughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aquTeAH_C4I

The CGI is effortlessly impressive, not as thrilling as Trumbull's model work

Kalax video is better than the movie

Differences / blade runner vs do androids dream of electric sheep

San Fran, not l a
2021, not 2019
Animal simulacrum subplot
Deckard is married
Monorail, not flying cars
Holden survives !
The voigt empathy test was developed in the Soviet Union
Rachel is tyrells niece (family name is rosen)

One thing I liked about Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep that wouldn't have really worked in a movie I think, is that Pris and Rachel were the same model android, so they actually looked identical

Also the whole bit with the fake police station is so good

came across this a couple of days ago and found it interesting

Studio Notes to a Test Screening of Blade Runner, January 21, 1981 pic.twitter.com/AGWU252v1O

— 41 Strange (@41Strange) November 10, 2019