ahalpert
Major Contributor
Where do they say she has no expiration date? Even if she didn't, he would.
"Nexus 6 models (Roy Batty, Priss, etc) in the original Blade Runner have an inbuilt four year lifespan "
Dune trailer by Villeneuve looks beautiful - premieres Dec 18, 2020
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
Where do they say she has no expiration date? Even if she didn't, he would.
"Nexus 6 models (Roy Batty, Priss, etc) in the original Blade Runner have an inbuilt four year lifespan "
G
Guest
Guest
2019 to 2049 is 30years
1982 to 2017 is 35years
Harrison Ford is either a human, and can literally live that long, or he is a replicant. How he survived is not important, except to appease fanboys. Which you could argue that is all Harrisons role in this film was: to sell more tickets.
It was stated in the original film that replicants were designed to only live 4yrs so it would be difficult for them to revolt. There is no way to reverse this, if design in the replicant. However, Rachael was not designed with a 4year limit. It was not certain how long she would live. If Deckard was also a replicant, and at least since the Director's cut of the film, it has leaned that way, then it is uncertain if he has a built in time limit. And based on 2049, he doesn't.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The problem is it's a violation of the original conceit. Just like the serial number on the eyeballs.
Ford was supposed to have a brief existence. I dont buy it that he would be designed without a time limit.
And it was really cool that you had to test their empathy as a recaptcha. The idea that they could be designed with or given serial numbers deflates the entire premise of the first film.
Maybe you can argue that this is all possible within the established rules. But to me it doesn't follow logically or spiritually. And that's that.
You can call me a fanboy. But really I'm just a participant in the story and it's my emphatic participation in it that makes me reject departures from the narrative logic.
PS Deckard is definitely a replicant
Ford was supposed to have a brief existence. I dont buy it that he would be designed without a time limit.
And it was really cool that you had to test their empathy as a recaptcha. The idea that they could be designed with or given serial numbers deflates the entire premise of the first film.
Maybe you can argue that this is all possible within the established rules. But to me it doesn't follow logically or spiritually. And that's that.
You can call me a fanboy. But really I'm just a participant in the story and it's my emphatic participation in it that makes me reject departures from the narrative logic.
PS Deckard is definitely a replicant
G
Guest
Guest
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.
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
What was "the original conceit", and how is Rachael's longer lifespan a violation? The original Blade Runner had her from a different line, one without the four-year limit. This is not an amendment by the sequel.
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.
At the agency, different clients were handled by different agents and believe me when I say that it didn’t just come down to the supposed merits of the agents or clients. A lot comes down to how personalities blend. If a client is sensitive or prickly or needs a lot of “handling”, they’d be repped by agents who are good at that aspect of it (what was crudely called in the agency as “a handj*b”). Other agents were no good at giving hjs due to lack of that particular skill or personality fit. For clients who were big on “just the facts”, agents who were more blunt and even abrasive were often a better fit. I’d be no good at handholding a sensitive client - it’s not because I don’t want to, I just don’t have that ability. I’m more of the kind of guy who might first get into a fistfight with you before becoming fast friends.
Horses for courses. We don’t have to be all things to all people. Some circumstances call for “send in Batutta!”, others “send in that basta*d OldCorpse” - that’s the way it was at the agency. An agency was a whole ecosystem with various predators specializing in various methods. You need all kinds to make a successful whole.
I am not BY ANY MEANS claiming that one is better than the other. You have to get used to the fact that in life there will always be those you can win over and those who will never take to you. I’m OK with that. I’m OK with the fact that some - as expressed in this thread - will proclaim that due to my abrasive approach, they will never, as the kids say, f*** with me. That’s fine. Can’t please everyone. I’m OK with losing some, it’s the way of the world.
I’m OK with being in the minority or having a small niche of those who deal with me. Furthermore, I don’t know why, just a personality quirk, but I’m not bothered by any number of folks who don’t like me, and it’s always been like that.
A funny side to all this is that when I was in charge of the story department where we wrote coverage of scripts, for some odd reason, I had more requests for my coverage than anyone else at the time - that despite being well known as someone who does not pull punches and can even be called brutal. For some reason, the majority appreciated that approach. You’d think I’d be the minority taste, but that’s not how it worked out. Go figure.
To sum up - I believe in standing your ground, not submitting to group-think, going your own way and blunt honesty without any sugarcoating. It’s not the only way for sure, but it’s as legitimate as the super skillful diplomatic approach.
And furthermore, there’s a deeper purpose. At the agency it worked to winnow out the field. If someone is offended by my feedback or approach, then they are not suited to me and I’m happy to see the back of them - I will never work well with such folks, as I’m simply no good at “and you have a beautiful smile too”. I’m blunt. It works from the other side too. Those who need a different approach - totally legit - get a fair preview “yeah, I’m gonna stay away from OC, I hate his style”. Great for both sides!
One final point - sorry, but “don’t criticize a director strongly until you’ve directed great movies yourself”, is just silly (putting it kindly). A critic need not be a world class director - or director at all - to point out whatever they think is valid, however harshly. The only - ONLY - thing that matters is how good your arguments are. Judge those, not WHO makes the argument. Just because a great director says something stupid doesn’t mean it stops being stupid because he’s a great director, and vice versa. Not WHO, but WHAT. A bum under a bridge has legitimate criticizm if his arguments tell the truth.
At the agency, different clients were handled by different agents and believe me when I say that it didn’t just come down to the supposed merits of the agents or clients. A lot comes down to how personalities blend. If a client is sensitive or prickly or needs a lot of “handling”, they’d be repped by agents who are good at that aspect of it (what was crudely called in the agency as “a handj*b”). Other agents were no good at giving hjs due to lack of that particular skill or personality fit. For clients who were big on “just the facts”, agents who were more blunt and even abrasive were often a better fit. I’d be no good at handholding a sensitive client - it’s not because I don’t want to, I just don’t have that ability. I’m more of the kind of guy who might first get into a fistfight with you before becoming fast friends.
Horses for courses. We don’t have to be all things to all people. Some circumstances call for “send in Batutta!”, others “send in that basta*d OldCorpse” - that’s the way it was at the agency. An agency was a whole ecosystem with various predators specializing in various methods. You need all kinds to make a successful whole.
I am not BY ANY MEANS claiming that one is better than the other. You have to get used to the fact that in life there will always be those you can win over and those who will never take to you. I’m OK with that. I’m OK with the fact that some - as expressed in this thread - will proclaim that due to my abrasive approach, they will never, as the kids say, f*** with me. That’s fine. Can’t please everyone. I’m OK with losing some, it’s the way of the world.
I’m OK with being in the minority or having a small niche of those who deal with me. Furthermore, I don’t know why, just a personality quirk, but I’m not bothered by any number of folks who don’t like me, and it’s always been like that.
A funny side to all this is that when I was in charge of the story department where we wrote coverage of scripts, for some odd reason, I had more requests for my coverage than anyone else at the time - that despite being well known as someone who does not pull punches and can even be called brutal. For some reason, the majority appreciated that approach. You’d think I’d be the minority taste, but that’s not how it worked out. Go figure.
To sum up - I believe in standing your ground, not submitting to group-think, going your own way and blunt honesty without any sugarcoating. It’s not the only way for sure, but it’s as legitimate as the super skillful diplomatic approach.
And furthermore, there’s a deeper purpose. At the agency it worked to winnow out the field. If someone is offended by my feedback or approach, then they are not suited to me and I’m happy to see the back of them - I will never work well with such folks, as I’m simply no good at “and you have a beautiful smile too”. I’m blunt. It works from the other side too. Those who need a different approach - totally legit - get a fair preview “yeah, I’m gonna stay away from OC, I hate his style”. Great for both sides!
One final point - sorry, but “don’t criticize a director strongly until you’ve directed great movies yourself”, is just silly (putting it kindly). A critic need not be a world class director - or director at all - to point out whatever they think is valid, however harshly. The only - ONLY - thing that matters is how good your arguments are. Judge those, not WHO makes the argument. Just because a great director says something stupid doesn’t mean it stops being stupid because he’s a great director, and vice versa. Not WHO, but WHAT. A bum under a bridge has legitimate criticizm if his arguments tell the truth.
KurtF
Well-known member
And now we've veered way off of the original post. I think the Dune trailer looks terrific, and I am looking forward to seeing it. As far as the main character undergoing some angst, well, you are familiar with the story right? How the entire royal family is forced to lose their holdings and take over a difficult planet that's coveted by other royal houses, the spacing guild, and other religious zealots? How most of the boy's family is murdered and he's forced into a situation where survival is tenuous and chances of a successful outcome are slim? I'd say some angst is definitely in order. This version seems to focus on the core of the story, which is, "an animal caught in a trap will gnaw off it's own leg to escape, but a human will endure and fight the trapper." So young Paul will endure the trap of the desert planet and survive to take the fight to those who attempted to destroy his family. I saw hints of joy, with Duncan Idaho greeting Paul, I saw some mysticism with his visions of Chani, scope and grandeur of the spice mining, the Thopters, and the Sardukar troops, and yes, the Sand Worms were awesome. Now if they can just avoid the stupid voice overs from the David Lynch version.
combatentropy
Veteran
If you're weary of angst-laden plots, I don't blame you. But is it a fad? Decades ago when I was in college, my English teacher mocked us for the monotony of our poetry, always angsty. (She said the stereotypical poem was something like, "I am in a dark room, and it is spinning, spinning. . . ." Come to think of it, I didn't like her very much.)
Anyway, the genre you seem to be describing is the Coming of Age story, and it is as old as civilization, and it is perennially popular with adolescents, naturally. So maybe Dune is Coming of Age meets Sci-Fi.
G
Guest
Guest
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
combatentropy
Veteran
combatentropy
Veteran
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.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
combatentropy
Veteran
By rejecting the new episodes as canon
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:
G
Guest
Guest
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:
G
Guest
Guest
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: