Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70
  1. Collapse Details
    #51
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,216
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post
    Even Ridley Scott violated the original conceit.


    Yet so does the hologram relationship.


    Since you asked me, where does it say that?


    Without limit? Why not?


    Sure, yet so does the hologram relationship.


    If you like the hologram thing, then I don't see how your logic or spiritual intuition is more bothered by the serial number.


    I didn't.


    albeit selectively. but ok.


    It leans that way, but I'm not sure it has been proven yet. Again, that is part of the fun and original conceit of the first film.
    The original conceit concerned not just the specific shelf life of the replicants but also the fleeting nature of life generally and the value of those short lives and the phenomena they get to briefly savor.

    You can say that the outcomes presented in 2049 dont violate the rules of the story...

    But it's a bit like Han/Leia's divorce/separation. In my mind, they were supposed to live happily ever after. Some people have tried to argue to me that Han was not husband material and the outcome was inevitable. That's a viable interpretation, but it totally undercuts the themes and inspiration of the original trilogy - the eternal love between those two and the power of love to change a man.

    The outcome of their relationship just felt wrong to me. And it felt similarly wrong to see old Deckard pottering about still pretending to be an action hero.

    There was something exciting about the brief period be and Rachel would live together. I think that excitement was captured by the original studio ending where they drive off together into the sunset, even though the tone was totally wrong for the piece and ot demystified the ending a bit.

    As for the hologram - I really don't see an issue there. replicants were already capable of emotional relationships. No problem for me there.

    As for Gosling's vacant acting style - I dont think it totally worked for me in Drive either although it worked better.

    He really worked for me in Fracture. But there he was both more emotive and also was a bit dumb (or at least too smart by half). He nailed that part.

    I like Gosling and he's capable of nuance.
    I just don't see the range and depth of some other actors


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #52
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,216
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman2003 View Post
    I think the movie looked dark and full of angst. That seems to be popular with the kids these days. A young person seemingly floating through chaos. All he needed was a phone in his hand... I jest but if any part of the future looks like what is depicted in movies then I am happy to expire while we are still in present times!
    OK boomer.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #53
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,216
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCorpse View Post
    Thank you, Batutta, I understand where you’re coming from. My response is that we live in an ecosystem. Not everyone has the same function and not everything needs to be done according the same scheme. Some hunt by night, and some by day and it takes both to make a healthy environment. Same here. Your approach is totally fine and I would never criticize it. I would however observe that while your approach is just what the doctor ordered for patient X, my approach might be exactly what the doctor ordered for patient Y.
    Personally, I was enjoying the debate about Villeneuve's merits as a director.

    I think you're overly harsh on him. He might not be Stanley Kubrick but he's no Ed Wood either.

    But I dont think it's immoral for you to go overboard in your criticism, even if it makes me feel dumb to enjoy something you demean. (But only for a moment - I'm pretty comfortable with what I like of his work and why.)

    I think that when Batutta defined "hack," it was also in response to me saying that Nolan had become a hack. Which is not strictly true, based on Batutta's definition. What I meant was that he makes these splashy high-concept pieces that dont deliver the story fundamentals (for me) and bore me with the rules of the conceit. But I suppose that inasmuch as he tries to sell his self-indulgent mindgames to a mass audience by using outrageous action sequences and tons of stars, you could call him a hack.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #54
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    I like Gosling and he's capable of nuance.
    I just don't see the range and depth of some other actors
    You haven't seen Gosling until you have seen Lars and the Real Girl


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #55
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    The original conceit concerned not just the specific shelf life of the replicants but also the fleeting nature of life [...] a bit like Han/Leia's divorce/separation.
    Oh I get it. You're talking about retcon. There was a lot of that in the Star Wars third trilogy and even in the prequel trilogy.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #56
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,216
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    Oh I get it. You're talking about retcon. There was a lot of that in the Star Wars third trilogy and even in the prequel trilogy.
    Yes more or less, which is tough when I was heavily invested in the original.

    I don't even think that either of these examples violates the facts of the original. Just my interpretation and emotional payoff.

    I mean...how can I watch Return of the Jedi and feel the same way about Han/Leia now.

    Deckard/Rachel's future is less problematic for me than that. But it still ran counter to my original interpretation.

    Of course, my reaction is totally subjective and even capricious. Deckard/Rachel having a baby is even more unexpected and violates what we think we know about replicants. But I had no problem going along with that as a central conceit of the new film and a magical spark of the plot which could take us interesting new places.

    I haven't seen Lars and the Real Girl but it sounds like I probably should. I don't mean to rag on Gosling. I just like Ford more. Ford was one of the rare birds who could be an action star and also convincingly communicate a massive range of character and emotion. And just a very authentic screen presence.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #57
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    how can I watch Return of the Jedi and feel the same way about Han/Leia now
    By rejecting the new episodes as canon

    Deckard/Rachel having a baby is even more unexpected and violates what we think we know about replicants. But I had no problem going along with that
    Because it is a physical thing instead of an emotional one. Stories are often superficially unrealistic (Superman can fly) but will fail if they are mentally or emotionally unrealistic (like if Superman laughed when Lois died).
    Last edited by combatentropy; 09-15-2020 at 09:18 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #58
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,216
    Default
    Its hard for me to reject an official entrant in the saga. So I didn't watch episodes 8 and 9 in order to shield myself.

    Good point about the emotional logic.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #59
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,564
    Default
    As for the hologram - I really don't see an issue there. replicants were already capable of emotional relationships. No problem for me there.
    I am assuming that you didn't like the serial numbers on the replicants because it made it too easy to distinguish between replicants and real people.... A hologram is even worse, you know it is fake. I'm just surprised if you think that serial numbers ruin the conceit of the first film for you, then how is spending 25% of the film on a hologram not just as bad or not worse?

    It was also unclear in BR2049 if the hologram was a consciousness or just really good AI. So, we follow this romance with a hologram that may not even be a thinking or feeling thing... Whereas in the originals we are half hoping the replicants find a way because we come to believe their struggle is not unlike our own.
    Last edited by James0b57; 09-16-2020 at 01:08 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #60
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,564
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    The original conceit concerned not just the specific shelf life of the replicants but also the fleeting nature of life generally and the value of those short lives and the phenomena they get to briefly savor.
    I have bigger disagreements with you here.

    The artificially built in 4year life limit of the replicants was a plot device. It gave Roy Batty a mission and a motivation. It was the metaphorical ticking time bomb narrative device. I wouldn't call it "THE" conceit of the original.

    The sci-fi thematic meaning of the 1982 original film was the fact that Roy Batty could appreciate the fleeting nature of life. It meant that he was conscious, so therefore a living person. It was not that life is fleeting, but that he understood and appreciated that life was fleeting. It makes us question and/or appreciate what life is in a sci-fi sort of way. Which feels more like the heart of the original conceit.


    It could be argued either way that 2049 kept the spirit of the original, or that it didn't. But I think it is valid to be disappointed with the emotional impact of the sequel. Since the first one had so much more physicality and interaction to it. BR2049 continues the ideas of life and consciousness, but it is less visceral, and represented in things like a hologram.


    I think 2049 leaned too hard into the "virtual" world concepts. Everyone was so isolated.

    Also, Goslin's agent "K" was less emotional and less engaging than the Roy Batty played by Rutger. K's whole life, his memories, his hope, it was all a lie and a frustrated existence. He was a replicant prevented from being fully alive. In the end, he is the white Jesus, and I guess by doing something "good" he gives some meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. 2049 is rather more an empty feeling. Isolation, meaninglessness, disembodied consciousness, quarantined, separation, false memories.....

    Dave Bautista - alone on a farm
    Ryan Gosling - a non-human, living alone with a hologram, learns he might be a replicant baby, but that is a lie in the end
    Sylvia Hoeks (Luv) - similar fate as K's character, just a tool.
    Ana de Armas - a Hologram
    Harrison Ford - living alone in hiding
    Jared Leto - aloof and isolated
    Carla Juri (Dr. Ana, the daughter) - in quarantine... isolated.

    The only person that felt real, connected, and alive was Robin Wright's Lt Joshi. but even she is seemingly just married to her work and lonely, as implied by her advances on K.






    Perhaps after this year, 2049 will have more emotional impact as so many have lived in isolation and quarantine.

    In the end, I am more disappointed in 2049 as a sequel to Blade Runner (1982) than in the film itself. I thought the film was done well. It just wasn't an ideal follow up to the original, in my opinion. Even if it is a topical reflection of how we interact more virtually today, it evolved the world of BR, and that philosophically changed some of the feelings and departed from the original's tactile charm. Yet, it may have been more true to the original book?
    Last edited by James0b57; 09-16-2020 at 11:33 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •