Can't get this movie out of my head

Okay, either my eyesight's deteriorating or Hollywood's actually gotten over the uncanny valley, cause I was explicitly looking for flaws when CGI Sean Young showed up and I couldn't find any. CGI Peter Cushing and Carrie Ann Moss freaked me the fuck out though.

>CGI Peter Cushing and Carrie Ann Moss freaked me the fuck out though
Same
They could have easily rectified this by just showing his face in the reflection in the window where it was hard to make out the features, I would bet many people probably wouldn't have even known it was CGI, except for him being dead and all, if they didn't want to stop his face from being shown all together
Who thought that was a good idea

It wasn't bad CGI, just weirdly excessive nostalgia bait bringing back a not old Sean Young. I think the movie might have been even better if they had dropped Deckard/Rachel being the parents from the script and instead just written it with new characters because the callback fanservice was some of the worst parts of the movie

It was half an hour too long. The whole ending was drawn out unnecessarily for the sake of potentially setting up a sequel with the resistance angle.
Don't get me wrong, it was a worthy successor to the legacy of the original. And the aesthetics were spot on.

But Jared Leto was totally over the top and had ridiculous mumbo jumbo nonsense dialogue. Contrast with the affable and understated but deeply creepy Tyrell from the original.

I would cut most of the Jared Leto scenes to a minimum, and end the film with the final conflict playing out in Vegas between Love, K, etc. Skip the overdone endless sinking car scene and the stupid dying in the snow.

I liked a lot of the non-specific references to the original, the theme of artificial memories, the animal figurines. I agree that they pushed it too far to force Deckard and Rachel to be relevant.

Funny thing is, none of the cgi got me.

The only part of the entire film that made me go "wha" is the one cop, in the middle of a processing floor in a station, being a cock head and calling a bladerunner a freak with no provocation.

It is literally the only part of the movie that interrupted my experience. It was like watching a dm who had never experienced discrimination using it in one session to show how "aware" they are.

I couldn't tell if it was Jared Leto's performance or the script that was so bad in his scenes. I think maybe a little of column A and column B

It's his performance. How he would randomly change the INFLECTION of his WORDS...like ANGELS unto LAMBS.

His script could have been easily been very impressively done with the proper actor, delivering it in a calm, collected manner, perhaps from an older, bearded businessman type.

Honestly, it felt like the script. "Omg biblical themes are so deep". His lines are like something out of evangelion.

In all seriousness, something like buck rogers is more built for this then Shadowrun.

I ran a blade runner type game in GURPS

Blame Ridley Scott.

Yeah, i'll pay that. I think we can agree that it's awful for a few different reasons.

The part was written with Bowie in mind. Take that as you will

What cracks me up is how many different political takes people interpreted this movie as having. From the far left to the far right and everything in between seems to think this movie is speaking for them

>Carrie Ann Moss

The only political statement I got out of it was "creating soul-less human slave labor for profit is bad". And maybe "keep fucking around with global warming and you're going to have to eat worms for food".

It's almost as if art transcends petty political squabbling.

or that it's just not that profound to begin with

>or that it's just not that profound to begin with

I read it at the character being a gigantic tryhard, and for me it works.

...

Well there are overly political messages - late stage capitalism alienation, anti- elites, and anti-corporate mostly. The tricky part is, is that the Right and Left (at least in Murrica) both see it as being critique of the other.

Leftist think the elites are all stiff upper lip Republican country club douchebags while the Right sees the elites as being over sensitive lefty pussies who live in Silicon Valley. Both sides are riding on huge waves of populism so they see liberal institutions as being compromised by the other side. Everyone hates big business in America now except for centrist types like Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

I could see people from both the left and right taking something away from this movie to be honest. Reminds me of Get Out which did really well in the American south because it was interpreted by Republican leaning audiences as a "fuck you" to democrats

It's Leto portraying a rich insane creep. So himself, basically

Where's the politics though? It's about one guy and what it means to be human, not society.

It certainly has a lot about society, but its on a philosophical level. There's the police lady who fears the machine being more human than human, the replicant resistance who want to be real boys and girls, and then Jared Leto who has a pregnancy fetish. Well, he explains it as humanity needing a never ending supply of slaves to fuel human expansion and growth, but he's easily the worst written part of the movie. Not really sure why he needs the kid when he doesn't know if the kid even received the ability to procreate too, and why bother since he has Rachael's DNA from her remains. Maybe that information happens to be fucked up along with the eye color?

It poses the kinds of questions that can translate well into books and even games. Hell, I'm reinstalling Deus Ex as we speak. Not so much tabletops, sadly. It never seems to matter how profound you try to make your campaign, especially once the murder hoboing begins. Something to be said about video game railroading where ultimately you have to uncover the conspiracy to progress.

Plus K's story was pretty damn bleak. Not even talking about how it ended for him, just his finding out he's not The Special, he'll never be a real boy, his holo-girlfriend is a fraud who was holding him back, and all he has left is falling back on serving humanity by saving Decker and helping him find his regain his chance at happiness which K will never have.

I cried A LOT when he gave the horse to Decker. Then I had to explain why the ending was sad to my sister

Something not having a definite, clear meaning does not mean it isn't "deep". In fact, authorial intent has been regarded as irrelevant in literary analysis for decades

>author's intent means squat

Why is that? Do you think that applies in all cases or just some?

The idea is essentially that anything you can substantiate with the content of the work itself is fair game regardless of what the writer intended. I think it's a pretty good concept. The author's intent may be useful to get another view on the work, but it isn't authoritative.

You can see it at play in this very board whenever there is a Monster Girl Encyclopedia thread and neckbeards begin killing each other over the setting being grimdark or not.

I felt worse for him when he saw the giant Joi billboard. She was so compassionate and loving, the first relationship we saw where he tried to express basic humanity, only to see a reminder flashing in giant neon letters that she's everything you want to hear, everything you want to see. Of course she was supportive, she's programmed to be exactly that, and she actively (unwittingly) interfered with his investigation by trying to convince him that he was the replicant born of a replicant, and thus by his own definition had a soul. It should have occurred to him much earlier on who could falsify a memory, but he only figured that out when he finally had to accept he wasn't the child.

Poor bastard. Joi was literally his only joy, but she was a lie. All he had left was either serving the replicants and doing what they wanted, or falling back on serving humanity, which he arguably did by trying to restore Decker's last chance at his own joy.

I just wish it said something about the larger nature of replicants. At least with Roy Batty people can argue whether he reverted at the last to serve a human and save Decker or if his craving of life lead him to choose that his last act be saving a life instead of taking it. K just seems to meekly accept that he'll never have a happy ending so someone might as well have one. There's no sense that he was acting in a larger capacity than his programming, no sense of autonomy achieved when he basically serves as a facilitator for someone else. Unlike Roy he doesn't seem to be trying to prove anything about himself.

Gets a bit spoiled with the question of whether Decker is himself a replicant or not.

I'm angry that this bot thinks I'd be caught dead in a Kia Rio, even if it was to bang that chick in the backseat.

I think the point of the movie is that you don't need to be born special to be special if that makes any sense. K thought he was just a worthless automaton then was obsessed with discovering whether he was something more than that and then the soul crushing realisation that he wasn't Deckard's son - but it doesn't matter because despite this he manages to do something special by reuniting Deckard and his daughter of his own free will

Maybe I need to see the movie again but the message I took away from it is that we're all the "heroes" of our own stories and doesn't really matter how big or small and that individuality can be retained despite our late capitalist society

That's the weirdest part about the new Bladerunner. Parts of it had so many great moments to think about the human condition, specifically about nature of actualization, but then other parts of it had some of the most stupid lines I've seen from a movie in at least a fucking decade.

>With this... new ANGEL I and MY children will take OVER heaven it... self
>shoots replicant
>looks at assistant
>DID YOU CATCH MY BIBLICAL REFERENCE YET?

>"You... Do nOT yEt KNoW paIn... BUt yOu WiLl!"

Jared Leto just fucking sucks, what do you want to bet he demanded for all that retarded shit to be in there?

I'd be willing to concede that Joi, taken out of her to-that-point usual environment for the first time, grew when exposed to a larger world. This could be symbolized by her adapting to her first exposure to rain, essentially letting that outside factor into her narrow world as her hologram visualized being rained on. This would then be thematically echoed with K in the snow and his fascination with touching it as Joi was with rain.

May seem too pat, though, that Joi's program could become more human itself because she's adapting to K's desire to be human, however I do like the wider implications that everything intelligent strives to be alive, even if that wasn't its intention. The replicants especially so being sentient. The corps try to control them by limiting what they are allowed to do and retard their sense of self, but any sentient learning system should arguably be capable of growth regardless of what roadblocks their engineers try to put in their path.

I think a big part of it was the lighting.

Pixar Tarken and Dreamworks Leia looked so fucking jarring and weird because they only showed up in sterile, well-lit rooms. Especially with Leia, because the Tantive IV is basically an Apple store in terms of lighting and design.

But CGI Rachel showed up in that weird, dark room where there was just kind of a yellow glow coming up from the floor. She looked more natural against that kind of backdrop. If she was in one of the better lit scenes it probably would've showed.

I loved the idea behind Leto's character but the character could have been offscreen with no cringy monologues and the entire story would be unchanged.

When I first saw him in the short prequel films I was pretty excited that we had such a cool looking bad guy but fuck me did they waste a cool looking character by just making him an edgelord.

I don't know. He felt like such a cliche mustache twirling villain that he really appeared out of place.

Hell, I'm not even sure he was human himself. Tempting headcanon that he actually has proxies of himself throughout the colonies, his consciousness spread thin, so he's become increasingly goofy. Probably because it's a nice thematic mirror to the replicants. Can artificial beings hope to become human? Can a human augment himself to the point where he becomes less than human?

think about that scene in the context of the scene with rachel and deckard that precedes (or maybe follows, i dont remember exactly) it. they're both told their connection may have been manipulated and planned, and confronted with a false duplicate of the person they loved. k's reaction is unspoken, but deckard clearly spells it out, the connection they felt and the feeling itself was real and that's all that matters. it can't be replaced by a simulacrum or diminished by the implication of 'falseness'.

then if that wasn't enough it ends with K, the 'fake' manufactured replicant, experiencing the real snowfall while the 'real' daughter stands in the holographic snow

I liked the sinking car scene because it reminded me of Drive but I agree that it was too long, especially in comparison.

It still runs afoul of the billboard and K specifically looking at the message. His feelings for Joi could have been genuine, sure, but that doesn't mean she wasn't still a lie, that Jois are designed to tailor their behavior to their owner.

No matter how it is compared to Decker's reaction to the clone of Rachael I just do not get any sense that K was feeling anything other than soul crushing realization that everything he hoped and dreamed and longed for was hollow. Of course it isn't helped by the fact that replicants are biological and Joi wasn't. Even Decker, who word of god has as a repilcant, and Rachael are unique in that they were both raised as real. With Rachael the specific intent was that thinking she was real would make her more real, she was the exact opposite of what Tyrell wanted for his main product as he wanted her to have a framework for emotional stability, whereas the others were self-generating emotions and rebelling.

Only Ridley Scott's cocaine addled brain says Deckard is a replicant and literally nobody else including the guy who wrote the screenplay says he is a replicant. The story doesn't even really make sense if he is a replicant since there's no meaningful arc really. A contract killer of machines manages to fall in love with one etc etc

Ridley Scott is just a dipshit who doesn't know what he's talking about. He didn't write the script

Ridley Scott can create fantastic visual narratives but fucking keep him away from the script. I bet if you needle him he'll tell you the Delta Force guys in Black Hawk Down were all literal angels or something stupid like that.

>decker

Would it really destroy that, or would it actually prove it? If he's a replicant he proves what they are capable of when they don't have artificial limiters to their personality. It's really no different than Rachael learning she was never a human and running off. In that regard it doesn't matter WHAT Decker is, and the movie even gains from any ambiguity about what he is as it fuels debate. And there has been a debate for decades regardless of Scott, so it is hardly just him.

Hey, do you want to keep this conversation at least minimally Veeky Forums instead of just discussing a movie? Shadowrun camo, son, nobody will be the wiser!

I've been waiting for someone to complain about it and I'm surprised it took this long

nah its all clearly there in his actions. he eschews the people he has tangible common ground with (the resistance) in favor of helping the man he felt an emotional connection with despite that connection being predicated on something false and manufactured.

also the symbolic use of bees and flowers with rachel and decker is as clear a hint that he's human as can be

>decker
ah goddammit now you got me doing it accidentally

First time I did it as a legit accident, afterward I kept it up because I thought it was funny. The kind of funny that is only funny at five thirty in the morning, I guess.

>He still thinks Deckard/Rachel were the parents
oh wew

You could argue, again, that he accepted he wasn't a real boy after all. Falling back on just being a replicant he couldn't very well just serve other replicants, but he could fall back on serving a human. It's what he was built for, after all.

If memory serves they aren't the same kind of replicants at all. The rebels were Nexus 6, K is the newest model that isn't supposed to be able to rebel. He could perhaps push himself towards independence if he thought he was real. In his own words only a creature born from a mother has a soul, and he had to admit that wasn't him. Without the belief he was special pushing him could he still be more than just a replicant?

At any rate I'm sure there IS no definitive answer, nor do I think there should be. What you make of it is the point. This kind of cinema is supposed to make you think and debate, after all.

>Rachel
Okay now this is getting silly.

Of course it was Gaff who was the daddy. Who else would give his child an animal figure? And not just paper, oh no, actual unpulped wood, because that's how much he loves his little abomination unto man and god.

>DNA from the remains
And you still think the bones were the mother's

This, it basically comes down to slavery is bad and will fuck the slavers themselves over eventually.

Because the entire point of Bladerunner was to pose the question; Who is more human? The human who robotically kill aritificial beings because he was told to? Or the replicants who grasp every moment to live instead of dying as planned? That a killing machine chose to save his pursuer is more human than a bladerunner. Deckard being replicant just makes the movie about a robot killing other robots before turning into a real boi.

Of course not! Rachael was the father. Tyrell likes to make his chicks with dicks, after all. Beauty and the beast (in her pants).

Just because you can pose a single question does not mean there is only one answer, user.

Besides, you're completely overlooking the curious philosophical implications of one machine left free to be a real human, insofar as he knows, who ends up ironically becoming less human than someone who always knew he was a replicant yet strove to be more. The suggestion that their real world wears down the human soul. The city was just a big machine and the people merely cogs. Who was the real robot all along?

>his holo-girlfriend is a fraud who was holding him back
Take that back asshole she was as real as her limited faculties allowed

The phone.

...

>just a replicant
the point of both films is that they aren't 'just' anything any more than a human is. the born/not born distinction is nonsensical by design, a bit of philosophical handwaving to cope woth the job. shit, not even his boss really believes it.

>I just do not get any sense that K was feeling anything other than soul crushing realization that everything he hoped and dreamed and longed for was hollow
That's like the opposite of the feeling I got. He just realized that he's not the chosen one and decided to do good just because, to help at least one person (the resistance didn't need any help and knew where the child is all along).
Also, Joi was as real as she could get, what with her request to break the transmitter

Why does it hurt so when people say Joi was only programmed to 'love' K? Can't that be pure and genuine at least?

This. The movies hammer as hard as it's possible that there's no real difference between humans and replicants, at least with regards to their minds

Is her request her real wish or just her doing whatever is necessary to fulfill what he really wants?

Sure it was pure and genuine, but that doesn't mean it was human. In the same way you could have your phone play the phrase, "I love you." She's literally designed to say and be whatever she thinks you want. But can you want your holo-waifu to be so real that she becomes real, or is she just really good at simulating it? Or are you just fooling yourself?

We may never know.

Batista and the one eyed lady were Nexus 8s, Mariette seems younger so she could be a 9 but theres no evidence one way or the other. Wallace's talk about the 9s not being able to rebel is marketing exaggeration anyway, both 9s we see in the film disobey orders. They seem to simply be conditioned to defer to authority, which, combined with frequent testing, keeps the risk low.

She isn't telepathic, and he asked her to reconsider. Also, if she wasn't at least partially sentient, her programming wouldn't allow for such an action

Movie didn't impress me at all. It's just worse GitS.

Why would you think she has to be telepathic when all it would take is a sufficient algorithm used to gauge what her owner wants? It makes sense that as a product she wouldn't be required to be told what you want to hear and see, her programming can extrapolate that so her interaction appears more genuine when really she's just a more sophisticated chatbot. She's literally sold on the illusion that she's real and everything you want, after all. If you had to define parameters for everything it defeats the illusion.

You need more brouzouf

>Also, Joi was as real as she could get, what with her request to break the transmitter

Reminder that the dude who married a chatbot in the '90s had a "falling out" with his waifu who then "agreed" to have her memory wiped so they could start fresh

Can you be human, if you aren't given a choice? Can a replicant, or AI designed to love be human?

Can non-human love be true, or at most like that from say, a dog?

1. You waifufaggin hard
2. They're missing the film's overt subtext

The GitS movie is overrated. The rest of the franchise is better.

the film at least posits that it can, what with the explicit comparison between ai code and human biological programming

you always need more brouzouf

remember to don't make waves

They were supposed to be the older models, the last that could rebel. Not sure it is strictly marketing when the future of the corporation requires NOT duplicating Tyrell's mistakes. If the 9s start acting up they could be in some deep shit.

That said, Luv said she was going to lie to Wallace about committing murder. Is she capable of rebelling? Was it really rebelling when she was still loyal to him and merely doing what she felt was best? Or is possible she's not as constrained as K's models are supposed to be. Tyrell had Rachael, after all, and Wallace seems to enjoy tinkering with new versions. Heaven help them if they don't meet with his approval.

Why are people obsessing so much about being or not being a human

bring a motorcycle to the table and rev it loudly whenever the gm is describing a new area

Yes, and I was talking about the 1995 movie in my comment. There's something missing in both blade runner and gits movie, something that's well present in Standalone Complex

>Was it really rebelling
>mocks Joshi for thinking they can never disobey, describes exactly how she's going to disobey
hmm im not sure

It was so damn overt with the billboard I couldn't even call it subtext. It was literally just them flashing text in bright neon at the audience. Still I've read so many reviews that gush about how sad he was in that scene and claim his realization was that he could have as many new Jois as he wanted but never have his Joi back.

Personally I feel the movie wanted to hammer home that Joi was a complete lie, however the fact that people still cling to how genuine the relationship felt proves how effective a real world Joi would be.

Seriously, she was made for Veeky Forums. Well, as long as you could customizer her appearance into anime.

>Roar of the big machine

LOVE LOST
FIRE AT WILL

>Ford is a mummifiex corpse at this point with no charisma left
Nah, Ford still had Charisma in this movie unlike everything else he's made in the last 20 years. He's just put in bad scenes outside those with Gosling (and even then the punching bit in the theatre was bad) having to hang around with Jared Leto, psycho bitch and CGI woman.
Everything else is on point though. This is a movie about K's character arc with everything else not related to it being unecessary cruft that's in there solely for sequelbait purposes.

Anyone on Veeky Forums should go and see it really.
It's basically "modern male's identity crisis and complete alienation from woman and society at large: the movie (comes with complementary virtual waifu!*)".
Doesn't hurt that basically any interaction with real women in the movie come down to: A) Them demanding unreasonable shit from him and B) him rejecting their shit to do his own will. This is probably the least ego-masturbatory-for-women movie hollywood has ever put out.

*Disclaimer: May or May not be a Slut. (Just like you're waifu)

the irony is palpable

Frankly, everything in this movie to do with Joi was creepy as shit. Basically, the only moment she didn't feel to me like a horrid digital doll was right before she was destroyed

She only said she was going to lie about why she killed, user. It's entirely possible that cleaning up loose ends, in her programming, is a better fulfillment of her orders than leaving Joshi alive. How could that possibly be disloyal? She's actually so loyal she does what you need her to do over what you may explicitly tell her to do. No greater loyalty.