Nice find. So he ran and after a while came back? Seems way too risky. The way Joe ends up finding him is one of those things I found clunky as hell.
I thought that Rachael and Ana ran while Deckard stayed there. It was his job to stay where he was and know nothing (which I figured at that time the people hunting them didn't know where Deckard and Rachael originally were) while Rachael and Ana went to a place he didn't know to ensure Ana's survival if Deckard was found.
Nice find. So he ran and after a while came back? Seems way too risky. The way Joe ends up finding him is one of those things I found clunky as hell.
I thought that Rachael and Ana ran while Deckard stayed there. It was his job to stay where he was and know nothing (which I figured at that time the people hunting them didn't know where Deckard and Rachael originally were) while Rachael and Ana went to a place he didn't know to ensure Ana's survival if Deckard was found.
Once again we see Denis flaunt his fond love of editing techniques in the form of cross-cutting a tryptich of intertwining timelines. You can certainly draw similarities here, and also with Arrival and Incendies to Nolan in the way their editing processes operate. There is no doubt that in these moments where the riddles are tied together into fleeting relevations you experience a kind of cathartic release, but this unfortunately ends up lacking in the rich depths and crystal clear narrative opacity which made the original so timeless and compelling. Once the disparate timelines finally gel together like a completed Rubik's cube the film loses its sense of intrigue and faith in its viewer.
Where Ridley Scott made a film engrossed in the mysteries of the human spirit, it also reflected in how his art was made. The film left it's chess board unfinished, rewarding repeated viewings to uncover the murky waters and questions it left you with. Denis, on the other hand, is clinical and dosile in his approach. It can't help but feel like an allegory to each of the movies leads, one being human, the other android. Perhaps this was meant as a Ying to the originals Yang.
Which brings this universes long lasting question to the fore, are they so different?
The answer is yes, the former feels inherently less intriguing, and completely sterile.
Nice find. So he ran and after a while came back? Seems way too risky. The way Joe ends up finding him is one of those things I found clunky as hell.
I thought that Rachael and Ana ran while Deckard stayed there. It was his job to stay where he was and know nothing (which I figured at that time the people hunting them didn't know where Deckard and Rachael originally were) while Rachael and Ana went to a place he didn't know to ensure Ana's survival if Deckard was found.
I only saw the film once and vaguely remember him saying he was the one who left. Perhaps I'm remembering wrongfully.
Cilogy wrote:
speaking on that, a lot of the ways things happen in this film seem like just a series of coincidences
and it's cool for a bit but too many of them just make it seem contrived, which was my biggest issue with this film
That definitely hurts the film (he goes to eat next to revolutionary whores ) and Joe being a bit of a dumb cop. But that's a staple of the series, Deckard was also a bit dumb in BR.
Nice find. So he ran and after a while came back? Seems way too risky. The way Joe ends up finding him is one of those things I found clunky as hell.
I thought that Rachael and Ana ran while Deckard stayed there. It was his job to stay where he was and know nothing (which I figured at that time the people hunting them didn't know where Deckard and Rachael originally were) while Rachael and Ana went to a place he didn't know to ensure Ana's survival if Deckard was found.
I only saw the film once and vaguely remember him saying he was the one who left. Perhaps I'm remembering wrongfully.
Yeah but he means he left them. They left to go to the home on the ranch and he left them there while he stayed at their old house helpless.
Regarding the plot twist (that people here say isn't one)
It's definitely a plot twist that she is the child and not him. We are watching the story unfold from K's perspective, and halfway through he is 100% certain it's him. I could only find two vague hints that suggested otherwise before he was told the truth from the underground cult guys:
1. In the scene with the computer screen where K finds out there were two children with identical DNA and the the girl was supposedly dead. It's obvious that someone faked one of the two reports since the DNA is identical, so in retrospect reading that the girl is dead and the boy is alive is just an obvious decoy (or just another part of the puzzle). But you can't say that that one moment is the nail in the coffin for the audience, and that everyone from that point should know for a fact that K isn't the child. It's a hint yes, but not that obvious the first time.
2. In the scene with K and Dr. Stelline where she says something like "Every memory has a piece of it's artist". In my opinion, this one is super vague the first time you hear it, and super obvious the second time. If you picked up on both the first part about the fake report as well as this one vague sentence from a pretty alterative and dreamy person you know nothing about, then maybe you could have concluded with her being the child.
But saying that it's not a deliberate plot twist and that D-Ville planned for everyone to catch up on that the first time they watch the movie, I think is just stupid. But well done to you for getting it the first time.
@Bacon Your perspective on her own knowledge as well as her reaction to seeing that, I admit makes more sense to me now. It is most logical to the plot that she knows. And it also gives that final part of that scene a higher and more beautiful meaning. My god does she act well in that one scene.
Other than that I got to enjoy the spectacle of everything this time. The visuals and the score is just perfect. But I still want Hoyte to win the Oscar.
Regarding the plot twist (that people here say isn't one)
It's definitely a plot twist that she is the child and not him. We are watching the story unfold from K's perspective, and halfway through he is 100% certain it's him. I could only find two vague hints that suggested otherwise before he was told the truth from the underground cult guys:
1. In the scene with the computer screen where K finds out there were two children with identical DNA and the the girl was supposedly dead. It's obvious that someone faked one of the two reports since the DNA is identical, so in retrospect reading that the girl is dead and the boy is alive is just an obvious decoy (or just another part of the puzzle). But you can't say that that one moment is the nail in the coffin for the audience, and that everyone from that point should know for a fact that K isn't the child. It's a hint yes, but not that obvious the first time.
2. In the scene with K and Dr. Stelline where she says something like "Every memory has a piece of it's artist". In my opinion, this one is super vague the first time you hear it, and super obvious the second time. If you picked up on both the first part about the fake report as well as this one vague sentence from a pretty alterative and dreamy person you know nothing about, then maybe you could have concluded with her being the child.
But saying that it's not a deliberate plot twist and that D-Ville planned for everyone to catch up on that the first time they watch the movie, I think is just stupid. But well done to you for getting it the first time.
Both your points 1 and 2 are SUPER obvious the first time:
1. If K was the child why would there even be a subplot of a "girl"? The possibility of it being a girl is mentioned because it's clearly not K. It already tells you that there IS a "twist". Now point two explains to you who it is...
2. That scene is the director basically telling the audience - HEY, MEMBA THE GIRL? THAT'S HER! IT'S HER MEMORY!
I didn't even have to think twice about it. You just add one and two together and it's super clear.
As for how to judge those scene: either it's a very obvious and badly telegraphed twist or it's not.
Now, the first scenario doesn't really damage the movie that much, since it still works as a "twist" for K (even though the audience should be waaay ahead of him) and the story is ultimately about K learning of his humanity, not that he's not the child. I never really thought about the story of the film to be "Who's Deckard's child?" (maybe because it was so obvious) but rather of K learning what it means to be human. So the movie still works.
But if we're judging just the idea of a twist as targeted at the audience (and again, not the movie itself), I gotta call it as it is- it's a bad one, to the point that I'm in no way boasting that I got it the first time but rather being insulted at the thought of it being a twist.
