[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / polk / rwby / sonyeon / thg ]

/startrek/ - Star Trek

The Final Frontier
Winner of the 15th Attention-Hungry Games
/leftyweebpol/ - Anime girls against capitalism!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 1 per post.


File: 10108a34e6cb88a⋯.jpg (575 KB, 1920x1195, 384:239, blade_runner_2049.jpg)

ae35c5 No.932

Hotpocket Edit: Uncensored spoilers.

/brg/

Cerebral Discussion Edition

Post last edited at

ae35c5 No.933

File: bab4fd0a1ffa3df⋯.jpg (59.97 KB, 666x1000, 333:500, sylvia-hoeks_blade-runner-….jpg)

I only got around to seeing the movie today. I had been trying to dodge headlines and spoilers for the past week, but from what I had seen my expectations were low, so I wasn't thoroughly disappointed. Though, I think in hindsight, my initial acceptance of it was misplaced. There's a lot that just doesn't shoehorn well with the original.

Tyrell was a complex but likable character with a chippy attitude, but he wasn't above spending time playing chess or engaging in philosophical debate with J.F. Sebastian. Tyrell treated his replicants like dependents, and outside of his obligation to enforce laws regarding replicants, didn't really appear to hold a personal grudge even against Roy Batty, and rather attempted to address him in a logical, father-like appeal when confronted by him.

Wallace on the other hand murders his own replicants fresh out the bag, threatens to torture, and executes in cold blood. The same goes for his replicant assistant, Luv, that in some ways resembles Rachel, and suitably may reflect Wallace's own characteristics as much as Rachel embodied Tyrell's. Luv is a cold blooded killing bitch, and even to the last moment, doesn't appear to find any fault with herself or reflect on her own behavior, unlike Roy Batty in his last moments. I'd question if Roy was even a psychopath, they were merely children in age and autistic in their emotional response, Roy finds his humanity in his last moments and even perhaps regrets not finding a less violent path to enlightenment.

Wallace and Luv violate so many of the ideals of the first film, I just wanted to start with that… then there's fucking Deckard. I still can't make up my mind whether he's a replicant or not, it's like this time they did the complete opposite, provide evidence that he is - but drop just enough subtly to suggest that he's not.


ae35c5 No.934

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

There were three shorts produced and released in the past month as teasers and promotion for Blade Runner 2049. I only found them today after finally breaking my self imposed embargo on learning too much about the film before seeing it. Two are live action shorts, and the third that was released last (I think) but takes place first, chronologically, is a 13-minute anime written and directed by Shinichirō Watanabe (Cowboy Bebop and Samurai Champloo) who also wrote and directed two of the segments for the Wachowskis sisters' The Animatrix (2003).

This short is actually kind of critical to understanding the circumstances of the film, as it explains the details of the "blackout."


ae35c5 No.935

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

2036: Nexus Dawn is the second, chronologically, of the three shorts and features Jared Leto as Wallace demonstrating his newest line of replicants. Wallace's demonstration of what I presume to be a Nexus 8 explains why Luv's replicant is such a cold blooded killer compared to her previous generations counterparts, that there's a deep rooted command mechanism which forces Nexus 8's to obey their owner even to the extreme of taking its own life.

The ambiguity of the movie, combined with the blackout, and the fact the movie skips mention of the Nexus 7, leads one to presume that all the Nexus 6 died off long ago due to their artificial lifespan and that the Nexus 7's like Rachel had no artificial lifespan, for which all the records are lost, are the models in the movie leading a revolt or rebellion? The Nexus 8 is the new rebellion proof model, robbed of freewill at birth, and thus in actuality, a downgrade.


ae35c5 No.936

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

2048: Nowhere to Run is the third and features Dave Bautista as Sapper on a trip to the city to peddle some of his farm raised baby snakes to the "Sultan" - presumably the heir to the shop of Abdul Ben Hassan, the snake merchant Deckard deals with in the first movie. Sapper runs into a bit of trouble though, and ends up murdering a few people, which puts him on the radar of Joe at the beginning of the 2049.


607695 No.937

File: 030321d7b00247f⋯.png (463.31 KB, 1440x592, 90:37, blade-runner-2049__ana-de-….png)

>ywn have a waifu as devoted as Joi

Why live?


ae35c5 No.943

File: 40bb6ffc462a90d⋯.jpg (357.55 KB, 1800x1210, 180:121, blade-runner-2049-mit-ryan….jpg)

>>937

She's incredibly sexy, perfect, never hormonal, flawless, ageless, can be projected onto any 3d hooker at any time for physical love making, meanwhile the "pleasure models" just get old so why not?

On a serious note, not sure how to feel about Joi's AI. Blade Runner is set in a world where all the focus has been on development of replicant's with brains modeled after human synapses, so having parallel development of AI as advanced as Joi's doesn't seem as plausible, I suppose the Japanese did it because no one would let them build catwomen replicants, so they still go with interactive anime waifus with AI.


c24f5f No.946

>>943

>On a serious note, not sure how to feel about Joi's AI. Blade Runner is set in a world where all the focus has been on development of replicant's with brains modeled after human synapses, so having parallel development of AI as advanced as Joi's doesn't seem as plausible

All you need to do is find a thread on 8ch full of "mai waifu" and "2D>3D" comments. There are plenty of guys who want love and affection but can't stand the bullshit that comes with it (and I'm not a MGTOW, but if I had it to do all over again, I probably would be just to avoid my 2nd and 3rd girlfriends who were bat-shit insane). For one thing, you can turn Joi off when she's getting on your nerves, vs. having to sit there and listen to a human or a replicant natter on about how you're an insensitive prick because you forgot the third anniversary of the first time you had ice cream together.


c24f5f No.947

File: e22c5c472aebb64⋯.jpg (42.13 KB, 500x329, 500:329, Roy-blade-runner-31051286-….jpg)

>>932

Out of curiosity, did you make this thread to test me or did you just take me at my word that I wouldn't sperg-out over non-Trek posts?


aaf162 No.948

File: d5de590a69d0d7e⋯.jpg (166.11 KB, 1600x800, 2:1, blade-runner-2049-mit-ryan….jpg)

>>946

>All you need to do is find a thread on 8ch full of "mai waifu" and "2D>3D" comments.

Not questioning the need, I'd love one myself, but the resources involved in developing two parallel branches of AI, mostly given since Luv suggests Joi is also a product of the Wallace corporation. AI so powerful yet relatively compact it can fit on a USB stick.

>>947

>Out of curiosity, did you make this thread to test me or did you just take me at my word that I wouldn't sperg-out over non-Trek posts?

No other board could treat the subject with the respect and depth of thought required to philosophically dissect the movie, the movies aren't popular enough to support a board of their own, but I'd not be opposed to starting up a /scifi/ general board for this sort of stuff if their was the interest, but I think /startrek/ should be open to discussing alternate scifi or equal or superior breadth to Star Trek.

>>935

>The ambiguity of the movie, combined with the blackout, and the fact the movie skips mention of the Nexus 7, leads one to presume that all the Nexus 6 died off long ago due to their artificial lifespan and that the Nexus 7's like Rachel had no artificial lifespan, for which all the records are lost, are the models in the movie leading a revolt or rebellion? The Nexus 8 is the new rebellion proof model, robbed of freewill at birth, and thus in actuality, a downgrade.

After giving this some additional thought, I'm not sure it fits the pattern either. The "pleasure model" prostitutes featured in the scene approaching Joe and one played by McKenzie Davis that eventually has the threesome projection with Joi and Joe are young, suggesting they are Nexus 8, unless the replicant aging process is slower or can be controlled at a slower rate, but the working girls' madame appears older like Nexus 7. Joe by age, must also be presumed to be Nexus 8. The presence of the memory implant artist's (replicant child) dream of the wooden horse in these models also suggest they were recently manufactured.


c24f5f No.957

>>948

>No other board could treat the subject with the respect and depth of thought required to philosophically dissect the movie, the movies aren't popular enough to support a board of their own

Just checking.

>but I think /startrek/ should be open to discussing alternate scifi or equal or superior breadth to Star Trek.

Couldn't agree more. My one request would be to keep each of them to their own generals to save room in the catalog.

>the resources involved in developing two parallel branches of AI, mostly given since Luv suggests Joi is also a product of the Wallace corporation. AI so powerful yet relatively compact it can fit on a USB stick.

The starships and androids require AI, so it's still a profitable venture. Plus, don't the replicants themselves require AI? I've never been totally sure how certain things in Blade Runner work, but I've always thought of the replicants as some sort of organic robots.

Saw it last night in Imax. Not sure if that made a big difference, but the friggin' subwoofers made my kidneys vibrate.

Was Sean Young actually there, or was that the most uncanny valley shit I've ever seen? My friend says it's actually her with some digital smoothing, but I think she's just in the credits because they used her likeness and voice.

By the way, are we all on the same page in regards to Blade Runner, Alien, and Predator being the same universe?

>http://archive.is/JLZ8r


36e17c No.958

>>943

Remember that Prometheus takes place in the same universe as Blade Runner.


c24f5f No.959

>>958

We are now Hivemind.


aaf162 No.960

File: aa0c935a97fbd7e⋯.jpg (6.36 MB, 4400x2750, 8:5, bladerunner2049joi.jpg)

>>957

>By the way, are we all on the same page in regards to Blade Runner, Alien, and Predator being the same universe?

It's certainly more fun if you want to accept that theory.

>>957

>Saw it last night in Imax. Not sure if that made a big difference, but the friggin' subwoofers made my kidneys vibrate.

I went to a premium screen that I frequent, but the experience was a little below par. There was some edge of drape of something in the booth making the farmost left border blurry, the projector was occasionally throwing up some corrupted pixels for a frame or two at time every couple of minutes. The sound level in the theater is usually extremely loud, but maybe combined with the mix levels of the soundtrack of this movie, extremely deafening to the point of potential hearing loss after 3 hours. I noticed one speaker on the middle right of the theater was probably blown, as it had that blown speaker wobble during certain sound effects, the spinner cars particularly.

I figure it's not much use to complain, most of the employees are /tv/ poster age, and the managers are just those that haven't moved on to real jobs. I imagine in the digital age, maybe someone comes in and sets up the projector at the start of each new feature run, but since the movie's been out for 10 days, basically nobody of any technical expertise has even stepped into the both, everything is automated and centrally managed over the Internet for authorized playback time of the DCP files.

Beautiful film on a large screen though, they used Arriraw 3.4K cameras for capture, and mastered and rendered all special effects at 3.4K and output to a 4K DCP master. You'll only get the benefit of the 4K in a 2D screening though, due to the DCP 3D format standards, 3D is limited to 2K. IMAX 3D has it's own mastering process separate from the standard 3D processes though, and I think those do use the 4K source files, iirc.

Also, the film was mastered in the "open gate" using the full 4:3 sensor of the Arriraw camera, so the "real IMAX" screens, not "lieMAX", can open up the 2.40 standard cinemascope aspect ratio with additional picture information above and below the center portion extracted for the wide releases. True IMAX screens have a screen aspect ratio of 1.43, for which I'm kind of dying now to make the two-hour drive to get to the real IMAX to see this a second time.

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/post-the-di/blade-runner-2049-4k-vfx-usage/


c24f5f No.965

>>960

>It's certainly more fun if you want to accept that theory.

It's not really a theory at this point.

>Prometheus and Blade Runner share a universe

>Prometheus and Alien share a universe

>Alien and Predator share a universe

That means we desperately need to see a movie where several Blade Runners are pulled off replicant-hunting duty in order to find the serial killers that seem to be destroying a huge chunk of LA's population.

>True IMAX screens have a screen aspect ratio of 1.43, for which I'm kind of dying now to make the two-hour drive to get to the real IMAX to see this a second time.

It was pretty good, to be honest. Especially the scenes with the women in close-up. Their eyes were amazing.


aaf162 No.966

File: e8025676994cd64⋯.jpg (35.11 KB, 500x1208, 125:302, film-formats.jpg)

>>965

>It was pretty good, to be honest. Especially the scenes with the women in close-up. Their eyes were amazing.

Last one I went to was a 15/70mm IMAX film projection for Dunkirk, while people pan the movie, the cinematography was absolutely amazing.

Also saw The Hateful Eight 70mm Ultra Panavision roadshow presentation, real film looks so damn much better.

Typical digital projection experience just sucks balls, not much better than just watching the movie at home on my plasma.


c24f5f No.968

>>966

>while people pan the movie

I have no idea why. It was pretty amazing.


fc6767 No.969

File: f32e428336e043f⋯.png (209.33 KB, 756x320, 189:80, 2.PNG)

>>968

who panned dunkirk?


c24f5f No.975

>>969

Beats me. I'm going by what >>966 said.


053946 No.977

>>969

I remember some sjws complaining that there weren't enough blacks or that there were too many men and there was toxic masculinity or some bullshit.


aaf162 No.979

>>969

>who panned dunkirk?

The problem with rotten tomatoes showing 92% critic score is that it's a raw count of reviews, and takes no consideration to weighing larger media outlets reviews which are going to get many more hits than the smaller sites. Most of those 27 rotten reviews come from large media outlets.


aaf162 No.980


32239b No.981

>>933

Personally I believe that these characteristics for Luv and Wallace are intentional and self-reflexive, having to do with the fact that the film is aware that it is a sequel with "nostalgia value" but is actively resistant to it.

2049 is a movie relishes in not being Jurassic World or TFA. In many ways it is anti-nostalgia, bringing in "classic" bits of Blade Runner specifically to subvert or outright destroy them, literally in the case of Deckard's old car. Or the "her eyes were green" bit.

The fight in the busted holo-theatre is in many representative of the self-critical elements: the theatre is an attempt to relive old moments but everything we could use to recreate them is broken or decayed, and simply not the same.

The fact that Luv turns out to be the most brutal character is made hidden to the viewer at first by presenting her as a Rachel analogue at the start. Unlike, say, a Jurassic Park fan being able to know beat-for-beat what will happen in Jurassic World, 2049 actively uses your understanding of the original Blade Runner against you.

The same goes for Wallace. Tyrell was a character who was only symbolically presented as a God analogue; the movie treats him as the man of great power, but Tyrell never acts as such himself. Wallace, meanwhile, now in Tyrell's shoes, is someone who brings in God allegories in HIS OWN speech, when talking about HIMSELF. And his attempt to actively emulate that is what turns him into such an openly villainous character compared to Tyrell. It's as if Wallace was a person who watched the first Blade Runner movie, and then walked through the screen to replace him, only he's trying and failing to emulate the DIRECTOR'S whole vision of Tyrell, rather than simply accepting the actor's chippy portrayal of him. The fact that the story revolves around something that Tyrell was able to create and Wallace is still incapable of also heavily stresses that Wallace is still an incomplete reiteration of Tyrell in the original movie.


aaf162 No.982

>>981

>Or the "her eyes were green" bit.

I'm not even sure they were unless it was a subtle dig at the color grading of The Final Cut compared to the other versions.

The one big difference between this film and the original is in the first, some of the story is told from the perspective of the fugitive replicants. I wish they would have had a few more scenes of Joe pursuing other replicants, perhaps the hookers and their madame, as they never really introduce that character in the film, she just seemingly appears out of nowhere and inserts herself into the narrative, which perhaps means there are deleted scenes or plot arc cut for runtime that might be on the blu-ray. If Joe had tracked her down and then there was some philosophical conversion for him to join the replicant rebellion, and reveal the you're not the one… I think that would have worked better.

Those guys Juv blows up a missle satellite for instance, we're they protecting the orphanage, are they just scavengers? We're they replicants on the run or humans? I wouldn't mind a full length anime feature to just to explain this world a bit more if live action sequel is out of the question.


c24f5f No.986

>>982

>I'm not even sure they were unless it was a subtle dig at the color grading of The Final Cut compared to the other versions.

I just thought it was his way of telling Wallace to fuck off. Like "You think you hurt me, but getting this crucial detail wrong means you have no hold on me… you bastard." Her eyes, as near as I can determine, are brown in the original.

I'm going to edit the OP to state there are spoilers in this thread for anyone who hasn't seen it.

Edit: Done

Post last edited at

aaf162 No.990

File: 02eeecd69d88eb2⋯.jpg (27.85 KB, 786x393, 2:1, Rachael-and-Deckard-in-Bla….jpg)

I wanted to be able to see this one more time on a premium screen before it got kicked off the marquee and relegated to the shit screens. Looked at the show times for thursday afternoon, and low and behold, only one mid-afternoon showing remained of Blade Runner on the nearest lIeMAX screen, so I squeezed it into my schedule, still a 75-minute drive each way.

From what I read there was no additional benefit to driving an additional extra hour to the real IMAX, the version show in all IMAX venues is 1.9 aspect ratio, which they claimed shows 26% more picture, but that's not 100% true either.

My initial viewing on tuesday was the 4K "cinemascope" version (2.40 aspect ratio) at a premium "Dolby Atmos" theater, unfortunately that experience was less than stellar. The "Dolby Atmos" sound system sounded like everything was turned up to 110% on the volume, the entire theater shook from bass the entire time, the seats felt personal massage chairs. When the movie was quiet and the screen still, the 4K DCP was clearly better; unfortunately, the constant bass vibrated the screen much of the time blurring the image. The small sounds did not sound immersive at all, everything was very front and side loaded and all the small effects and dialogue often got drowned out in an over bellow of bass.

The IMAX theater provided a much superior overall experience, the projector/screen combination produced much deeper and vivid colors and the audio levels were well balanced, providing a true three-dimensional immersive environment, the rain effects were incredible and most of the dialogue was easily distinguishable. Standard digital IMAX theaters use two overlapping 2K projectors with a slight offset to produce a resolution similar to 2.9K (they claim), so the IMAX version was technically lower resolution, but the quality of the projectors, brightness, color depth, reflective properties of the screen, and stability (not vibrating from high bass) all equated to a far superior experience. IMAX also uses uncompressed audio sources, though, I'm questioning if the IMAX version didn't have an entirely different sound mix because of the almost absolute absence of bass compared to the Dolby theater.

Now to the differences between the two versions, the IMAX claim that the movie was opened up was somewhat deceptive. Many of the exterior and landscape scenes did appear to live up to this claim, utilizing the full horizontal width of the cinemascope version (2.40 aspect ratio); however, many of the interior and character close-up shots appeared to maintain the same vertical height of the cinemascope version, cutting picture off of the left and right sides to extract the 1.9 aspect ratio image. So in some scenes you were seeing more, while in others you were seeing less, at least according to my observations as best I could recall from my tuesday viewing; we'll have to wait and hope both versions are blu-ray to really compare side-by-side and see if this was the case.


c24f5f No.996

File: 175ed4abe19a582⋯.gif (4.76 MB, 400x200, 2:1, manraiden.gif)

>>990

>the seats felt personal massage chairs

That's when it's time to stop watching the movie and start watching the female audience members.

Have you thought about applying to review sites for a job? You've really gone in-depth with this.


aaf162 No.997

>>996

I'm breaking this into two parts, >>990 is just meant to be my assessment of the theatrical experiences, I'm still roughing up a copy of my actual thoughts and observations upon the movie itself. I think you'll find one my key theories interesting, not sure if anyone else on the Internet has hit upon it yet or not, I didn't want to plagiarize or spoil my interpretation by read an outside source.

As far as being a media reviewer, yes, I've actually explored setting up my own website in the past, and well, it's still a work and thought in progress. Exploring all the possible options for web hosting, my infrastructure and stack requirements, ecommerce options and all that bullshit, I got a bit flustered and gave up. Don't want to reveal too much about my exact business model I have mind, but one part of it would be media reviews, so I just consider posts like these practical exercises and skill building.


c24f5f No.998

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>997

Hold on to your blood pressure medication: Anita's decided to fuck with Blade Runner.

>Count Dankula commentary rather than giving that ugly whore views


aaf162 No.999

>>998

I don't know who either are. Should I care?


aaf162 No.1000

File: 179d36b927d518d⋯.jpg (547.73 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, fketw0km0mrz.jpg)

I guess this was who you meant, well she might be BTFO if she drops by and reads the post I'm working on, cause I'm going to explain why all those female characters died.


aaf162 No.1004

File: c5c2d24cbdc4eec⋯.jpg (322.33 KB, 2048x1365, 2048:1365, blade_runner_2049-K_and_Jo….jpg)

I'm going to skip my other observations about the movie to focus on one broader theory that ties the entire film together. I've only seen the movie twice, and given it's length, somethings may not be entirely accurate so I'll need some additional viewings and feedback to tweak this further. This is still very rough and unpolished, so bear with me.

Let's take a short look back to the original film, Blade Runner, was the film actually about Deckard (Harrison Ford)? … was it about Rachel (Sean Young), or was it Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) that stole the scenes and provide philosophical depth to the film?

So let's make the argument that Blade Runner 2049 is not even the story of K - he's a story telling medium, and in his own confusion as to whether he's key to the plot, also misleads the audience to believe the story is about him. If the story is not about K, then who is it about, Deckard? No, the first film wasn't about Deckard, and neither was this one. The stars of this film are the ladies, Luv, Joi, Mariette, Rachel, and the human Lt. "Madame" Joshi (K's boss).

Let's first examine the orphanage records that K discovers, two identical DNA records for a girl and a boy, the girl is listed as deceased from a fictional "Galatian's Syndrome." It's fictional, but why does it sound familiar?

>The Epistle to the Galatians, often shortened to Galatians, is the ninth book of the New Testament. It is a letter from Paul the Apostle to a number of Early Christian communities in Galatia.

>Galatians 5:22-23New International Version (NIV)

>22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

>The Fruit of the Holy Spirit is a biblical term that sums up nine attributes of a person or community living in accord with the Holy Spirit according to the Epistle to the Galatians: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." The fruits is contrasted with the works of the flesh which immediately precede it in the chapter.

>Catholic tradition follows the Vulgate version of Galatians in listing 12 fruits: charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, and chastity.

Interesting, two of our central characters (and competing love interests?) are Joi and Luv, and the "pleasure model" Mariette enables K's and Joi's act of love. In Hebrew, the name Mariette "is a Hebrew baby name. In Hebrew the meaning of the name Mariette is: Wished-for child; rebellion; bitter."

While in K's apartment, Mariette sees the wooden horse on the bedside table, picks it up flips it over revealing the 6.10.21 scribed on the bottom, and comments to herself as it was "from a dream," referencing that she shares at least one common memory implant with K. The "wished-for child" translation of her name may hold double meaning in that she shares the memory leading her to believe she might be the miracle child, or that she herself, may be another Rachel or vessel from a which another "wished-for child" may one day be born from. Mariette is a literal concubine in the story.

Does this suggest that Joi, Luv, and Mariette are all components to K's spirit? Madame also plays a motherly figure to K, but she also makes a point to note how fine he's done "without one" - "what's that?" - "a soul". Rachel also embodies many of these values, and her devine conception, she is the replicant equivalent to the virgin Mary, giving birth to a miracle child, a savior. Mary was also of Galilee.

… continued below.


aaf162 No.1005

File: 5fab3d5a70dd7b2⋯.jpg (44.53 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, Blade Runner Hologram_0.jpg)

To understand the movie, we have to understand the connection between the female characters, driven primarily through the actions of Luv. When we first encounter Luv, she's in the middle of a sales pitch to a client, which she hastily reschedules upon notification of K's inquiries. While Luv's primary duty may be to determine whether the information K's seeking and the clues brought forth by him are important to Wallace's work, she also appears to take a personal interest in him.

Luv comments on the questions of the Voight-Kampff test Deckard is giving Rachel in the archives as being deeply intimate, and therefore representative of a desire for intimacy between the two. Luv follows up by asking K a directly intimate question (I forget exactly what it was), to which K readily dismisses and thanks her and Wallace for her time, seemingly unaware that he's spurning her unemotionless but yet possible flirtation with him. In this context, it certainly explains Luv's actions through the rest of the movie as motivated in part by being an unrequited love and a scornful jealousy for the other female entities in K's life.

During Wallace's welcoming of the new replicant "birth", Luv is clearly uncomfortable and preceeds to shed a tear in anticipation that Wallace is going to kill the newborn replicant before he has even made a cut with the scapel. Luv displays an emotional reaction even if she can't fully process it or understand what's she feeling in this moment.

When we first see Luv, she's on a sales call, explaining to a client the customizability of the Wallace replicants. Perhaps Wallace designed Luv with a unique sociopathic characteristic on purpose, or he's just been fucking with her so long, serially murdering her fellow replicants in front of her since her inception that she's just been fucked in the head.

At the morgue, Luv murders Coco (David Dastmalchian), did she shed a tear in this moment? I dont recall, I guess a third viewing with a notepad is in order. I do remember she did it coldly and without hesitation, most likely under direct orders from Wallace to recover the bones and cover all traces leading back to Wallace.

Wallace and Luv appear to have sophisticated intelligence assets with bugging of offices and devices and a general infiltration of the LAPD, Wallace's products appear to phone home (Google 2049), as Joi suggests to "K" to disable her mobile emitter's antenna, "K" suddenly disappears from Luv's terminal in her office.

The spy assets are probably important because it means Luv is aware of K and Lt. "Madame" Joshi's informal personal intimentacy, her trust of him in the missions and his reports, her trust to allow him 48 hours to get his "baseline" normalized, and his willingness to share his thoughts and implanted memories with her. Madame plays a mother like role in K's life, an importance which may be enough to trigger feelings of jealousy in Luv regarding Madame and K.

When Luv arrives at Madame's office, she again sheds a tear as she assaults Madame, telling her that she will tell Wallace that Madame tried to shoot her first. Here Luv is acting beyond the knowledge or explicit orders of Wallace, instead relying on a personal motive, fueled by inner hostility and potentially jealously of Madame's and K's relationship, even if non-romantic, she views Madame as a female rival.

Later, when Luv tracks down "K" to Deckard's hiding spot, she coldly smashes Joi's mobile emitter without shedding a tear this time, or at least there is no close up shot to confirm whether she did or not. She takes great enjoyment in "K's" emotional pain at the loss of Joi. She takes enjoyment in destroying her romantic rival.

Finally, when Luv coldly shoots Rachel 2.0 in the head after Deckard rejects her, she does so in equally cold fashion without any tear being visible, but there is no close up shot to confirm this. Rachel represents everything Luv is jealous of though, she found true love with Deckard, had a child, and is renegade Nexus 8's as a divine "virgin Mary" like figure. It's not hard to imagine Luv finds satisfaction in killing off this copy of Rachel, and causing Deckard much distress, likewise jealous of the love he found with Rachel much like K did with Joi.

In the final scenes, K is tasked with rescuing Deckard, during this confrontation Luv stabs him in the side. She then draws him in, in an embrace, and shares a bloody kiss with him. As she backs away, she proclaims that "I was the best." She's in fact been a pyschotic rejected woman all along in this tale.

So what do you think?

Blade Runner (1982) - The Story of Roy Batty

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) - The Story of Luv


aaf162 No.1058

File: 8469241ce5f44c3⋯.jpg (183 KB, 1040x1600, 13:20, blade_runner-eldon_tyrell-….jpg)

Chapter II: Understanding everyone's place in this world; hypothetically speaking…

Eldon Tyrell endeavored to create a machine "more human than human." Well studied and a student of philosophy, Tyrell may have become enamored with Christian mythology regarding the attributes of the spirit as components of the soul. I'm not suggesting Tyrell is religious, only that he finds it philosophically constructive as the basis of a working model.

<Galatians 5:19-21King James Version (KJV)

<19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

<20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

<21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

>Galatians 5:22-23King James Version (KJV)

>22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

>23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

In 2019, the Nexus 6 is the current generation replicant in mass production for off-world use. "The designers reckoned after a few years, they might develop their own emotional responses. You know, hate, love, fear, anger, envy. So they built in a fail-safe device." That fail-safe being a four-year lifespan.

Tyrell's plan is to introduce memories to provide the replicants with a baseline for processing emotion. The new model replicant should also be able to pass for a close approximation of a human by believing it is human, unless otherwise informed, allowing recently initialized Nexus 7's to appear as at least as emotionally complex or even more convincing than Nexus 6's which have taken years to develop natural emotional responses beyond their programmed responses. Memories captured from carefully chosen subjects also provide the basis for a stable psyche allowing for removal of the artificial limitation on lifespan.

… continued below.


aaf162 No.1059

File: 1135394853c233c⋯.jpg (106.01 KB, 1600x761, 1600:761, Edward_James_Olmos-Gaff-Bl….jpg)

During the initial design phase for the Nexus 7, Tyrell captures some of his own memories (and experiences/knowledge?) and transfers him into his "alpha" development model, Rick Deckard. Tyrell theorizes that the most rigorous field trial for his new model would be to install him as a "blade runner" with the LAPD, a task that requires specialized knowledge of replicants and would permit Deckard to serve as an envoy between the LAPD and the Tyrell Corporation for law enforcement cooperation anyways.

Deckard is placed with his human counterparts Dave Holden and Eduardo Gaff under the command of Capt. Harry Bryant in the LAPD's "blade runner" division. Deckard quickly progresses through the training, soon surpasing his human counterparts and becoming a highly valued asset. Alternatively, these experiences could have possibly been harvested and implanted but mixing memories from too many sources might not lead to stable psyche.

Having completely phase one of his deployment with high marks, Deckard is recalled for further tweaking, adding to, or removing specific memories. As a cover, he's reintroduced to the world as being on temporary retirement, awaiting activation to serve his primary purpose as lead "blade runner" when a suitable threat arises. When Dave Holden is seriously injured by the fugitive replicant Nexus 6, Leon Kowalski, Deckard goes to work to pursue Leon and the other renegade replicants in his group.

During the intervening months of Deckard's phase one field trial, Tyrell has continued his work by creating Rachel, his Nexus 7 "beta" model. For Rachel, Tyrell has selected his neice, a covenient choice given his familiarity and confidence in her, as the source for Rachel's memory implants. Tyrell is counting on Deckard's ability to spot a replicant with Voight-Kampff and his own intuition to spark a connection between the two replicants, maybe even dropping some underlying subconscious programming in there to ensure they pursue one another. Tyrell perhaps expects that if both Deckard and Rachel, together, can embody all the attributes of spirit, then they can prosper and even reproduce!

Ok, I know it sounds a bit silly, I'm just trying to bridge the gap between the two movies with the pieces I've been given. I still don't know how this would be biologically enforced through simple genetics when "pleasure models" lay around fucking all day. Obviously, Nexus 7's may simply have a genetic code closer resembling true humans and as such, maybe be capable of producing offspring with each other, or with a human. The act of reproduction between Deckard and Rachel may work with no love at all, they are just simply biologically endowed with functional reproductive organs.

Unfortunately, Eldon Tyrell is murdered at the hands of Roy Batty before he can see the Nexus 7 development finished. The remnants of the Tyrell Corporation attempt to carry on development of the Nexus line, though he may not have thoroughly documented his experimental work that his successors could grasp some of his more revolutionary concepts. As a technology mega-conglomerate, Tyrell Corporation already employed thousands of highly trained and specialized minds with competing ideas or parallel approaches to address the issues of the Nexus 6. Thus, the Nexus 7 development branch was officially discarded, and the Nexus 8 was the successor to the Nexus 6 without Eldon Tyrell's explicit guidance at the helm of the company.

The Nexus 8 would enter a brief mass production period prior to the replicant rebellion and the "blackout" event of 2021. (Watch the Youtube video in >>934 for an explanation of the blackout.) Nexus 8's would share many of the same characteristics of the Nexus 7 development branch such as memory implants captured from real people, and an open life span. However, the Nexus 8's would never conceive and would come to regard the child conceived by the coupling of the Nexus 7's as a "miracle."

… next up, the Niander Wallace era.

"He preferred to work alone. We worked together to keep it that way." - Gaff, 2049.


aaf162 No.1060

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Intermission

Interesting article on how they achieved the Sean Young recreation for 2049.

http://screenrant.com/blade-runner-2049-rachael-sean-young-cameo/

>John Nelson, Blade Runner 2049 visual effects supervisor, spoke with EW about the short sequence, which he called the “hardest” challenge the VFX crew worked on. The process was quite similar to how ILM created the CGI Grand Moff Tarkin for last year’s Rogue One. During principal photography, actress Loren Peta acted opposite Ford and Jared Leto, wearing the now-famous motion-capture dots on her face so she could later be replaced by Young’s likeness. The toughest tasks for the team in post-production, according to Nelson, was realistically crafting Rachael’s makeup and hair. One key detail Nelson is very proud of is the inclusion of “flyaway hairs” on the digital Rachael to make her look more human.

Interesting article also bringing up the Galatians theory, as well as identified the ringtone that goes off from K or a device on him.

https://www.vox.com/2017/10/3/16403178/blade-runner-2049-review-bible-gosling-villeneuve-spoilers

>The ringtone is the first two measures of Peter’s theme from “Peter and the Wolf,” Prokofiev’s symphonic suite for children. The ringer goes off too many times for it to just be a coincidence, and the big question may be who it belongs too — to K, or to Joi. But in a sense they’re the same being, with the same goal: to subvert the rules that govern the world in which they find themselves.

Nice to meet you Mrs Deckard:

http://www.gavinrothery.com/my-blog/2011/12/27/nice-to-meet-you-mrs-deckard.html

>Here's an image that didn't get into any of the cuts of Blade Runner which features imagery of Mr & Mrs Deckard hanging out on the porch of their house. Wierd eh? It's about as un Blade-Runnery as you could get.

>Deckard's wife is actually in the film. It's during the Zhora chase. As she runs out into the street trying to get away from Deckard, she tries to lose him running amongst the traffic and at one point Deckard walks right past a cab containing none other than Mrs Deckard who stares and him, giving him a really funny look. You see, this is why I love Blade Runner so much; the more you learn about it the more interesting it seems to get.

What's also not mentioned on that page about that photo of Deckard and his wife is the porch setting appears to be same as photograph of Rachel and her mother that does appear in the film. In term's of continuity of the photos, one could suggest that means Deckard (Eldon Tyrell's memories) is the uncle to Rachel (Tyrell's neice). Deckard is the age of Rachel's mother in the photograph.

<YT video of deleted or alternate scenes not in any cut of Blade Runner (1982). 45 minutes worth.


c24f5f No.1076

>>1060

Don't think I don't appreciate the dedication to your craft, but why don't you turn all this work into a book, anon?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / polk / rwby / sonyeon / thg ]