The red letter media folk made a joke about voyager blade runner.

I quite liked the ai getting a brain and personality (ie unchecked growth) which had more freedom than the other synthetics simply because it had no physical way of hurting humans. Although there’s a bit of a Chinese room aspect and maybe the ai didn’t really know what it was doing but did the things that goz reacted well too.

I liked the Joi relationship stuff, but I do think they fucked the order of scenes and copped out with it.
In the film, Joi and K are in love.
There are subtle hints that she is sentient.
There are also subtle hints that maybe she isn't sentient.
Joi is murdered.
K doesn't seem overly annoyed by this.
Oh and here's a scene where 50 foot Joi implies she was never sentient in the first place so Gosling can do another of his blank looks that may mean anything then forget about her.

Now I personally think that it would have been far more interesting if the 50 foot Joi scene had been much earlier in the narrative, leading us to wonder more if she was genuinely exceeding her programme and becoming sentient, and I would have liked to see a far more interesting emotional reaction from K to her death. It's another wasted opportunity to probe the big questions that they should be asking.

What were the pro sentient subtleties you caught g?
Everything I remember of her showing individualism also fell in line with what K wanted to hear/do.

Gosling face is an issue in that it makes sense for him to be like that given that he is a rep, but then you can't go putting him into emotional relationships as well. You go with one or the other. He has emotion or he doesn't.

Liveinadive wrote:

What were the pro sentient subtleties you caught g? Everything I remember of her showing individualism also fell in line with what K wanted to hear/do. 

Yes, but that could equally be read as her developing sentience, because we have no baseline for how advanced her AI is.

Liveinadive wrote:

Gosling face is an issue in that it makes sense for him to be like that given that he is a rep, but then you can't go putting him into emotional relationships as well. You go with one or the other. He has emotion or he doesn't.

Yes, it's problematic. I really liked Gosling in the part, but they just cop-out with his character too many times because everything must be ambiguous lol. I would have liked to see more hints at depth or growth in his character. It's certainly not disastrous, I just think they could have done so much more with most of the artificial characters considering that's ostensibly what the film is about.

It's surprising how often that JW bottle appears in The Final Cut. 
There's a cracking continuity error with one at one point...but I'm not going to tell you where.

still fucking cooking whisky tho

g.man

poprock wrote:

Liveinadive wrote:

g.man wrote:

There are tripwires connected to explosives all over the place where Deckard is living.
Deckard lives with a dog.

A dog that drinks whiskey.

A whiskey drinking dog which may or may not be synthetic.

Apparently Blade Runner ‘Directors Cut’ edition bottles of Johnnie Walker are available at a knockdown price of £149. Yay capitalism.

Shit I saw them at 99 pounds on amazon.

@g

Indeed. Growth in AI and synthetic emotion would have been an interesting avenue to explore more thoroughly. The movie is about the physical evolution of synthetic life so emotional evolution would fit along side that nicely.

If there wasn't a 15 second gap between every line of dialogue they would have had time to explore it as well.

mistercrayon wrote:

poprock wrote:

Liveinadive wrote:

g.man wrote:

There are tripwires connected to explosives all over the place where Deckard is living. Deckard lives with a dog.

A dog that drinks whiskey.

A whiskey drinking dog which may or may not be synthetic. Apparently Blade Runner ‘Directors Cut’ edition bottles of Johnnie Walker are available at a knockdown price of £149. Yay capitalism.

Shit I saw them at 99 pounds on amazon.

It'll be going for a reasonable mark up in the short term (it was originally £68 I gather), but bearing in mid they've produced a staggering 39,000 of them, it's not likely to be much of a good long term investment. Also, it's fecking blended shite mixed from about thirty different blends, so the contents aren't going to be highly sought after.

Yes. He was a pleasant surprise. Good performance.

mistercrayon wrote:

Argument to say he’s the premier wrestler actor at the moment, despite the rock making all the bucks.

I was thinking exactly that.
He hasn't had a lead role yet mind. Much tougher gig.

I’m not sure about this, a mixed bag. Nothing beats big budget, visually ambitious sci fi on a big screen, and I enjoyed it. It was full of the sort of details that make classic sci fi. Weird background tech that didn’t have a purpose other than to add interest to a scene, memorable imagery and the like. The replicant squelching out of that ziploc bag when it was born.

I didn’t personally mind the length but it’s clearly overlong. The plot was really stretched over the running time. It didn’t disgrace itself in the way it could have and we should be grateful for that I suppose. Leto wasn’t in it much either so bonus points for that.

LA isn’t really shown at all. A good overhead shot when K was flying back in, then straight to an interior scene in the LAPD. All you really saw was that one square outside K’s apartment where the hookers were, everywhere else was a deserted decaying ghost town despite all these people supposed to be living on top of each other. It was a bit like Mad Men where you really don’t see the streets, it’s just indoor scenes that are easier to place in a time frame. It leaves it missing something. G’s right about this film, but not having the same attachment to the first one, and having seen the first film already ‘knowing’ that Deckard’s status was ambiguous, it doesn’t grate in the same way.

Incidentally, one of G’s plot holes from earlier in the thread was about why, if Deckard is a replicant designed to fall in love with Rachel, he would have been created and sent out into the world and given a career as a blade runner in the hopes that he would survive and return to Rachel in time to fall in love with her.

I’ve realised that this is based on the assumption that Deckard’s blade runner career actually happened and wasn’t an implanted memory, and indeed that him sitting opposite the noodle bar reading a newspaper wasn’t his very first moment of consciousness.

Ah ok. That blackout was a complete fudge.

Yossarian wrote:

Incidentally, one of G’s plot holes from earlier in the thread was about why, if Deckard is a replicant designed to fall in love with Rachel, he would have been created and sent out into the world and given a career as a blade runner in the hopes that he would survive and return to Rachel in time to fall in love with her.

I’ve realised that this is based on the assumption that Deckard’s blade runner career actually happened and wasn’t an implanted memory, and indeed that him sitting opposite the noodle bar reading a newspaper wasn’t his very first moment of consciousness.

I had thought of that Yoss, but it's a hell of a stretch, and makes all the police department related scenes very problematic.
Suddenly you're in a world where everyone is part of a ridiculous conspiracy to convince Deckard that he's been around for a lifetime.

And yes, Vegas and radiation seemed like a bit of a vague fudge to me too. I'd need to see it again to get a firm grip on much of what went on.