|
Bottom Liner posted:I thought this was the best Harrison Ford performance in at least a decade. It played to his acting, not just nostalgia, though if watched in a vacuum I would never know this was the same Rick as the first movie. I'm not sure if my lukewarm feelings have to with the fact that Ford didn't have much to do in the movie overall. I mean he got into a fist fight with K, drank at the bar with him, got captured, interrogated by Wallace, handcuffed and flown off. Put his hands on the glass and tearily looked at his daughter..Most time on screen he has incapcitated and needed rescue. Not a flaw in the movie IMO. Deckard didn't necessarily have to be in the movie that much for him to be a major character, but Ford saying the movie was hard for him to film is baffling. This brings to mind the total lack of fan service in the film. There's no stench of studio-mandated happy meals for fans, stuff like Edward James Olmos' character having a big role or some cool fight scene, not just in a retirement home lol This movie was so good.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
Around 10 people walked out of my screening yesterday, and I heard several people complaining about it being slow/boring on the way out. Good chance this movie will be a bomb, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong. It's bold as gently caress and I can already tell that many of the films' constituent parts will stay with me for a long time. The dystopian future world in particular was haunting. The pace and feel is truer to the original than I would have dared to imagine. Cinematography is some of the best I've ever seen, with stand-outs being the Wallace headquarters and the sex scene. This movie felt like more of a vehicle for artistic ideas than anything else. Story was coherent but it was like no one had consistently been asking "does this need to be here" throughout the production. For example, you could cut all of Leto and Ford's scenes and very little would be lost story-wise. There's a distinct lack of economy in shots and scenes; everything seems to drag on for just a bit too long, points are hammered in just a bit too blatantly. It's in love with its own shots and shows them off with a zest that takes you out of the experience. I'll still remember this movie until my dying day though. How it got made is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I intentionally saw the film stone cold sober the first time so I could follow everything with the expectation that I'd see it again stoned as gently caress just to soak in the ambiance. I completed part II of this mission today. I have never seen a movie two days in a row before. It's a work of art.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Just saw this. Was pretty amazed that they came up with a sequel that was way darker and weirder than the original.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
After seeing the movie, I'm still not understanding why exactly does K think he's the child? Yes, he has a memory of the horse, and he actually found it, but the movie already stated that replicants have human memories implanted into them (or have fake ones). Why does he think that memory is his? The woman in the glass room said "yes, someone experienced this memory". "Someone" did. She didn't say that K did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
quote:Around 10 people walked out of my screening yesterday, and I heard several people complaining about it being slow/boring on the way out. Good chance this movie will be a bomb, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong. Thinking about this, I'm kind of having a chuckle to myself at the posters now, which used that Blue/Orange style usually reserved for Fast and Furious like movies. The poster is really the complete opposite of the movie. Alot of people must walk in thinking they're getting some sort of action movie and find out otherwise. I don't think it'll bomb...but man audiences are dumb as poo poo nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Was Jared Leto CGI or was that a real Jared Leto in this movie?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
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. Pretty much. The setting is explicitly dystopic and systematized dehumanization of thinking beings is the bread and butter of the film's villains. JOI is a product of a company whose CEO awakens a replicant for literally no reason other than to menace and disembowel her. The power holders of this setting are bad guys. I concur with the assessment that JOI demonstrates personhood in spite of her programming. If she was literally a non-person with no internal motivations, I doubt she'd have shown spite or jealousy towards Mariette, or insisted K delete her from the console/break the emanator antenna. The advert using "Joe" doesn't contradict this to me...her persona is informed by her programming, but that isn't the whole picture just as is the case with K or any other replicant. Serf posted:Also, Joi was definitely a person. This is like... Blade Runner's whole deal. ...this is a more efficient way of saying this. "Actually, the fake people are still real," is pretty much a central thesis of all cyberpunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:I'm not entirely making sense of what you are arguing. Are you saying that the trail is supposed to lead you to thinking you're the baby so that you stop looking? OK, in detail. Rachel's baby is hidden where she cannot be found until the resistance are ready to reveal her. However, the possibility exists that the trail might be found. The trail begins with Sapper, who performed the C-section and now guards Rachel's ossuary. So long as he keeps his head low, the ossuary remains hidden. Without analysis of the bones there's no way to know that a replicant died in childbirth, and thus that the child exists. However, knowing the child exists and knowing its birthday from the grave marker, DNA records can be used to trace it. If you just put down "girl, dead" then most people would give up there, but someone might keep looking either for a body that doesn't exist or a living girl whose existence you know has been concealed. By adding a second, fake record you make it more obvious that something is concealed if that second record is found, but anyone looking that closely at the DNA records already knows that. So they get sent in the wrong direction, looking for a boy who never existed - and if they "find" him, they stop looking because they found something. The assumption that the searcher is the baby is specific to the case of K and any other replicant with the horse memory who found the trail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
BumbleChump posted:After seeing the movie, I'm still not understanding why exactly does K think he's the child? Yes, he has a memory of the horse, and he actually found it, but the movie already stated that replicants have human memories implanted into them (or have fake ones). Why does he think that memory is his? The woman in the glass room said "yes, someone experienced this memory". "Someone" did. She didn't say that K did. The three options are 'it's a real memory of something he experienced', 'it's a fake memory', and 'it's a real memory of something someone else experienced'. When he meets the memorymaker, she tells him the story of her life, which does not seem to include the possibility of her having lived in some orphanage and thus being the person with those memories. When he talks to her, he asks her if she ever puts her real memories into replicants. She says that it's illegal. This is meant to make it seem like option 3 is extremely unlikely. Then when she sees the memory, she does not tell him it's option 3, even though it's her memory. So she is also misleading him into thinking option 3 is unlikely. If this were not a movie but 'reality', then yeah, it's likely that K, as a detective, would think it's much more likely that the memory came from a real person who put it in his brain. Then he could narrow it down using the ages of the memorymakers, dig into their private lives, and probably find some inconsistency that would lead to figuring out this girl is the baby. But it's a movie, and it's just kind of contrived so that K believes he's the baby and can also inadvertedly find the real baby at the same time so that the real baby can show up at the end as an adult woman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Pretty much. The setting is explicitly dystopic and systematized dehumanization of thinking beings is the bread and butter of the film's villains. JOI is a product of a company whose CEO awakens a replicant for literally no reason other than to menace and disembowel her. The power holders of this setting are bad guys. You're right in your general thrust, but I think you're misreading the specific scene. I'm pretty sure Wallace "awakening" the replicant was the birth process. He killed her because he already knew she didn't have the functioning uterus he needed, in the same way he had faux-Rachel killed instantly after Deckard said she had the wrong colour eyes. If a replicant isn't exactly what Wallace needs, he disposes of it because it's just a product to him. There's a later reflection of this, concerning Joi. Luv treats Joi as Wallace would; there was absolutely no need for her to destroy the emanator, but the product is useless to her so she destroys it. Meanwhile K treats Joi as Joshi treats him; although he's the one in control of the relationship, he listens and responds to her wants and wishes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
Jedit posted:OK, in detail. Rachel's baby is hidden where she cannot be found until the resistance are ready to reveal her. However, the possibility exists that the trail might be found. I'm not sure this really makes sense or works for me. I can accept the plot contrivance that K coincidentially gets involved, because movies often require some kind of contrivance to get started. I can accept that the path leads him to the baby because the people didn't cover their tracks well enough. This is a bit different, though: its saying that these are not contrivances, but coldly calculated actions. I don't think they hold up to much scrutiny in that case. There doesn't seem to be a need for any kind of trail to exist. The one-eyed rebel woman appears to know where the baby is. She says that if Deckard is captured, he can lead them to her, and she can lead them to the baby. That's why they need to kill Deckard, to prevent the chain from leading them to the baby. That's what I understood from that scene; I don't remember the dialogue 100%, so maybe I am wrong. So the Replicants don't need a trail. If the Replicants don't need a trail to find the baby (which makes sense; you don't want to hide something important so thoroughly that you lose it, but you can't carve a path too obvious that someone else will find it), then the logical and obvious thing to do would be to have no trail at all. K is able to find a baby because he searches for anomalies in babies born on the same date as the one he found inscribed. Why put down the baby as having been born on this date in the first place? That's going to lead people to the baby. The baby was born in some farm, they could have probably said it was born whenever. Probably worth pointing out that there's really two 'trails' here, the paper trail and the memory trail. K is able to match a date he finds at the house to records of babies born and it leads him to the orphanage. Wouldn't this mean that, at many points in the past, anyone who found this date at the house could have searched for records of babies born on that date and then find the orphanage, where the baby might have actually been at that point? The other trail, the 'memory' trail, has nothing to do with the rebels. We don't know what's up with the memory, because we don't know what's up with the memorymaker. It's unclear whether she has fake memories of her life (because her bio does not match the reality) or whether she is intentionally hiding, thus we don't know if these memories she's putting into people are a coincidence, or if they're part of a plan. I mean ultimately K does find the orphanage, the horse, the baby (inadvertedly), he gets Deckard captured, etc... and they tell him he's not the baby (which is incredibly risky if he ends up getting captured in the mission that they just him off to). I mean, if there was a master plan to throw people off the trail of the baby it failed miserably. The only reason that baby isn't dead in the end is because the bad guys ludicrously decide not to kill K when they take Deckard; if they had, it'd be game over. The misdirection works from the 'movie is misdirecting the audience' point of view, but (for me) it doesn't work as well from the 'characters are trying to misdirect other characters' point of view. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Good movie that I enjoyed, though I did find myself looking at my watch a few times in the final third.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Thinking about this, I'm kind of having a chuckle to myself at the posters now, which used that Blue/Orange style usually reserved for Fast and Furious like movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
Is it just my interpretation, or is Luv a name she adopted? It sounded to me like she latched onto Wallace's speech mannerisms more than an actual name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:
Don't know about the rest, but I'll take a crack at these two. Memory girl was born in the desert and taken to the orphanage. Still don't know why they used her real birthdate when filling out the paperwork there, but it's not a stretch to think that she gets adopted (and maybe that was the plan all along and the new parents are abetting the resistance and the orphanage is just a device to get the kid to them without exposing the identities of Sapper and the one-eyed lady) with the intention of getting her off-world. But then the immune disorder kicks in and she's stuck in a bubble on Earth. Luv don't kill K because she likes him. It's an example of some cracks forming in her conditioning. Same reason she kisses him during the fight at the wall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
It was quite a few pages back but the talk of the Resistance scene being sequel bait is super dumb. The fact that the Resistance exists and were in the middle of achieving their goals felt like a literary device rather than a hook for the next film. Unless someone involved has already said a third film is in the works I very much doubt there'll be one any time soon. That scene was there to give context to what K was doing, but the film is in no way, shape or form about the Resistance, it's about K's arc. Just like the offworld colonies it's a part of this universe that constantly looms in the background, but it's not the focus of the narrative. It's enough for us to know that the Resistance is a thing and that it's inevitable. Did it need to explicitly be shown on screen? Probably not, but I don't think doing so harmed the film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
BumbleChump posted:After seeing the movie, I'm still not understanding why exactly does K think he's the child? Yes, he has a memory of the horse, and he actually found it, but the movie already stated that replicants have human memories implanted into them (or have fake ones). Why does he think that memory is his? The woman in the glass room said "yes, someone experienced this memory". "Someone" did. She didn't say that K did. Also by this time You have JOI whispering in K's ear about him actually being special like she thought he was. He objectively probably could have figured out that the horse memory was implanted but it's possible that deep down he wanted to be important, and JOI continually reminding him of that possibility probably affected his thinking in some way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Every replicant wanted to be Rachel’s child, it’s a wish fulfillment vehicle for their universal longing, one which K expresses to Joshi in his apartment chat, that is, to be a real boy. If you’re born you have a soul being the prevalent internalized prejudice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Yeah, I thought K thinking himself to be the baby was silly until I realized that it being an utterly nonsensical assumption was kind of the point. At least, in my eyes. There are many reasons why he couldn't be the baby; firstly, this is a world where the prostitutes and ditch diggers are custom ordered, and a replicant without a job is one that's going to be retired, and I also sort of doubt every single random Replicant is as utterly superhuman as the military or police models. It doesn't feel like 'Replicant Blade Runner' is a job that you could just apply for, and K would sort of have to realize that he was 100% definitely custom made to be able to hunt down rogue Replicants. Even if he was born, it would make no sense that he was so loving strong; there'd be no reason to believe that a baby from a human man and a female replicant with no remarkable combat abilities would have physical stats near Roy Batty's. However, thinking about it, that doesn't strike me as inconsistent so much as it's sort of the whole point. Think back to the whole 'soul' conversation, and the drudgery of K's life. He wants to be special, no matter how much he protests. As a person, he's desperately searching for an identity beyond being a Blade Runner, and with Joi whispering that he's the child in his ear followed by him being constantly caught in extremely stressful situations, the logical inconsistencies inherent to his being the child sort of get pushed away by his sincere desire to be that person. Ironically, being mistaken about 'having a soul' is his most soulful, human act; he thinks something stupid and irrational because it's what he wants to believe, even if it doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:There doesn't seem to be a need for any kind of trail to exist. The one-eyed rebel woman appears to know where the baby is. She says that if Deckard is captured, he can lead them to her, and she can lead them to the baby. That's why they need to kill Deckard, to prevent the chain from leading them to the baby. That's what I understood from that scene; I don't remember the dialogue 100%, so maybe I am wrong. So the Replicants don't need a trail. The replicant resistance plot wasn't fleshed out quite enough, but it was clear that Stelline's importance is that she is the child of a replicant and that this being revealed would help the resistance. That means they did plan to reveal her at some point, when they were ready. However, they would need an evidence trail in order to prove that she really was what they said she was. The obfuscation was to stop that trail being taken to the end too soon. The other thing people seem to be overlooking is that Rachel's child is natural born and so doesn't have fake memories. Her memories of falling sick just before her parents took her off-world thus have to be real, unless she's lying about having them in the first place - which doesn't seem likely. So there was originally intended to be another level of protection where the child was adopted by the Stellines and they would take her off-world, which failed when she developed her immunodeficiency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
K thinks he is Rachel's child because Stelline tells him that the the memory is real. She clearly uses an ambiguous wording, but only if you think she is attempting to misdirect him. I believe she just says "it's real, this happened", which is true, but she doesn't specifically say that the memory is K's. After all, before that she is seen constructing memories from whole cloth and says it is illegal to use actual memories, and K takes her at face value on that. He does this in spite of his usual meticulous nature as a detective because he wants to believe that he's special. I think Stelline knows exactly what she is and what she's doing as part of the resistance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:Every replicant wanted to be Rachel’s child, it’s a wish fulfillment vehicle for their universal longing, one which K expresses to Joshi in his apartment chat, that is, to be a real boy. If you’re born you have a soul being the prevalent internalized prejudice. This is what I assumed. My take was that K and almost every other replicant is implanted with Stelline's memories to give them purpose and help direct them toward revolution. They are designed to pursue an end that Wallace is blind to. At the end, K rejects both his identity as a tool of the system and the programming intended to make him a tool of the replicant revolution. He rejects the opportunity to kill Deckard and become "the chosen one" again. Instead, he becomes a real boy capable of making his own decisions in saving Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
K still technically kills Deckard. "You drowned out there." Is there a reason why the Replicants can lie when Joshi assumes they can't? Luv throws this in her face before she kills her. Is Joshi just wrong? Also K refers to not being able to tell Joshi no, but the Replicants seem just fine going against that as well. It seems like their programming isn't quite so locked up. Is this stuff explained better in outside lore or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I completed part II of this mission today. I have never seen a movie two days in a row before. It's a work of art.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:K still technically kills Deckard. "You drowned out there." But all the dinosaurs are female ... ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:But all the dinosaurs are female ... ? I mean, I'm fine with life finds a way, I was just wondering if the movie says it or not. Since Luv uses that in that scene, it could be that the movie's just showing, not telling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
So is Deckard a replicant
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:K still technically kills Deckard. "You drowned out there." Just going by the movie, I got the impression that they're not very restricted in their actions at all, it's just that they're programmed to obey humans. Like when Joshi is first giving K his assignment, he's shaken at the idea that he's being told to kill what may be a "real" person, but he still follows the order. I got the same impression with Luv because you see her cry at points that made it seem less like she didn't want to kill a person or see a person killed (she clearly enjoys kicking rear end) and more because of a conflict caused by this. So basically humanity did create the perfect, flawless, compliant workforce, but yet again have screwed it up just by being assholes. I felt like that was the case with the entire resistance, that each was someone who, in following orders like K and Luv, did something that shook their programming. But you could also see Luv's state just as her being jealous of not being the perfect one even in Wallace's eyes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Amazing movie, I think the scene that really stood out for me Was the recon scene of Vegas. Does anyone know if that was a physical model they were using for the drone to fly over? It looked so loving good and made me miss movies that did that like aliens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Zeris posted:So is Deckard a replicant “Why don’t you ask him?”
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Loved the movie [quote="“Neo Rasa”" post="“477161769”"] 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. 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. [/quote] Yeah the literally says, "everything you want to see, everything you want to hear" I think that spelled it out in a big way that it wasn't a real relationship at all. Especially the moment the ad says "you look like a joe. It shatters the illusion for him right then and there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
I don't really spend much time in cinema discusso but is it really necessary to spoiler tag every little thing? Why would someone who cares about being spoiled be in this thread at this point anyways. It makes it really annoying to read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Also want to reiterate that I personally don't think JOI was self-aware. Replicants are or at least have the potential to be self-aware because for whatever reason at some point their producers decided it it made them more effective, although we don't know if all of them have the same degree of sentience. They are highly-specialized, extremely intelligent AI though. There is literally no reason that JOI would be advanced enough to have gained sentience, and I think it takes away from the universe to assume that every AI is self-aware just because the replicants are. I don't think this detracts from the relationship between her and K, really, but I also don't think any of the things she did couldn't be easily explained by her primary function: being the person that the customer wants her to be. However, the argument of whether a non self-aware AI should still be respected is a much larger one within this universe. If not all replicants have the same degree of sentience, but we still consider them to be worth having independence, the same would hold true for JOI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
David Heinrich posted:Yeah, I thought K thinking himself to be the baby was silly until I realized that it being an utterly nonsensical assumption was kind of the point. At least, in my eyes. There are many reasons why he couldn't be the baby; firstly, this is a world where the prostitutes and ditch diggers are custom ordered, and a replicant without a job is one that's going to be retired, and I also sort of doubt every single random Replicant is as utterly superhuman as the military or police models. Serf posted:K thinks he is Rachel's child because Stelline tells him that the the memory is real. She clearly uses an ambiguous wording, but only if you think she is attempting to misdirect him. I believe she just says "it's real, this happened", which is true, but she doesn't specifically say that the memory is K's. After all, before that she is seen constructing memories from whole cloth and says it is illegal to use actual memories, and K takes her at face value on that. He does this in spite of his usual meticulous nature as a detective because he wants to believe that he's special. I think Stelline knows exactly what she is and what she's doing as part of the resistance. Also, if she is aware of who she is, admitting the memory is real is risky. If the blade runner believed the memory was real but not his/her, then that would lead them to think the memorymaker is the baby. So going there and asking her if the memory is real would be basically asking for a confession. Jedit posted:The replicant resistance plot wasn't fleshed out quite enough, but it was clear that Stelline's importance is that she is the child of a replicant and that this being revealed would help the resistance. That means they did plan to reveal her at some point, when they were ready. However, they would need an evidence trail in order to prove that she really was what they said she was. The obfuscation was to stop that trail being taken to the end too soon. It also seems like you could prove she's who they say she is in a much less risky way. It's also a misdirection that wouldn't even really work if the blade runner chasing after her was female. Are blade runners only men? I mean, it is an explanation that makes a little sense, it is just poorly executed if that's what we were meant to understand. quote:The other thing people seem to be overlooking is that Rachel's child is natural born and so doesn't have fake memories. Her memories of falling sick just before her parents took her off-world thus have to be real, unless she's lying about having them in the first place - which doesn't seem likely. So there was originally intended to be another level of protection where the child was adopted by the Stellines and they would take her off-world, which failed when she developed her immunodeficiency. There's too much we have to assume just to make a late twist make sense. Not saying those assumptions aren't right, but I just don't think that's the best storytelling. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
I'm digging the idea of a company creating an artificial person (sold for a profit) that gets lonely and has to hold down a job so he can keep buying poo poo from the company that made him to satisfy his desire for companionship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
If you've read The Little Prince, I think that Joi's plot can be seen as similar to that. She's a rose just like any other rose, but it's the time that K spent with her and the love that he felt for her that made her special to him, and ultimately real, regardless of her programming. Giant Joi is just the scene with the field of roses, to me; she's beautiful, but nobody could die for her. It shows off that while there may be a million other versions of the person he loves, she'll always be the one that mattered to him. I could definitely see the interpretation that it was hammering home that he wasn't special, and even the only being that really loved him only did so because it was manufactured to do so, but K's plot as a whole is already immensely depressing. Let him have his dead holo girlfriend's love, at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:K still technically kills Deckard. "You drowned out there." If the powers that be had complete faith in these limitations they wouldn't have to do that recalibration test twice a week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
The REAL Goobusters posted:Loved the movie The alternative also makes sense, and both are thematically appropriate in different ways. Joe realizing that he was sold a cruel illusion in Joi might very well have pushed him to question what the resistance was selling, and to become his own man by saving Deckard. I think that fits better with his story. The alternative, that he realized that his unique and real Joi was lost forever, and that this prompts him to better appreciate the fragility and beauty of life, would be an echo of Roy's arc. Being a PKD fan, I very much appreciate the ambiguity here, and the darkly subversive presence of the first read, even for people who prefer the second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
Ersatz posted:Yep, that was my impression as well. I read it as this default Joi was very different from his Joi, that she had become a unique person sprouted from her basic limitations, and that he shouldn't allow himself to be bound by the limitations put upon him by his creators or by the resistance
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:59
|
|