|
Jedit posted:Yes, the trail to K being the baby is obvious and leads the viewer away from the twist. This is the point. Rachel's baby has been hidden and the tracks covered. K is only able to get as far as he did because of the horse memory, without which he wouldn't have found the ossuary. That memory has probably been implanted into any number of replicants - it's hinted that Mariette has it - and any male ones who got that far in the search would naturally presume that they were the child. When you look for something that is hidden, you don't keep looking after you find it. It's also great because for all of the film's philosophical aspirations, it still follows a class noir structure on the surface - K's life is a fake joke, after he meets Luv he think he's ahead of the game and an important only man who can pull this off person, but Luv is bad and trailing him the whole time in hopes of snatching the prize from him instead of hunting it down herself like she was ordered to, etc. This movie owns.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Ersatz posted:Presumably, you can tell yourself "I think therefore I am." If you're capable of that, you're self-conscious/have personhood. Who's to say Joi can't tell herself "I think therefore I am" just like Roy Batty did? DC Murderverse posted:it doesn't walk like a duck though because a duck isn't a hologram Is having a physical body the prime determinant of being a person? What about people who have different kinds of bodies? How far from the human baseline can you stray before you no longer have personhood? Replicant bodies presumably have different physical structures internally, since they have enhanced physical strength, does that prevent them from being a person?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Serf posted:Is having a physical body the prime determinant of being a person? What about people who have different kinds of bodies? How far from the human baseline can you stray before you no longer have personhood? Replicant bodies presumably have different physical structures internally, since they have enhanced physical strength, does that prevent them from being a person? Agreed and I'm surprised more people in this thread didn't catch onto how Joi is a soul without a body compared to how K implies to his boss that he's not real because he's a constructed body without a soul. Both become real people not because of how they entered the world but because of their continued interactions with other beings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
I'm like an hour and a half into re-watching the original for the first time in a couple years (to prepare for seeing 2049 in theaters again), and I feel pretty confident in saying that 2049 is the better movie. Like yeah, parts of this movie are totally stunning for when it was released, but a lot of it just isn't all that interesting to watch nowadays. I feel like 2049 is one of those movies that could transcend age. Watch 2049 35 years from now and it'll probably still be more exciting to behold than the original is 35 years after it came out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Agreed and I'm surprised more people in this thread didn't catch onto how Joi is a soul without a body compared to how K implies to his boss that he's not real because he's a constructed body without a soul. Both become real people not because of how they entered the world but because of their continued interactions with other beings. This is far more elegant than my take, but absolutely correct. Joi is a continuation of the themes of the first movie, specifically those surrounding Roy Batty. She is another kind of replicant, all mind and no form. They don't call her a replicant but she follows the same line of development as them, and in the end she is the same as they are. The Nexus replicants are made for physical labor, and Joi is made for emotional labor (I like how she is Joi and the primary antagonist, the person who kills her, is Luv). This is even spelled out in the movie itself when Joi points out that humans are based on four digits, while she is just two numbers. K tells her that her design is simpler, but so much more elegant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Agreed and I'm surprised more people in this thread didn't catch onto how Joi is a soul without a body compared to how K implies to his boss that he's not real because he's a constructed body without a soul. Both become real people not because of how they entered the world but because of their continued interactions with other beings. actually, i caught that and the comparison between the two, but upon further reflection, I think I might have changed my mind about her humanity. K's sacrifice of himself to further the cause of replicants is what makes him more "human" in the end, and i was under the impression that JOI, as an AI incapable of actually interacting with anything, wouldn't be able to do the same, but her moment of sacrifice comes earlier in the movie when she willingly gives up the safety of her console and the ability to be backed up and goes with K in the little doohickey he brings her. She sacrifices herself to go with K on his journey, even if she's wrong about him being special. She wants him to be special because it would, in turn, make her special, and more than the 1s and 0s that make her up. I can still compare it to Her though, because JOI and Samantha both make sacrifices for causes they believe in. Samantha gives up on her love to go and solve all of the world's problems because Spike Jonze is a big softy who believes that if enough smart people/things think really hard they can solve it all. JOI gives up her safety for her love because Ridley Scott and Denis Villanueve think everything is hosed and love and sacrifice are all that make the human experience really "real".
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I'm like an hour and a half into re-watching the original for the first time in a couple years (to prepare for seeing 2049 in theaters again), and I feel pretty confident in saying that 2049 is the better movie. Something interesting about this is that a lot of the stuff in this movie like the massive wall at the edge of the city, the vast synthetic farms, etc. are mentioned in the book and were actually planned and storyboarded for the original. Even the opening scene where he comes in and sees the soup is on and they talk/struggle a bit after realizing the blade runner is already in the house was the original intended opening for the first movie. It makes me wonder if they went with showing stuff like that in the original where this one would have gone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Does the novel make a stronger hint that the offworld colonies are actually a huge scam? Maybe it's another PKD book where it turns out the "colonies" are basically labor camps? I know that's sort of the premise of Martian Time-Slip. I actually kind of got the other impression? The movie doesn't say too much either way but comparing the vastness of the world with the relatively small cast of characters makes it seem like Earth is nearly abandoned by the time of the movie. It's an ecological wasteland full of rotted out industrial centers and desolated mega cities. It's implied that most of the people on Earth would rather be elsewhere. This actually made the idea of an incipient replicant revolution a lot easier to swallow. It probably wouldn't actually even be that hard for them to take control of the entire planet since no one even wants it anyway. It's not even really a revolution in the sense of an armed revolt. The planetary/human "bourgeoisie" have jumped ship in the face of collapse. The only other step was to reveal to the remaining replicants that they have a future if they want it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Serf posted:Is having a physical body the prime determinant of being a person? Think of it this way. At the end of the first film, Roy showed compassion toward a hated enemy who had murdered his friends. This is pretty much the opposite of what you'd expect a robot designed to lead a "kick murder squad" to do. Joi on the other hand, is servile and self-sacrificing, and is eager to find new and better ways to be the best waifu ever for her specific owner. That sounds a lot like variation on the themes she was designed with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Serf posted:Who's to say Joi can't tell herself "I think therefore I am" just like Roy Batty did? I think questions of self-consciousness in these discussions is a red herring. The constructs in these movies clearly has that but they also demonstrate that being a person involves having (or desire to have) relationships. The friendship of the replicant gang in the original, Rachael's affair with Deckard and K's search for a family all leads them to break their programming and act at their most human. Replicants start to liberate themselves when they form bonds with each other. The problem with Joi is that she can only have one relationship; her personhood is only allowed to go as far as the desires and well-being of that person. But that's not an all or nothing deal. She clearly breaks her programming when she orders K to break the antenna but it's still done for the sake of him. She has very limited agency that is constrained by the nature of the technology but it's still some agency nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Something interesting about this is that a lot of the stuff in this movie like the massive wall at the edge of the city, the vast synthetic farms, etc. are mentioned in the book and were actually planned and storyboarded for the original. Even the opening scene where he comes in and sees the soup is on and they talk/struggle a bit after realizing the blade runner is already in the house was the original intended opening for the first movie. It makes me wonder if they went with showing stuff like that in the original where this one would have gone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:It should be clear from my posts that I consider self-awareness (or at the every least the capacity for it) the most important determinant. Nothing in this film suggests that Joi is self-aware. There are, on the other hand, strong indicators that she's evolving according to an algorithm, so as to better please her owner. I suppose we have incompatible views then. Every scene with Joi just convinced me more and more that she was a person. With the way she constantly pushed K, she seemed to almost have more agency than him.. fspades posted:I think questions of self-consciousness in these discussions is a red herring. The constructs in these movies clearly has that but they also demonstrate that being a person involves having (or desire to have) relationships. The friendship of the replicant gang in the original, Rachael's affair with Deckard and K's search for a family all leads them to break their programming and act at their most human. Replicants start to liberate themselves when they form bonds with each other. The problem with Joi is that she can only have one relationship; her personhood is only allowed to go as far as the desires and well-being of that person. But that's not an all or nothing deal. She clearly breaks her programming when she orders K to break the antenna but it's still done for the sake of him. She has very limited agency that is constrained by the nature of the technology but it's still some agency nonetheless. I think that her contacting Mariette and arranging for their syncing demonstrated that she could grow and move beyond just having a relationship with K. And the way she jealously orders Mariette to leave the next morning makes me believe that she even considered doing so to be a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
fspades posted:I think questions of self-consciousness in these discussions is a red herring. The constructs in these movies clearly has that but they also demonstrate that being a person involves having (or desire to have) relationships. The friendship of the replicant gang in the original, Rachael's affair with Deckard and K's search for a family all leads them to break their programming and act at their most human. Replicants start to liberate themselves when they form bonds with each other. The problem with Joi is that she can only have one relationship; her personhood is only allowed to go as far as the desires and well-being of that person. But that's not an all or nothing deal. She clearly breaks her programming when she orders K to break the antenna but it's still done for the sake of him. She has very limited agency that is constrained by the nature of the technology but it's still some agency nonetheless. What's really awesome about this is that when K sees the large advertisement towards the end, that is this movie's origami unicorn - it doesn't matter how Joi came about or how she started because what she becomes is the same as what we all become, a personality molded by everyone we interact with. Rageaholic Monkey posted:The world of 2049 felt way more lived-in to me than the world of the original. Like the original does a pretty decent job of setting up the concept, I suppose, but 2049 does a much better job of delivering on the potential of what the original could have been. I will say this, I'd watch another movie in this setting after seeing this one. Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all time but I love it as a singular story. This one really does an incredible job keeping a small, intimate cast of characters while really fleshing out the setting a lot. The original though, like the Bradbury building, Tyrell's office, the footchase/Zhora's death, it has a lot of GOAT dystopian sci-fi visuals that will make it always stick with me more than any other movie. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
so... replicants can gently caress, but the kids are defective and can't survive outside a bubble seems a bit of a wishy-washy outcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be great to have a fully realized woman who was completely independent to make her own choices in life, but also believed that you (a specific male) are sexually attractive, super smart, exceptional above all other men, and completely perfect in all regards? And wouldn't it be great if she was designed such that she would never, ever leave you for someone else, or to just be on her own? The idea would simply never occur to her! That, to me, says agency. More pointedly, Joi cannot exist without a male companion. To say that she "exists" without having the ability to not choose to be married to the person she was programmed to sexually and intellectually satisfy is either wrong or seriously hosed up. This is the toxicity of the Metropolis trope. It's strange that of all the things we consider human, consent is not among them, at least as far as women are concerned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Serf posted:I think that her contacting Mariette and arranging for their syncing demonstrated that she could grow and move beyond just having a relationship with K. And the way she jealously orders Mariette to leave the next morning makes me believe that she even considered doing so to be a mistake. Yeah, this is one of the scenes that really cinches things for me. If she is just working off complicated algorithms to simulate subservient affection I don't think those feelings would include jealousy or being emotionally protective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:so... replicants can gently caress, but the kids are defective and can't survive outside a bubble seems a bit of a wishy-washy outcome. I would say that that it is likely or at least an even chance that that is no more than a cover story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:so... replicants can gently caress, but the kids are defective and can't survive outside a bubble seems a bit of a wishy-washy outcome. I thought the syndrome was made up and a play on the technology term Galapagos syndrome (an isolated branch of a globally available product) so that anyone searching would assume she died and at most pursue the made up son. pospysyl posted:Wouldn't it be great to have a fully realized woman who was completely independent to make her own choices in life, but also believed that you (a specific male) are sexually attractive, super smart, exceptional above all other men, and completely perfect in all regards? And wouldn't it be great if she was designed such that she would never, ever leave you for someone else, or to just be on her own? The idea would simply never occur to her! That, to me, says agency. I took her last few scenes to mean that she developed actual feelings for him independently. You can look at it that way too though, when he sees the massive hologram ad it'd be easy to see that not as him missing the "real" Joi he had lived with but instead realizing how absurdly fake and unreal it was to think of him having an actual relationship with her beyond an AI waifu. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
I'd also like to say that John Travolta would have been a far superior Wallace than Jared Leto. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:so... replicants can gently caress, but the kids are defective and can't survive outside a bubble seems a bit of a wishy-washy outcome. I think that the replicant leader is just using that as a cover. It keeps her conveniently in one place, affords her access to the replicant memory program and provides her with a relatively safe location. Also, I'm rewatching Blade Runner and another mirror of the Deckard meets Rachel/K meets Luv thing is that Rachel asks Deckard "Can I ask you a personal question?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
I also think it's likely that her placement as a memory editor is for the sake of implanting memories that will help turn more recent replicants to the cause of the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:I'd also like to say that John Travolta would have been a far superior Wallace than Jared Leto. Thank you. I like the movie a lot but I'm sad we didn't get this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:
Yeah. And? This is Blade Runner, everything is hosed up there. Joi is self-aware and yet she is a prisoner of the customer, just as the replicants are the property of a mega-corporation and the whole system goes on because humanity pretends they are not real persons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Serf posted:I think that the replicant leader is just using that as a cover. It keeps her conveniently in one place, affords her access to the replicant memory program and provides her with a relatively safe location. It would also keep her from getting DNA tagged, popping up in facial recognition, or other surveillance state shenanigans if she was sequestered away. Speaking of which, going with the whole special-not special theme in the film, did anyone else recognize that the horse was actually an unicorn? When we get a good shot of the front of it, the there's a nub on it's forehead, like there was a horn there but was broken off or carved off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:I'd also like to say that John Travolta would have been a far superior Wallace than Jared Leto. Thank you. i'm not unconvinced that Steven Segal wouldn't have made a better Wallace than Jared Leto
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Speaking of which, going with the whole special-not special theme in the film, did anyone else recognize that the horse was actually an unicorn? When we get a good shot of the front of it, the there's a nub on it's forehead, like there was a horn there but was broken off or carved off. The ashtray K looks at for awhile after he and Deckard meet up also has a chip on it where that would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:It would also keep her from getting DNA tagged, popping up in facial recognition, or other surveillance state shenanigans if she was sequestered away. Because of that the syndrome she is said to have is a great pun on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3%A1pagos_syndrome
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
I wish Janelle monae was wallace
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
A different actor should have played him in each shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
No, shia lebeef
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Michael B. Jordan should have been Wallace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
I was surprised at how not-annoyed I was at Jared Leto in this movie. Wallace is no Tyrell, he's too grandiose, but I suspect that was the point. Dude's got at least two god complexes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Ordinarily constant lingering shots of an actors face would annoy me but Gosling is such a handsome devil I didn't mind. If I was a woman he'd make me as wet as a slip 'n' slide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:No, shia lebeef At some point this is the serial number under a replicant's eyelid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Ordinarily constant lingering shots of an actors face would annoy me but Gosling is such a handsome devil I didn't mind. He can have a similar effect on men of the right persuasion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
I was reminded of Equilibrium when they tested his emotions and stuff, so then it was pretty hilarious to me that this movie also had a really unexpected "oh hey btw welcome to da resistance" scene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
The whole movie falls apart within the first 20 minutes when we are shown that replicants are made of DNA base pairs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
fspades posted:Yeah. And? This is Blade Runner, everything is hosed up there. Joi is self-aware and yet she is a prisoner of the customer, just as the replicants are the property of a mega-corporation and the whole system goes on because humanity pretends they are not real persons. What makes you think she is self-aware? I got the impression that she appeared to be self-aware because K/Joe was going through similar issues and she's literally designed to say exactly what you want to hear and do exactly what you want her to do. He wanted to hear he was special, he wanted her to act like he was special, so that's what she did. It's a loving tragic part of the movie, but it totally fits thematically with the larger questions of whether or not artificiality removes meaning from experiences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
KyloWinter posted:The whole movie falls apart within the first 20 minutes when we are shown that replicants are made of DNA base pairs. Why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I saw this movie. I don't go the movies very often anymore but Blade Runner was always a favorite so I thought it would be worth seeing on the big screen. Uh... she was amazing you wierdo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:27
|
|
