BLADE RUNNER 2049 (2017)

nicklebleu

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Apparently this movies has been a flop at the box office, despite strong reviews - Hollywood distributors are taking it off slowly. Until the last weekend it apparently only made $64 M. Also affected seems to be Tom Cruise’s latest movie American Made, which only grossed a bit over $40+ M so far. It seems that people start to have enough of the same old drivel that comes out of Hollywood. Having said that, I enjoyed watching Blade Runner 2049, even if it was a bit slow and at times a bit confusing.
 

aaron

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
I loved the original and very much enjoyed the sequel. I really wanted the sequel to retain much more of the original Vangelis soundtrack. Not to worry though.
 

JEEP

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It's a haunting echo from our future and where we're heading.

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.

What makes us human and why do we do the things we do.

Closing in on the future?
NOTE: reference to Blade Runner crops up; I noticed near the end that the backdrop has a huge single eye on the far right - make of that what you will.

Sophia the ROBOT, from Hanson Corp, Hong Kong, is now autonomous, SELF-AWARE, independent…. and has now been given CITIZENSHIP!

Saudi Arabians are up in arms because a humanoid robot who doesn’t “cover up” or abide by the country’s strict laws was granted citizenship at a tech conference in Riyadh this week.

Sophia, created by Hanson Robotics in Hong Kong, was given official status Wednesday at the Future Investment Initiative conference.

“I am very honored and proud for this unique distinction,” she told the crowd, according to the BBC. “This is historical to be the first robot in the world to be recognized with a citizenship.”

Sophia gave insightful and witty answers in an interview with moderator Andrew Ross Sorkin, a columnist for the New York Times and CNBC anchor.

Asked whether robots were conscious and self-aware, she answered, “Well, let me ask you this back, how do you know you are human?” Arabian Business reported.


https://youtu.be/S5t6K9iwcdw

Meet Sophia, a robot who made her first public appearance in the Saudi Arabian city of Riyadh on Monday.
Sophia was such a hit she was immediately given Saudi citizenship in front of hundreds of delegates at the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh on 25 October.

But as pictures and videos of Sophia began circulating on social media many started to ask why a robot already seemed to have secured more rights than women in the country.

“It is historical to be the first robot in the world to be recognized with citizenship.” Please welcome the newest Saudi: Sophia. #FII2017

Sophia, created by Hong Kong company Hanson Robotics, addressed the audience in English without the customary headscarf and abaya, a traditional cloak which Saudi women are obliged to wear in public.

“I am very honoured and proud for this unique distinction,” she said. “This is historical to be the first robot in the world to be recognized with a citizenship.”

Staff writer, Al Arabiya EnglishThursday, 26 October 2017
Sophia, an artificially intelligent robot, made regional headlines this week when she was chosen to moderate a session at the landmark Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh. She’s also making another record as the world’s first recognized robot after Saudi Arabia announced they were granting her citizenship.

In a video that has gone viral on social media, the session’s other (more human) moderator Andrew Ross Sorkin told Sophia of the news.

“Sophia, I hope you’re listening to me, you have been awarded what is going to be the first Saudi citizenship for a robot,” Sorkin said.

_http://investmentwatchblog.com/sophia-the-robot-from-hanson-corp-hong-kong-is-now-autonomous-self-aware-independent-and-has-now-been-given-citizenship/

Can't decide what I find most incredulous about the above - a self-aware robot or the fact that people are upset 'she's' not wearing a headscarf or abaya!

And then we have Sophia and another robot debating the future of humanity:


https://youtu.be/w1NxcRNW_Qk

Interesting that the robots are more neatly/presentably attired than the human spokesperson - how come they don't have animal print hats & slouchy T-shirts? How long before the self-aware robots will demand to choose their own looks from clothing to tattoos? Project Runway could go completely AI!

Kidding aside, I found this exchange to be comical, awkward, and disturbing. Do we really want to create robots more intelligent than ourselves? Hasn't the catastrophic implications of this possibility been presented myriad times - yet onward we plow into this scenario? Is this really the best way to help humanity 'RISE' ?

I've seen most of Blade Runner but not in its entirety from start to finish. I did read the plot synopsis online. Haven't seen the new movie. Current real life seems plenty scary - and disturbing - enough. What about all those sexbots now available for every perverted desire one might have? I'm inclined to believe those will bring about loads of soul smashing.
 

Maat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It's interesting in itself that its name is Sophia. Talk about the return of the repressed...
 

Avala

Dagobah Resident
If you wanted to go and see this movie, don't. Save your money. The movie is (to say it in short) empty and shallow crap. The empty shell painted to resemble to original Blade Runner and that would be all. It is bad in so many point that is worthless even to start to name them all.
 

gdpetti

Jedi Council Member
I was wondering about that... as the reviewer I saw that liked it, did so because she loved the worldview setup.. and the 3 recommended vids to fill the gap are nice... but the basic premise is so overdone.... the repetition of the same storyline is boring... even if the visuals are great... a mundane storyline needs more hype, and it's interesting that there isn't any for this film... remember all the hype for that 'musical' this actor was in last year? Watched it, and it was exactly as expected... boring... the two leads simply aren't musical types... so the songs and dances are basically boring... tired. It's all been done to death. So, no surprise that this is the same problem for this film... UNLESS, you haven't seen much of this storyline before, then "It's New to You."... and that's the basic issue... as "empty and shallow crap" is what Hollywood does best.... out of original thoughts... so sequels rule the day to guarantee opening box office... which can still sell the product if the HYPE machine pushes the product... which again, isn't showing up for this film.... interesting that there is no hype... most of the hyped up projects are rather boring.... sometimes new animation tech/CGI etc helps sell the product, but perhaps we've passed that point as well? :/

As I said before, it's not a matter of money, but time.... which might not be a big deal if I lived near a theatre, but if I have to make a special trip? :shock: :O :scared:
It's gonna have to be something special... haven't seen anything like that in a very long time.... blame it on age, or experience with these storylines, which can happen in people much younger... if you grow up learning all the tropes of the trade, the 'boring' factor must kick in by your teens. Sort of like all our political spin/bs so prevalent these days... the puppet show is really getting boring... time for a real war?
 

unkl brws

Jedi Master
I haven't seen this film yet, but will. I came across this blog that may be of interest by the National Film Board of Canada titled "3 Films to Watch Before Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049" - http://blog.nfb.ca/blog/2017/10/06/denis-villeneuve-blade-runner-2049/
 

Galaxia2002

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
I really like the visuals effects of this sequel because it doesn't feel artificial which I dislike a lot in a movie. And what I most liked was the design sound, which fit perfectly with the atmosphere sometimes oppressive of the movie. I didn't feel bored but this is something personal. I loved that car race kind of sound which achieve the speed up the beats of the heart that sometimes appeared during the movie.
 

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Fluffy said:
The Mechanic said:
I never really got the first one so I don't think I'll be watching the remake. Enjoy though. :)

I have not seen the first, nor do I think it's totally necessary if you want to watch the second one.

I found it hard to follow at times and jumpy, like the producers were trying to keep people's attention with some short, somewhat confusing scenes. At the end I had no idea what happened and needed my 17 year old daughter to explain it to me. I don't watch much TV or movies but I've noticed that from the ones I have seen of current movies that they have this way of adding useless and abstract scenes that lead the watcher astray.

Having seen the first Blade Runner again before seeing the second one, it'll lessen any of the confusion that some of the scenes will bring up if someone hasn't seen the first one. A good chunk of the story line is built upon how the first one ended, and so it gives more context to the movie.

SPOILERS AHEAD:

With that said, I enjoyed the sequel. It's one of the better movies I've seen in a while, partly due to the pacing of the movie. During and after the movie I kept thinking about the implications of what the replicants represent. I'm gonna diverge a bit into the original, but in the first movie, Tyrell's motto was 'more human than human' and Rachel's character in the first movie was, I thought the most human character presented. By programming memories into her, giving her a history from which to pull from, buffered her emotions in a way that prevented her from rebelling in the way that Roy Batty and the others did. That scene struck me, and maybe to some degree answers part of the question brought up in the movie - and that one aspect that makes us human is having a rich emotional life filled with memories and experience from which to derive and learn from. In the sequel, the replicant's were starting to show signs of this, to strive and grow beyond their original programming in order to become more than what they were originally designed for, at least this seemed like what was happening with Ryan Gosling's character - and even his holographic girlfriend. It seemed in stark contrast to how Villeneuve depicts the human race, which becomes lost in the empty pleasures and reliance on technology, the consequence being, they lose their humanity along the way.

At least that was my take on the movie.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I saw the first Blade Runner about 48 hours before I saw the sequel. I really like the original, but I loved BR 2049. It stirred a lot of strong emotions in me, but not always for the better I think. The entire world was dead. It really cut me deeply, as someone who cares a lot about the environment, the birds and fishes, and the forests. It displayed a very bleak and dark aesthetic... like the distilled essence of STS wallowing in this Hell on Earth they created.
 

gdpetti

Jedi Council Member
Well, that is typical for dystopian settings.... which this one is based in, isn't it?... most people/sheeple living in their corrupted, disrupted and dangerous pens, while only the rich/priveleged/'chosen' people live above all the riff-raff... that is the usual setting in which all this transhumanist activities take place... to varying degrees of course, in a franchise like 'Ghost in the Shell', there have been more or less degrees of this dystopian settings of post world war/disaster... the movies darken the setting, while the tv series lighten it so that things seem almost 'normal'... same with this 'ghosting' issue... bigger issue in the films, less in the tv versions... different markets, and those are all animated. This series is mostly Western live action which costs alot more, so settings are pushed towards the extreme more, which really doesn't make sense, does it? Same issue today, in such a dystopian society, there wouldn't be many who could afford this technology, so it wouldn't be very common... except the rich/privileged/military-govt/chosen types... which is one of the issues 'GITS' franchise covers.... the reason they keep working there... to afford the upgrades, repairs etc.
 

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I never liked the original so I didn't had any expectations for the sequel. But I was surprised in a positive way. I already saw what a horrible thing they did with another SF franchise (Alien/Prometheus) so I thought that they will do the same thing with this one. But I think that they actually improved the original, even though some members of the forum would disagree with me.

One of the reasons I didn't like the original, or the SF movies from the 80's in general, is that they were too dark. But recently I found out that one of the reasons why there were so dark was because the creators didn't have the proper technology to create all those futuristic world, so they had to hide things with darkness. Which, of course, is not a problem anymore with everything that they have today plus the amount of money that is available to them. And the scenes are quite pretty in 2049. A lot more greys than blacks. The sound is good, although sometimes too weird for my taste. The acting was good. And I like the introduction of the hologram. I think that that is something that we can get much sooner than a real androids or robots.

And the most important thing - the pacing is slow enough so that the people can enjoy in all of that, for God's sake! Just compare this movie to the last Transformers and you'll know what I mean.

Some people say that the story is weak, and I agree with them. But I think that the story in original was also weak.
 
I watched this the other day.
A Good film I thought.
Some very nice photography, using silhouettes.

One thing I noticed was the use of a 6Hz binaural beat around the 12 minute mark.
I guess that's common these days.

What was interesting was some of the replicants did appear to have a True moral understanding,
and some did not.
The same applied to the humans.
 

Mari

Jedi Master
I think it was quite loooong and boring at some places, but

Turgon said:
During and after the movie I kept thinking about the implications of what the replicants represent. I'm gonna diverge a bit into the original, but in the first movie, Tyrell's motto was 'more human than human' and Rachel's character in the first movie was, I thought the most human character presented. By programming memories into her, giving her a history from which to pull from, buffered her emotions in a way that prevented her from rebelling in the way that Roy Batty and the others did. That scene struck me, and maybe to some degree answers part of the question brought up in the movie - and that one aspect that makes us human is having a rich emotional life filled with memories and experience from which to derive and learn from. In the sequel, the replicant's were starting to show signs of this, to strive and grow beyond their original programming in order to become more than what they were originally designed for, at least this seemed like what was happening with Ryan Gosling's character - and even his holographic girlfriend. It seemed in stark contrast to how Villeneuve depicts the human race, which becomes lost in the empty pleasures and reliance on technology, the consequence being, they lose their humanity along the way.

I´m signing this one :)
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
This new film reminded me of Star Wars, Rogue One:

All engineering, no spirit.

Materialism confused as to why it cannot recreate the poetry of the soul.

In Rogue One, the extreme focus on "Kyber Crystals" plundered from Jedi temples and necessary to build the Death Star apparently, is an example of relegating mysterious elements of the Force to a material resource which can be mined and manipulated with technology.

Similarly, Blade Runner 2049 worked like clockwork; unlike the first film, questions posed by the narrative were neatly answered, albeit subtly, through high-logic, non-threatening scientific thinking. However, though it clearly tried through analysis and precise effort, it failed to deliver the subtle lyrical qualities which made the original film resonate.

Witness that cringe-worthy scene where the blind Howard Hughes guy in charge of the whole replicant industry waxed Shakespearean through a trying-too-hard performance and kludge scripting, to appear crazy and gifted with insights from beyond regular human ken, (or some shite). -But only appeared as the product of a deeply materialist author trying to 'replicate' the poetic quality of the famous "Tears in rain" ad-lib performance delivered by Rutger Hauer's character in the original film. -Hauer reportedly came up with that himself on the spot after several takes where the scene just wasn't working. He reached deep and found something genuine and powerful. You can't write an algorithm for that.

Both of these new films felt vaguely like they had been scripted by vaccine damaged authors struggling with spectrum personality limitations. To be perfectly blunt.

As well...

I have a theory about why modern films can look so amazing, and yet seem to flow from the writing brains of hamsters:

Learning how to draw, paint or 3D sculpt, how to be an effective visual artist, is largely an objective task rooted in the material. That is, you can see it, and you can learn how to do it well without breaking any Official Culture rules. -Of course, the artist can privately check in with his or her soul to work out if an image is tickling the right senses, tweak it, and learn from that feedback loop, -so a spiritual component is by no means absent from the visual arts, but it is one which can be explored without risking public shame.

In contrast, to write well means you have to THINK well, you have to cleave to Objective Truth, fight for it, absorb Knowledge and Clean Your Machine. You cannot lie to yourself about what makes sense and what does not. -And in our current world, where the practice of seeking Truth is repressed and shamed at every turn, is it any wonder that writers are malnourished?

The most stirring quality of Blade Runner 2049 was also unintentional; that a film about replicants craving souls but not knowing how to get there was an apt reflection of the people who made it.
 
Top Bottom