BLADE RUNNER 2049 (2017)

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
BLADE RUNNER 2049 (1982)

https://youtu.be/jrNijjU-2IE?rel=0

21st Century Wire
BLADE RUNNER – SECRET MEANING REVEALED
_http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/10/02/blade-runner-secret-meaning-revealed-vid/
Jay Dyer:
Based on the chapter in my best selling book with new information and analysis, I decode the highly philosophical and esoteric 1982 film from Ridley Scott.

Blade Runner is not only important for its predictive programming, but also for its alchemical and gnostic themes, as found in the rest of Dick’s novels.

Jay Dyer is the author of the best selling title, Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film from Trine Day. Focusing on film, philosophy, geopolitics and all things esoteric, JaysAnalysis and his podcast, “Esoteric Hollywood,” investigates the deeper meanings between the headlines, exploring the hidden aspects of our sinister synthetic mass media matrix.

Time:18:40

https://youtu.be/m8HrKCugeQc?rel=0

Variety
‘Blade Runner 2049’ Cancels Red Carpet at Premiere After Vegas Shooting'
October 2, 2017 4:01PM PT
_http://variety.com/2017/film/news/blade-runner-2049-premiere-red-carpet-cancelled-las-vegas-shooting-1202578321/
Tuesday night’s world premiere of “Blade Runner 2049” has been scaled back due to the Las Vegas mass shooting.

The event will take place tomorrow without a red carpet at Hollywood’s Dolby Theatre.

“In light of the tragic events of last night, Warner Bros. Pictures, Sony Pictures, and Alcon Entertainment are canceling the red carpet for tomorrow’s screening of ‘Blade Runner 2049,” Warner Bros. said in a statement on Monday. “We join the rest of the country in sending heartfelt thoughts and prayers to all those affected by this tragedy.”

The move came a few hours after Open Road Film scrubbed Monday night’s premiere of “Marshall” at the TCL Chinese for the same reason.
At least 59 people have died and more than 500 were injured after a gunman opened fire on attendees of the Route 91 Harvest music festival near the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas on Sunday night.

“Blade Runner 2049” is the sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1982 sci-fi classic “Blade Runner.” Reviews have been mostly laudatory for the film, which is being distributed domestically by Warner Bros. through its output deal with Alcon Entertainment. Sony is the international distributor and production partner with Alcon Entertainment.

The reboot, directed by Denis Villeneuve, stars Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, who reprises his role of Rick Deckard from the original. Early box office forecasts had projected a domestic launch of at least $40 million.

Replicate
http://bittennails.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/tumblr_lc19wgcB4i1qe0eclo1_r7_500.gif
 

romochar

Jedi Master
Most movie fans do not know that there was a prequel to the Ridley Scott 1982 movie, written by William Burroughs , published in 1979 -which I read back in the day. It was even presented as a screenplay of which no movie was ever made. But I suggest that anyone taken by the story should read the Burroughs novella, it is totally different from the movies.

A wiki page about the Burroughs book, which was absolutely great to read: _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_(a_movie)

'The novella began as a story treatment for a proposed film adaptation of Alan E. Nourse's novel The Bladerunner. (Some sources describe Burroughs' work as a closet screenplay.) A later edition published in the 1980s changed the formatting of the title to Blade Runner, a movie.

Burroughs' treatment is set in early 21st century and involves mutated viruses and "a medical-care apocalypse". The term "blade runner" referred to a smuggler of medical supplies, e.g. scalpels.

No film was ever made; the title Blade Runner was later bought for use in Ridley Scott's 1982 science fiction film, Blade Runner.[1] The plot of that film was based on Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and not the Nourse, Burroughs source material, although the film does incorporate the term "blade runner" into dialogue.'- wiki
 

duyunne

Jedi Council Member
The ruins of tomorrows innovations stretch as far as smog will allow. This movie is certainly rich with atmosphere! One resulting from unchecked corporate greed via immoral technological advancement.

Human afflictions seemingly fostered and regulated by artificial intelligence and virtual significant others. The denizens of the unending LA sprawl vastly overpopulated yet bubbled into their illusions, isolated from one another as they covet pretend relationships from their pocket.

Across these same lands are scavengers and drifters, scrambling through the wastes to survive off scraps. These familiar dystopian motifs perfected as nuance or as mild disruption in this film; a homage to one of the first accurate images of this concept in film. A film from times (70s/80s) where none of this could actually be called current. All blurred into the foreground by an urgent narrative, warning us that our 'doll' facsimiles/slaves will soon covet more humanity as we continue to corrupt ourselves by obsessively striving toward godhood.

While this movie is of high caliber and quality. I did not enjoy it. It's a haunting echo from our future and where we're heading. What is frightening most of all is that I'm aware of how seducing this world is as a nihilistic fantasyscape from the stagnant wage slave agitation we're accustomed to. Conversations with friends and acquaintances who are fans of the original become starry eyed and fanatically pleasant when faced with the subject matter. Not a care in the world at what its saying but instead for the shiny gadgets its showing.
 

aimarok

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
I really enjoyed this film and not because of fancy CGI. The question of being more human than human goes through the plot. What is to be a replicant? What choices do they have while being slaves? Can they really love? The end doesn't answer everything, it's up to a viewer to find his or her answers.

The work of director, cameraman and compositors is simply amazing! I sank in the picture and sound and left the cinema with rapture and sadness.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Not to detract from the movie discussion, but the guy making the videos in the original post, Jay Dyer, mentions he works cooperatively with Jay Weidner. Laura has written much about her interactions with Weidner and he is is an extremely unreliable and manipulative character who will lie without a second thought. So just that name drop and “partnership” makes all of the content highly suspect, given the nature of who is involved.

Having said that, I am looking forward to the new movie! The original wasn’t really my cup of tea, although it did create a certain type of atmosphere pretty well, and the characters were interesting in terms of trying to understand why they do what they do, especially in context of their world. The constant theme being - are replicants like us, and to what extent? They are presented as being manipulative, psychopathic at times, and possessing a certain kind of intelligence. They also seem capable of emotion, but maybe it’s just a simulation. The only romance in the movie felt odd, a bit out of place, and showed a sign of desperation and wishful thinking by Deckard. The female replicant even questioned if she can trust her own thoughts and feelings, suggesting she wasn’t sure if it’s merely a program. They kind of reminded me of what an organic portal may feel like. Sort of human, but with absence of higher centers, yet still wanting to live, love, and in some cases brutally violent. Also they were preoccupied and afraid of their death after a short preprogrammed 4 year lifespan, though who wouldn’t be if they only had 4 years to live? They value their memories and experiences (some of which are programmed and fake), and regretted the loss of all that upon death, which to them felt very final, which is also why it makes me think of OPs.

If there is an analogy or lesson here, it’s probably to get us to question our own motivations and where they originate. What makes us human and why do we do the things we do. Maybe we are not so different than machines - a lot of potential for emptiness, psychosis, evil, and obsession - and also for love, fulfillment, meaning in our lives, etc. I think the movie doesn’t push any of those ideas or thoughts like modern movies and lets the viewer decide if they want to think about this, or just treat it as a sci fi flick with no inherent message. The thing I didn’t like is that it was very slow at parts, though I think that also is what gives it its charm, and allows your brain to pause and reflect without rushing - on the atmosphere, the characters, the world and anything else.
 

Ellipse

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I saw the movie yesterday. It contain a good exercise of anticipation about technology with nice pictures but it's a bit contemplative (the movie is almost 3h). A point I don't like is the presence of naked female characters in very large plans, showed with the excuse it's advertising in the future. Not appropriated for children.

I don't think the thought about OP or "are we machines ?" will distilled into the public because the definitive words of the movie is that humans have a soul because they are birthed and replicans not, because they are cloned. So I think the movie is a guardian not a an awakener in this sense.

The reflection it contain is "which consequences about cloning ?". Better than nothing.

The movie is a guardian too, in the sense that, ONE man manage the cloning company, ONE person manage the police, not consortiums.

In conclusion, I would advise to see it. There's inevitably some scenes of violence, so be ready to close you eyes but it's a pleasure to see again Indiana Jones. :)
 

Ellipse

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Re-thinking about the movie, it's a guardian too in the sense that it sell the idea that humans can distinguish non-human and have a grip on them. Actually the reality being just the reversed.
 

Maat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I didn't see this new version, but here's what Philip K. Dick said about Blade Runner vs his novel Do Androids dream of electric sheep (I really love the title in itself !) :

Fans of Dick’s novel may be wondering just what elements from the novel have been retained and which are missing. For instance, does the film include Deckard’s desire to own a real animal (a rare commodity) instead of just an artificial one? “That’s really pushed into the background, ” Dick explains. ‘ ‘There is that scene with the real owl, the genuine owl there at the corporation where the owl flies around, so that element has not been elimi­nated entirely, but it has been pushed into the background. It’s not central any more. The symbolism of the live animal versus the ar­tificial animal is no longer there. It’s gone. The metaphor of that is gone, but the basic theme of the novel, the two basic themes which interweave, are there.

“The first is what constitutes the essential human being and how do we distinguish and define the essential human being from that which only masquerades as human. That’s there. And the second theme is the tragic theme that if you fight evil, you will wind up becoming evil, and that this is the condition of life. There’s a quote from the novel which I think really is the basic theme of the novel. This line doesn’t appear in the film because it’s spoken by Mercer, a character in the book who wasn’t transferred over to the film:

You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic con­dition of life to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow; the defeat of creation. This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life everywhere in the universe.

“Now that really is the intellectual theme of the novel, that Deckard, to kill the repli­cants, or the androids, or whatever you want to call them, is brutalized and dehumanized. Now, what Peoples did in the screenplay, and Fancher gets credit for this because it’s based right on something Fancher did, is that there is a reciprocal motion from the standpoint of the replicants and Rachel in that she becomes more and more human, and now Peoples has it where Roy Batty becomes more and more human. So you have Deckard becoming more and more dehumanized, and the repli­cants become more and more human, and at the end they meet and the distinction is gone. But this fusion of Deckard and the replicants is a tragedy. This is not a victory where the replicants become humanized and there is some victory by humanity over inhumanity. This is horrifying because he is now as they are, so the theme of the novel is completely and essentially retained. The value is that it shows that any one of us could be dehuman­ized in the effort of fighting evil.”
_http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2016/11/09/philip-k-dick-on-blade-runner/
 

Ellipse

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Maat said:
You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic con­dition of life to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow; the defeat of creation. This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life everywhere in the universe.

Which is a mind programming message from the STS side. An STO oriented person will find herself in a such position only if she forgot herself and succumb to the siren song of the STS polarity and use the same tactics. Mind programming especially if you are in the learning phase and search who you want to serve.

Maat said:
The value is that it shows that any one of us could be dehuman­ized in the effort of fighting evil.”

With the "could" I agree.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Yeah fighting evil can be done by gaining and sharing knowledge, enabling protection from evil without having to kill it or control it. Evil depends on acquiescence by the ignorant, on the belief in its lies. It rarely uses direct threat of violence and force - you won’t get willing followers this way, and your reign is inherently unstable and difficult and thus temporary at best. To secure your hierarchy you need willing participants, which means they have to believe lies about the nature and motives of their rulers. Still risky and unstable because of risk of truth breaking out, but not as difficult as forcing your will at gunpoint, which guarantees resistance and subversion from your captives rather than it merely being a possibility.

I saw the new movie and while it was said that humans have souls and machines don’t, it left the door open later on. I thought it was pretty good, tho a tad long, but that was a nod to the original’s slow pace and focus on atmosphere, characters, and giving the viewer time to soak it all in without being over stimulated.
 

Ellipse

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
SAO said:
but not as difficult as forcing your will at gunpoint, which guarantees resistance and subversion from your captives rather than it merely being a possibility.

Yeah, but which give you a high score when you are on the STS path.
 
Top Bottom