|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 24, 2017 0:04:08 GMT
Nobody ever mentions that Gaff builds many other origami animals throughout the movie without them having any meaning. Why does the unicorn one necessarily mean that Gaff knew about Deckard's dreams? First, I disagree with them not having any meaning. Deckard is refusing to take the job at the beginning and Gaff makes a chicken. Not too subtle. Anyway a unicorn is a very specific thing to make out of the blue. Of all the animals or shapes to choose from, Gaff makes the mythical animal Deckard dreamed about and it's supposed to be a coincidence?
As I said earlier, that's an argument you can make. Nobody flat out says Deckard is a replicant so it's open for interpretation. To me it makes much more sense that adding the unicorn dream implies heavily that Deckard is indeed a replicant.
If Deckard is a replicant, why doesn't he have replicant strength in the first one? He is tracking down dangerous creatures with superhuman strength and it wasn't easy for him. In this new one, he is aged— what gives here—and yet he now appears to have more superhuman strength when he is fighting with K, when he first encounters him. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 24, 2017 0:11:58 GMT
First, I disagree with them not having any meaning. Deckard is refusing to take the job at the beginning and Gaff makes a chicken. Not too subtle. Anyway a unicorn is a very specific thing to make out of the blue. Of all the animals or shapes to choose from, Gaff makes the mythical animal Deckard dreamed about and it's supposed to be a coincidence?
As I said earlier, that's an argument you can make. Nobody flat out says Deckard is a replicant so it's open for interpretation. To me it makes much more sense that adding the unicorn dream implies heavily that Deckard is indeed a replicant.
If Deckard is a replicant, why doesn't he have replicant strength in the first one? He is tracking down dangerous creatures with superhuman strength and it wasn't easy for him. In this new one, he is aged— what gives here—and yet he now appears to have more superhuman strength when he is fighting with K, when he first encounters him. If he is he could be a nexus -7, like Rachael is now thought to be. Ridley Scott discusses this in the book Future Noir, but it isn't established fact in the canon by any means. Just speculation. They clearly have different characteristics from the nexus-6. If Rachael can give birth I think it's safe to say anything goes with that model.
I've only seen 2049 once and I don't remember Deckard displaying superhuman strength in that fight. He's slugging K to minimal effect and K eventually convinces him to have a conversation instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 24, 2017 0:43:00 GMT
If Deckard is a replicant, why doesn't he have replicant strength in the first one? He is tracking down dangerous creatures with superhuman strength and it wasn't easy for him. In this new one, he is aged— what gives here—and yet he now appears to have more superhuman strength when he is fighting with K, when he first encounters him. If he is he could be a nexus -7, like Rachael is now thought to be. Ridley Scott discusses this in the book Future Noir, but it isn't established fact in the canon by any means. Just speculation. They clearly have different characteristics from the nexus-6. If Rachael can give birth I think it's safe to say anything goes with that model.
I've only seen 2049 once and I don't remember Deckard displaying superhuman strength in that fight. He's slugging K to minimal effect and K eventually convinces him to have a conversation instead.
I need to see it again too. Deckard was an older dude, he aged like a human does, he then would have been no match at all for K. If he was designed as a replicant Blade Runner, wouldn't it make sense that he have similar strength? Why would they create a replicant like Deckard, that wasn't up to the task or job, that was required to match those that were dangerous? There are too many anomolies and inconsistencies abound, and Ridley Scott created much of this by tampering with the context of Deckard's character after the fact and it has become confused. His movie flopped, so he decided to take it down a slightly different route and has created too much fuss and stir. No resolution or analysis is ever going to be correct or hit the jackpot of the intention. By keeping it ambiguous, and if they want to make another, they can take it down any contrived route they want too. Even the Blade Runner universe is a strange one and inaccurate, because the original is depicting a world as of now and it isn't like this. It perhaps needed to be set in the early 22nd century. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 24, 2017 1:25:32 GMT
If he is he could be a nexus -7, like Rachael is now thought to be. Ridley Scott discusses this in the book Future Noir, but it isn't established fact in the canon by any means. Just speculation. They clearly have different characteristics from the nexus-6. If Rachael can give birth I think it's safe to say anything goes with that model.
I've only seen 2049 once and I don't remember Deckard displaying superhuman strength in that fight. He's slugging K to minimal effect and K eventually convinces him to have a conversation instead.
I need to see it again too. Deckard was an older dude, he aged like a human does, he then would have been no match at all for K. If he was designed as a replicant Blade Runner, wouldn't it make sense that he have similar strength? Why would they create a replicant like Deckard, that wasn't up to the task or job, that was required to match those that were dangerous? There are too many anomolies and inconsistencies abound, and Ridley Scott created much of this by tampering with the context of Deckard's character after the fact and it has become confused. His movie flopped, so he decided to take it down a slightly different route and has created too much fuss and stir. No resolution or analysis is ever going to be correct or hit the jackpot of the intention. By keeping it ambiguous, and if they want to make another, they can take it down any contrived route they want too. Even the Blade Runner universe is a strange one and inaccurate, because the original is depicting a world as of now and it isn't like this. It perhaps needed to be set in the early 22nd century. Sometimes movie makers assume that things will be sooooooo different in 30 years or so. The first "Time Machine" movie made in 1960 or so assumed that people would be wearing metallic material jumpsuits by 1966. They weren't. People aren't wearing these 51 years later either. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 24, 2017 1:46:48 GMT
...Even the Blade Runner universe is a strange one and inaccurate, because the original is depicting a world as of now and it isn't like this. It perhaps needed to be set in the early 22nd century. Sometimes movie makers assume that things will be sooooooo different in 30 years or so. The first "Time Machine" movie made in 1960 or so assumed that people would be wearing metallic material jumpsuits by 1966. They weren't. People aren't wearing these 51 years later either. It's kind of amusing, but it also spoils the reality of the BR universe, by being naive about what the future would look like so soon. Apparently, the novel was set in the early 90's. They made the film 10 yrs before this. Why would they only add on about 20 something yrs from the novel setting, when they only made it 10 yrs before the novel setting? They mustn't have had much hope for the future. I just watched the original theatrical trailer for Blade Runner and it is awful. It was perhaps intriguing at the time, but the trailer is overlong and poorly presented. It showed too much and not very well. They didn't promote it very well or appealingly. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 24, 2017 1:53:04 GMT
Sometimes movie makers assume that things will be sooooooo different in 30 years or so. The first "Time Machine" movie made in 1960 or so assumed that people would be wearing metallic material jumpsuits by 1966. They weren't. People aren't wearing these 51 years later either. It's kind of amusing, but it also spoils the reality of the BR universe, by being naive about what the future would look like so soon. Apparently, the novel was set in the early 90's. They made the film 10 yrs before this. Why would they only add on about 20 something yrs from the novel setting, when they only made it 10 yrs before the novel setting? They mustn't have had much hope for the future. I just watched the original theatrical trailer for Blade Runner and it is awful. It was perhaps intriguing at the time, but the trailer is overlong and poorly presented. It showed too much and not very well. They didn't promote it very well or appealingly. Yeah, the trailer wasn't very good - and it didn't sound like Harrison Ford doing the narrating, either. The film grew on people over time.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 24, 2017 2:29:48 GMT
Yeah, the trailer wasn't very good - and it didn't sound like Harrison Ford doing the narrating, either. The film grew on people over time. It was the intelligence and skill behind the production, and the existentialist themes that have resonated with time. It still looks freakin' awesome today, and just taken as an alternate universe without bringing dates into contention, it works marvellously. The film noir style, with 80's cinematic technology, dark science fiction themes and disturbing, almost poetic random violence, all blended beautifully. The new BR, pretty much kept the same package in alignment, with it's own futuristic spin. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 24, 2017 2:33:17 GMT
Yeah, the trailer wasn't very good - and it didn't sound like Harrison Ford doing the narrating, either. The film grew on people over time. It was the intelligence and skill behind the production, and the existentialist themes that have resonated with time. It still looks freakin' awesome today, and just taken as an alternate universe without bringing dates into contention, it works marvellously. The film noir style, with 80's cinematic technology, dark science fiction themes and disturbing, almost poetic random violence, all blended beautifully. The new BR, pretty much kept the same package in alignment, with it's own futuristic spin. Agreed! I'm very happy that I got to see Blade Runner 2049 when I did (because my usual theater in Jerusalem pushed it to late at night after only a week so I had to find another theater which happened to be IMAX in 3D). So it worked out great and I got to see it on a really big screen.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 24, 2017 7:24:24 GMT
It was the intelligence and skill behind the production, and the existentialist themes that have resonated with time. It still looks freakin' awesome today, and just taken as an alternate universe without bringing dates into contention, it works marvellously. The film noir style, with 80's cinematic technology, dark science fiction themes and disturbing, almost poetic random violence, all blended beautifully. The new BR, pretty much kept the same package in alignment, with it's own futuristic spin. Agreed! I'm very happy that I got to see Blade Runner 2049 when I did (because my usual theater in Jerusalem pushed it to late at night after only a week so I had to find another theater which happened to be IMAX in 3D). So it worked out great and I got to see it on a really big screen. I only got to see it in a smaller cinema unfortunately. It doesn't have long legs. Nice that you saw it in 3D IMAX |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 8:09:11 GMT
I need to see it again too. Deckard was an older dude, he aged like a human does, he then would have been no match at all for K. If he was designed as a replicant Blade Runner, wouldn't it make sense that he have similar strength? Why would they create a replicant like Deckard, that wasn't up to the task or job, that was required to match those that were dangerous? There are too many anomolies and inconsistencies abound, and Ridley Scott created much of this by tampering with the context of Deckard's character after the fact and it has become confused. His movie flopped, so he decided to take it down a slightly different route and has created too much fuss and stir. No resolution or analysis is ever going to be correct or hit the jackpot of the intention. By keeping it ambiguous, and if they want to make another, they can take it down any contrived route they want too. Even the Blade Runner universe is a strange one and inaccurate, because the original is depicting a world as of now and it isn't like this. It perhaps needed to be set in the early 22nd century. Sometimes movie makers assume that things will be sooooooo different in 30 years or so. The first "Time Machine" movie made in 1960 or so assumed that people would be wearing metallic material jumpsuits by 1966. They weren't. People aren't wearing these 51 years later either.
Apparently filmmakers prefer to pick a time fairly near at hand, it speaks more to the viewers imagination if a movie is set in a time period in the future that is near enough for the average viewer to be alive at that time.
Accuracy is irrelevant, sometimes thinking big makes it all more interesting. And if we look back at 'scientific' predictions, even outside movies we pretty much suck at predicting things 
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 8:58:52 GMT
I apologize if this matter has already emerged in this thread, but I did not want to risk reading any spoilers. Can someone tell me if the movie is worth seeing in 3D? Has anyone seen it in 3D and also without 3D?
|
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 9:05:19 GMT
I apologize if this matter has already emerged in this thread, but I did not want to risk reading any spoilers. Can someone tell me if the movie is worth seeing in 3D? Has anyone seen it in 3D and also without 3D? If it helps, Roger Deakins recommend NOT seeing the movie in 3D |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 9:18:54 GMT
I apologize if this matter has already emerged in this thread, but I did not want to risk reading any spoilers. Can someone tell me if the movie is worth seeing in 3D? Has anyone seen it in 3D and also without 3D? If it helps, Roger Deakins recommend NOT seeing the movie in 3D ... interesting, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 9:31:30 GMT
If it helps, Roger Deakins recommend NOT seeing the movie in 3D ... interesting, thanks. Problem is, in my country there's only the 3D option, even at IMAX |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 9:36:56 GMT
Problem is, in my country there's only the 3D option, even at IMAX Where are you? |
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 9:38:52 GMT
Problem is, in my country there's only the 3D option, even at IMAX Where are you? Romania |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 9:47:23 GMT
I guess that the studio feels that the film will sell better to "yokels" in "hinterland" markets with 3D, or maybe releasing two different versions is more expensive and the studio believes that the added expense will not be worthwhile in some overseas markets. But given the fact that the filmmakers shot the movie in 2D, and the cinematographer feels that that format works better for this film, yes, that lack of choice is most unfortunate. |
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 9:57:44 GMT
I guess that the studio feels that the film will sell better to "yokels" in "hinterland" markets with 3D, or maybe releasing two different versions is more expensive and the studio believes that the added expense will not be worthwhile in some overseas markets. But given the fact that the filmmakers shot the movie in 2D, and the cinematographer feels that that format works better for this film, yes, that lack of choice is most unfortunate. i'll surely enjoy it on blu-ray, the way it was meant to be seen. Just nost as big  Most movies are 3d and 2d in our country |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 10:01:11 GMT
I guess that the studio feels that the film will sell better to "yokels" in "hinterland" markets with 3D, or maybe releasing two different versions is more expensive and the studio believes that the added expense will not be worthwhile in some overseas markets. But given the fact that the filmmakers shot the movie in 2D, and the cinematographer feels that that format works better for this film, yes, that lack of choice is most unfortunate. i'll surely enjoy it on blu-ray, the way it was meant to be seen. Just nost as big Most movies are 3d and 2d in our country... which makes their choice of only 3D all the more curious. Maybe they are anticipating a lackluster box-office performance either way, so why bother with multiple formats? But I do not know. |
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 10:04:00 GMT
i'll surely enjoy it on blu-ray, the way it was meant to be seen. Just nost as big Most movies are 3d and 2d in our country... which makes their choice of only 3D all the more curious. Maybe they are anticipating a lackluster box-office performance either way, so why bother with multiple formats? But I do not know. Yeah, maybe they thought: not many people will see this movie, at least let's charge them extra for 3D. it has nothing to do with the distributor, it was the studio's decision |
|
Most movies are 3d and 2d in our country