Blade Runner 2049 and don Quixote

Blade Runner 2049 is a great sequel, and the thing is the most great about it: is not really a sequel. Is its own thing.  (By the way, you know? Disregarding what I've just said, In my pop twisted mind, this is a trilogy, and the second one is Oshi Mamoru's 1995 Ghost in the Shell)   

It's a Science Fiction film at its core (with a kind of detective neo-noir thing), but the secondary plot is sort of a romantic story between Officer KD9-3.7 (Whom I strongly suspect is a replicant) and an AI called Joi. 

First of all, it reminded me - of course -, of the movie Her (2016) But without the whole creepiness of it... I don't know why?!... Maybe because it seems so natural that K being not a human, being a replicant, could fall for an AI... Robots do dream of electrical sheep!

But, you know, at least K doesn't look as much of a perv as Joaquin Phoenix's Theodore! (Maybe just because he doesn't have like a cleft lip?) 

They both fell for their Operative Systems, but at least Ryan Goslin is not pretending to fuck thin air while masturbating to the sound of Siri (and he doesn't complain about the hooker's lipquid... that gives him points)

So yeah Spike Jonze's Her, but mainly... Weird!!! Yes, it reminded me of don Quixote!!!

Of course, I wouldn't dare to say that don Quixote, the 17th century Miguel de Cervantes novel, somehow influenced the work of a 2017 science fiction movie (or the other way around).

What I'm trying to say is that art tend to portray the ultimate truths, the eternal ideas, the greater myths...

The same things that affected the audiences (or readers) back in 1605, move us now... Because even though those filthy motherfuckers (literally) dumped the contents of their bedpans right into the already filthy streets, they were not complete savages!!! They were human beings, and they cried and they laughed, and get aroused or simply excited by the same things we do. We are not that different!

So yeah, for me it depicts a topic... I don't know how to call it, maybe: The Fall of the ideal Woman.

We think of don Quixote as this crazy old man that believes to be a chevalier, and goes out to the very prosaic region of La Mancha looking for adventures; but really the novel is about a man that dreams he's in love, that searches for love in the world, and commits and serves to this love unconditionally... at least that's the way don Quixote sees himself.

In his mind he builds this ideal woman, Dulcinea del Toboso, based upon a peasant from a near town: Aldonza Lorenzo.

Among many other things the Quixote is also a romantic novel (there's probably very few chapters were Dulcinea is not at least mentioned once)

And even don Quixote says that a Chevalier without a lady to love, is not a Chevalier at all... (a bit more poetic) and We can say the same thing about Chivalric Romances 

(they were like uh... the rom-coms of their time... But of course, not as good as today's material. Civilization has improved.

(By the way, I think there's no Mr. Right for you Hellen Degeneres. And Who da fuck though that a movie where Meg Ryan meets Wolverine - as an 18th century time traveler?!!!- would be a good idea?)

Romance is at the core of Amadis de Gaula and Orlando Furioso; and even in minor works like Cirongilio de Tracia you got tons of love letters and declarations of eternal luuuve.  

For don Quixote Dulcinea is like the ultimate ideal of love, because he doesn't even know her! And that's the merit in it.

He madly loves her just of what he has heard of her... And yes that's fucking crazy! but not a lot more than like... I don't know, getting a Russian Bride from a dating website, you know... to sponsor

Then, in the second part of the novel, he wants to actually meet his lady; so he travels to El Toboso... and - of course - because he has never met her before, Sancho Panza, his squire and loyal sidekick, actually tries to deceive his master by making him believe that three random filthy peasants that come from working the fields mounted on their burritos, are Dulcinea del Toboso and two of her virginal maids...

In any chapter of the first part of the novel (1605) don Quixote would just idealize and he would see three gorgeous women, mounting magnificent white horses,dressed as princesses

(like what he did when he met that cocksucker Maritornes)...

But now something weird happens, Don Quixote can only see reality! When there are three smelly, sweaty peasants; he sees lowlife disgusting vulgar peasants; and Sancho is there putting beauty to the picture: lying his ass off; describing how beautiful they are, how refined their movements, how nice their odour feels... the odour is important, don Quixote later says that the thing that really got to him was the garlic smell that came from Dulcinea's mouth!

Same thing happens with our Officer K. He's in love with an AI, she calls him Joe, and he buy her presents (Oh, aren't they cute?).

I don't know how that happened! Is never shown.But he lives in a shitty part of the world where even the little people are being racist to him (and you know, you gotta be pretty fucking low in the social scale when a goddamn midget is calling you a skinjob)

... and then I guess he was feeling lonely, and went

to that Captain Phillips black dude and traded him the AI for some replicant smelly turd

Joi is first introduced to us in 50's garments, so she's like the embodiment of Hollywood's ideal of a Waifu: with a classic meal, having a drink with you, lighting your cigarettes, lifting your feet after a hard long day at the office... bringing you some hookers...  and sometimes you just wanna believe your woman when she tells you, with that sweet Siri voice "I always knew you were special" So, yeah, he fell for it.

   

You, the spectator, start wondering, because you know nothing about this world: Is she fucking real? - you know?- Does she have like real feelings for him? Maybe in the future humanity made AI's evolve so much that now they have like real feelings and shit

Nope! She was just a fucking tramp. A Whore!

She was just saying the things he wanted to hear: because she's selling a product. She is the product!; and that's the most shocking reveal this movie has... Nothing is real, similar to the first Blade Runner when you suddenly discover that even memories could be implanted... and then that Deckard might be really a goddamn unicorn? I didn't get that part...

All this, reminds me of another don Quixote moment when our hero in Montesinos cave has a dream in which Dulcinea in peasant form ask him for - I don't know how to translate this: "prestarle sobre este faldellín [...] media docena de reales" she's asking for money on some undergarments? Which is something the prostitutes back in the 1600s used to say, is the equivalent of:

Our narrators way of saying that Dulcinea-Aldonza was nothing but a prostitute the WHOLE time (there were some allusions made by the playful malice of Sancho... but nothing concrete, you know? This is like definitive: She was a whore, and deep down he knows it.)  Imagine the disappointment of our hero. This is a pivotal moment in the novel. Beyond this point don Quixote cannot see other thing but reality. It destroys his soul. 

There's nothing left for him now but to die... he cannot continue to be a chevalier! He cannot longer be special in this lousy world of us. Because deep down he knows he was a moron all along.

I can't get why some people only laugh with the Quixote, because at the same time it's so freaking sad, right?! 

Same deal here. It's soul crushing for K: the thing that really gets to him is not Luv breaking the inmanator, but later seeing the virtual ad of Joi in her pleasure model version... he is of course seeking her, and what he finds is that... she never existed.

I say: What a dirty dog! 

Well in any case it really is a love story. Otherwise why so much emphasis on how faithful he is to her?. He refuses advances from four women (well one milf and three skinjobs really... but what a tempting skinjobs those are, uh?)

Everyone wants to fuck Ryan Gospel these days! I think he could like even fuck the one that is in the glass cage eeeeasily, and not because that little bird is locked and cannot escape, but rather she was kind of flirting with him. From what I got she was a photographer. I didn't get why she was in the movie though... Meh, probably candy for the eye...

(by pelida77)

The Theatrical Cut of Blade Runner is the one you should watch

Director's Cuts are a blatant Scam even when they're supposedly need it, like in the case of Blade Runner. There are at least five different versions of the movie (Seven and maybe even more if you want to be extremely precise).

Back in 1982 the studio decided to kick Ridley Scott out, and make their own cut. They were a bit scared cause the Workprint prototype didn't exactly got positive responses from the preview audiences... Who can blame them, right? this is a weeeeeird fucking movie. And so they did, a very short and competent version; They cut the Unicorn dream sequence (supposedly) , inserted a Harrison Ford narration voice over to explain us, dumb people, things, and gave the movie a happy ending.

Ten years later while gaining cult status the studio wanted to make a new release of the film (and a laser disc)... so Ridley Scott was called in, but he was busy at the time... doing?..., so he just gave some of his notes and make us believe he was behind the whole thing calling it "The Director's Cut". (But he wasn't, it was some curator or something).

Now 15 years later Blade Runner is considered one of the Best Science Fiction movies ever made, and it always sells well in home format... So they make a new edition, and now they really bring Ridley Scott back to make a Director's Cut but Scott can't call it that because it'd mean admitting that all of them lied back in 92; so they very cynically called this "The Final Cut" like a big Fuck You to us all, right?!

And the fans are ok with this, and these days most of them believe this "Final Cut" to be the definitive version of the movie. 

But I'm here to tell you that the original theatrical release is a superior version of Blade Runner, and that the changes made when Scott was fired just improved the quality of the film.

1st) Because that Unicorn dream sequence sucks.

I mean is so out of place. Seems taken from a completely different movie (like from Legend 1985, Scotts next project... like he mixed things, too much bourbon or something, he got confused,

You got this dark, depressing, wet, greasy, dirty, nauseating vision of the future against a Beautiful magical white unicorn running through the wilds and I guess he wanted to establish that contrast... But I still feel the whole scene is rather fake, I simply cannot believe a human being of this world could have such a dreams (a bit Shakespearian here...)

That's the whole point you'd said, because he's a replicant! Garth or Gerth... The latino blue eye's guy later leaves in Deckard's apartment one of his origamis in the shape of a unicorn. That means he knows Deckard's dreams, that means these dreams were implanted, ergo Deckard is a replicant. But I don't like that!!!

Well, first of all: you just simply cannot make a unicorn with origami! Is already really hard just to draw a horse, imagine what takes to make it with paper... Ok whatever, but my point is that you can't really tell that's a unicorn what's he's holding in his hand (for all you know it could be a rhyno); whitout the dream sequence seems more like a generic animal shape origami. 

Some people say the first origami, is an owl, (representing the one we later see on Tyrrel's office). Call me crazy but that paper figurine looks like a chicken to me.

And the little man with his cock out... that's not an origami!!!... Well I think is not pledged paper at least (by the way, were Garth last twist and turns made on his little tiny paper cock?)

When I first saw that final scene I said: "Oh, Garth was there, that weird guy that likes to make origami and shit: cool!"; maybe felt a little danger and when I saw Harrison Ford smiling I understood that Garth wasn't going to hunt Rachael's fuck down. That he let her go (let's not forget Garth is a Blade Runner wannabe)... that's a nice message there: all of them by the end of the movie gain a little bit of humanity. (By the way his name is Gaff, right? Fuck!). 

But the unicorn dream sequence introduce definitive prove that Deckard is a replicant. 

The power of this movie lies on the idea that an artificial organism, the replicant Roy Batty, loves life and understands what means to be human way better than a human being. 

Deckard blew a female's tit shooting her in the back while she was running away from him, running for her life!...  Instead with his last breath Roy decided to save Deckard from falling and a certain death.

But if Deckard is a replicant, then what's the merit in it? Roy was just saving one of his own kind. Besides in that case, was he in real danger? What's the merit on Deckard loving Rachael? They're just two robots malfunctioning and fucking each other.  (well you can argue if he's not a replicant, then he's weirdo fucking a sex doll... but lemme tell you: that's a godamn hot sex-doll that you can definitely fell in love with) 

The whole point for me is that we don't know for sure... that it is left ambiguous... or better said, that he IS a human... but he has lost all bonds with his own humanity, and sometimes acts like a sonofabitch cold machine, colder even than a replicant inside Chew's laboratory. Or maybe he IS a replicant, I don't know! Ambiguity!

Its Ok to use a special mirrors to make Deck's eyes to sometimes look like the ones from a doll, (the Schüfftan process thing)

Or making Holden the blade runner (the guy interviewing Leon) act, sound and look slightly like Harrison Ford, suggesting they are both industrial models designed to search for replicants: subtle, like in subtlety, y'know?.

But a rainbowbright horse running through the wild magical forest, that's too much, too obvious. Disgusting. Fucking disgusting. I hate it. I hate it!!!

It baffles me how Ridley Scott wanted that thing to be re introduced in his 1992 "Director's Cut" and then again in the 2007 "Final Cut", cause that means he doesn't understands shit about what makes his own master-piece tick.

Maybe it means that all the great movies are just a by-product of... randomness... chance... Or maybe it means all the great minds behind their creations are subjects to the same laws of decay that we are, and finally 20 or 30 years later they don't have a fucking clue on how to make a good movie (judging by Exodus: Gods of Egypt that seems to be the case)... Depressing... even more than that elevator door ending. Which takes me to my next point.

2) The Happy ending it's a great ending, so Fuck You if you don't like it

First, the air shots were made by: Stan Kubrick, yeah he made those for The Shining main title sequence and didn't use them. Arguably Stanley Kubrick is a better director than Ridley Scott. I always imagine Kubrick wanting to explore on A.I. similar problems to what Blade Runner present us... Like a weird story about a robot boy that feels he's a human; weeeird and creepy, a Kubrick thing... you know what I mean? A Kubrick thing!... instead we got... I don't know what we got: That! You can only wonder what could have been... But yeah, sadly Death came a knockin' by his door: 

How lightly life away is taken, 

    How cometh Death in stealthy guise...

I'd be really proud that a master film-maker, and also the creator of Space Odyssey a modern founding stone in the genre, agreed on including that shots as an ending... Besides, a little known fact: it wasn't the studio who asked Kubrick for permission to use that, it was Scott! (I mean Kubrick was a dick and all but not that of a dick with his colleagues) Scott was planning to use those... And where u gonna use that? That was his original ending! 

So yeah, why change it? Because he's an asshole. Back in 1982 he was just trying to make this weird Science Fiction movie... In 2007 he's coping with the ideas of a lot of people of what this "Masterpiece of a film" should be about, "one of the very best of all time", with great philosophical ideas and shit...

So he made it artsy fartsy: "The elevator door shuts" "Vangelis exit music plays"... 

So he's definitely a replicant because of the unicorn thing, they are both robots, don't know how much time they got, and people are gonna hunt them down. Really dark, I grant you that...

But the so called happy ending is not all that happy... I mean, Gaff is not chasing them, but still they're runaways; and maybe Rachael doesn't have a 4 year lifespan "no termination date", but we don't know for sure exactly how much time she got... But then again, who does, right?  Again: subtle.

Instead we got: an elevator door shutting! Is the only case I know of a movie's ending that got chopped, and people just praised the whole mess!  Let's make a Director's Cut of Artificial Intelligence and cut all the alien ending shit -they really are very advanced robots not aliens-, yeah lets end it at the fair! 

Let's cut every fucking movie that has been done, because they have things in them that people don't like! Or let's make it like these days, when you pay for your admission but you won't get "the full experience" at the Theater... oh, no, no... you have to wait two months for that, and then pay them again for the BluRay Ultimate Director's-Assembly-Redux-Let's-Try-Again-Because-We-Fucked Up Cut!!!!

3) Last: the voice-over is perfect for the film

Like, Harrison Ford said that he didn't want to do it, and fought it really hard, but once it was decided he was a professional and made it to the best of his abilities... He says...

I call that Bullshit! I mean, there's definitely something odd about the way he delivered the lines. Maybe he wasn't consciously boycotting the whole thing, but when you are really against something like this, you can't just pretend everything is Ok, right? His narration feels the way he's been acting since the 2000's and that's not a compliment.

So, why I like it? 

Blade Runner is a neo-noir film or whatever, and one of the things you identify as classic in a film noir is the detective telling us the story in off... When you see that you automatically think of a noir... you put yourself in the mood, right?

It's so classic! And that's beautiful. 

And again, this was Ridley's original idea, he wanted to make this classic film noir-ish narration thing in a dystopian futuristic movie. It was not a decision made at the last minute by the studio. It was Ridley Scott's idea; and later in the production... supposedly... Scott discarded this idea... Supposedly... we don't know cause he got fired...

Look at this:

- Skin-jobs, that's what Bryan called Replicants. In history books he's the kind of cop used to call black men niggers. 

- Tyrell really did a job on Rachael. Right down to a snap shot of a mother she never had.

- I didn't know why a replicant would collect photos. Maybe they were like Rachael, they needed memories.

- The report would be "routine retirement of a replicant" which didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back.

- I didn't know how long we had together... Who does?  

- I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life. Anybody's life. My life. (The original lines, only used in the workprint, are at least as good as the ones that got into the film: I watched him die all night. It was a long slow thing... and he fought it all the way. He never whimpered, and he never quit. He took all the time he had, as though he loved life very much. Every second of it... even the pain.Then, he was dead.) 

This is good writing. Adds so much to the Movie!!! There're a lot of things you people wouldn't even begin to comprehend without this lines... Why da fuck would you want to take all this out Because it was a bad performance?... I mean if we're gonna start chopping movies cause the actors didn't gave their very best... jizzz...

And I would even say that it adds to the character a little, cause Deckard -not like Roy- he's tired of life... And yeah that's the way a guy that doesn't give a fuck anymore would tell us his story.

In any case is not a perfect movie... but then again, what's perfect? 

(I need to stop doing that, I'm beginning to feel like the Sphinx here)

Anyway. The good thing is that in the 2007 edition we also got the original theatrical cut. So, yup. That's the one you should watch.