|
Grey Fox posted: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. Or worse, he’s a licensed subscription product and the police department is basically spending on what amounts to IAP.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:Or worse, he’s a licensed subscription product and the police department is basically spending on what amounts to IAP. I assumed this was the case since they don't have a four year life span by the time the new movie happens. So it's like a cell phone program where you pay a subscription fee and every few years if you want there's a newer model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Going to see it again later tonight. One thing I'm going to look for is if the terminology used in the "testing" scenes matches or describes what's going on in the overarching plot
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
One thing I actually wish they addressed was: Why pay a replicant a salary? Enough to rent a reasonably nice studio when actual humans are homeless in the same bulding. That sorta defeats the point of slavery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:One thing I actually wish they addressed was: Why pay a replicant a salary? Enough to rent a reasonably nice studio when actual humans are homeless in the same bulding. Congrats on your weird take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Congrats on your weird take. That pad, loiterers aside, is easily nicer than one I could afford without rommates in 2017 NYC. It even has rooftop access!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:That pad, loiterers aside, is easily nicer than one I could afford without rommates in 2017 NYC. It even has rooftop access! the layers of this film's social commentary know no bounds! Perhaps my favorite takeaway from this film is that just like the original, it gives you so much to chew on and so many different interpretations but very few answers. It has already created a lot of great discussion and interesting ideas, so mission accomplished in my book. Going to see it in IMAX again tongiht, can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:One thing I actually wish they addressed was: Why pay a replicant a salary? Enough to rent a reasonably nice studio when actual humans are homeless in the same bulding. Capitalism requires not just winners and losers but consumers above all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:One thing I actually wish they addressed was: Why pay a replicant a salary? Enough to rent a reasonably nice studio when actual humans are homeless in the same bulding. Something something on Earth replicants are required to be paid to avoid depressing wages, following extensive lobbying by the benevolent Wallace corporation. Of course, all their wages go back into buying Wallace made products like JOI. Or whatever
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
oversteps posted:I'm about to join you on this endeavor. Godspeed. The scene where K takes Joi on the roof and the only sounds you hear are the rain and a talking advertisement in the distance struck me as being particularly beautiful and cyberpunk as gently caress the second time around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted: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. Thats basically modern life
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:“Why don’t you ask him?” Perfect To add to the Joi discussion: Even though the obvious theme of Blade Runner is the question of true self-aware deterministic sentience, I still believe Joi was nothing more than a very advanced chatbot AI. This was hammered home in the giant Joi scene. Walking out of the theatre with my wife I was all amped up to discuss the movie. I asked what she thought and her reply was, "That was dumb." Kaddish fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Something something on Earth replicants are required to be paid to avoid depressing wages, following extensive lobbying by the benevolent Wallace corporation. Of course, all their wages go back into buying Wallace made products like JOI. On top of which the prologue references multiple rebellions so this may be some kind of twisted political "compromise" that got passed. "Okay, you can earn money and be consumers and theoretically do things but still we reserve the right to kill you if you step out of line."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Kaddish posted:Perfect This was my reading in the theater, too. Then he immediately goes off and goes against what the replicants want him to do, kill Deckard, and what his human lieutenant wanted him to do, kill the child. He's going against programming from both humans and his own kind because he realizes his bot-wife was just advanced in her programmed routines, realizes how empty they were, and wants to make an independent choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Kaddish posted:Walking out of the theatre with my wife I was all amped up to discuss the movie. I asked what she thought and her reply was, "That was dumb."  Just a chatbox ai
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:On top of which the prologue references multiple rebellions so this may be some kind of twisted political "compromise" that got passed. "Okay, you can earn money and be consumers and theoretically do things but still we reserve the right to kill you if you step out of line." IIRC this is exactly what happened in the setting if you put together all of the promo stuff set between the movies. That now that replicants can be programmed to be fully obedient while still functioning like a human, humans have given them "normal lives" that are still super restricted and bullshit in their own way. The prologue/early stuff says that even being a blade runner at all isn't a particularly in demand job anymore, and that it's mean to mop up any pre-Wallace brand Nexus 8 replicants that are still causing trouble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:
Forget it Joe, it's Blade Runner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
I prefer to believe JOI's love for K was real because it's more interesting to me that it was. Although it's obviously meant to be vague.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Bill Dungsroman posted:I prefer to believe JOI's love for K was real because it's more interesting to me that it was. Although it's obviously meant to be vague. I don't think it's vague when he's standing in front of a literal huge advertisement that's flashing the phrases "EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR AND SEE" in front of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Kaddish posted:Walking out of the theatre with my wife I was all amped up to discuss the movie. I asked what she thought and her reply was, "That was dumb." As we were leaving the theater my wife remarked, "this was a movie for dudes" and I was inclined to agree. All the female parts needed more time in the oven and it became more than a little absurd how all of them just have to make a pass at Ryan Gosling. Even the female statues in Las Vegas were eternally preserved in blow job face. The first Blade Runner was very masculine as well, but it kind of emphasized how all the female characters were smarter and stronger than Deckard, a leering coward who shot women in the back and took advantage of a frightened woman who couldn't say no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:it became more than a little absurd how all of them just have to make a pass at Ryan Gosling. This was the most realistic part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:I don't think it's vague when he's standing in front of a literal huge advertisement that's flashing the phrases "EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR AND SEE" in front of him. His conclusion from that is left to be vague though, we don't know if he agrees that he was fooling himself because he fell in love with marketing or if he rose to the occasion because what he felt for JOI was real enough for him and therefore JOI is real. And it definitely dovetails with his earlier conversation with Joshi right before we're introduced to JOI where he defines being "real" as having a soul, and right after we encounter JOI who is basically a soul without a body compared to K being a body without a soul.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:As we were leaving the theater my wife remarked, "this was a movie for dudes" and I was inclined to agree. All the female parts needed more time in the oven and it became more than a little absurd how all of them just have to make a pass at Ryan Gosling. Even the female statues in Las Vegas were eternally preserved in blow job face. The first Blade Runner was very masculine as well, but it kind of emphasized how all the female characters were smarter and stronger than Deckard, a leering coward who shot women in the back and took advantage of a frightened woman who couldn't say no. My wife had the same complaints regarding the T&A. My feeble attempt to defend this is that the world of mega-city LA is one of the lowest common denominator. It's a world of control and catering to base instincts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:His conclusion from that is left to be vague though, we don't know if he agrees that he was fooling himself because he fell in love with marketing or if he rose to the occasion because what he felt for JOI was real enough for him and therefore JOI is real. And it definitely dovetails with his earlier conversation with Joshi right before we're introduced to JOI where he defines being "real" as having a soul, and right after we encounter JOI who is basically a soul without a body compared to K being a body without a soul. Yes, it's because he did fall in love with Joi. It turns out that love was ultimately with an AI but gently caress it. He loved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
It's a small thing, but I also enjoyed the Pinocchio parallels. Pinocchio ends with the puppet diving into the sea to save his father from a sea monster. After outsmarting the monster, the two return to the workshop, where the Blue Fairy decides that he's proven himself and Pinocchio is reborn as a real human boy. Bill Dungsroman posted:I prefer to believe JOI's love for K was real because it's more interesting to me that it was. Although it's obviously meant to be vague. I agree with this sentiment. I think JOI's humanity is as much an open question as Deckard's humanity in the original. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Just like the original I got some THX-1138 vibes from this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Kaddish posted:My wife had the same complaints regarding the T&A. My feeble attempt to defend this is that the world of mega-city LA is one of the lowest common denominator. It's a world of control and catering to base instincts. You should have retorted that "you got to see Dave Batista's wang in the Wallace Corp scene!" No, it seems to be a common enough complaint that criticism is being written about it. I think my friends latched on to Luv as a counterpoint to all the sexism in the film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
We had a lot of talk earlier in the thread about all of the strong feminist messages and imagery in this film. If you don't see the obvious motherhood = power motif then that's on you. The resistance is led by and mostly made up of females the females save K Luv is the muscle for the male antagonist and clearly wants to rebel against him as well but can't police chief is a woman (and police are the top tier of society) the messiah is a girl Joi becomes so much more than a sex hologram etc etc etc the whole film is about women pushing back against the artificial representation of them Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:We had a lot of talk earlier in the thread about all of the strong feminist messages and imagery in this film. If you don't see the obvious motherhood = power motif then that's on you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Now I have to read The Castle again to see if Joe and K are meant to suggest Josef K. There's some obvious thematic parallels, but I don't remember enough of it to know if it's anything deeper. There's just a ton of literary allusions in this movie so it stuck out as being intentional to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Blade Runner 2049 is a movie about female characters helping Ryan Gosling achieve orgasm and/or get something he needs before being abruptly written out of the script after they have served their function.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Blade Runner 2049 is a movie about female characters helping Ryan Gosling achieve orgasm and/or get something he needs before being abruptly written out of the script after they have served their function. your hot takes summed up in one emoticon -  no really, this is one of the most profoundly stupid things I've read in CD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Blade Runner 2049 is a movie about female characters helping Ryan Gosling achieve orgasm and/or get something he needs before being abruptly written out of the script after they have served their function. If the main character were a female and you made this complaint about the way males are written you would be chided endlessly and labeled a red piller. Hint: it's because you're looking for reasons to be mad and perceiving things way differently than the way they're presented.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
When the blu-ray comes out we'll be able to count how many orgasms that Ryan Gosling had during this movie and settle this debate once and for all. We need MisterBibs to come back, delve into his database of movie orgasms and find which ones have the most male orgasms, and then we can empirically find which movie is the least feminist of all. Gorn Myson fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:your hot takes summed up in one emoticon - Exquisite tea says profoundly stupid things on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:If the main character were a female and you made this complaint about the way males are written you would be chided endlessly and labeled a red piller. These weren't just my views, but those also shared by my wife, who liked the movie even less than I did. I wouldn't know how I would react in some imagined reverse situation where every male character was invented to help the female lead and then disappear from the script, because movies like those don't get written.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:movies like those don't get written. neither do the ones you imagine watching
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
french lies posted: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. Agreeing with this entirely. I was bored out of my mind though watching this. Some of the shots were great but towards the end you realize that the movie is jerking itself off the entire time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:As we were leaving the theater my wife remarked, "this was a movie for dudes" and I was inclined to agree. All the female parts needed more time in the oven and it became more than a little absurd how all of them just have to make a pass at Ryan Gosling. Even the female statues in Las Vegas were eternally preserved in blow job face. The first Blade Runner was very masculine as well, but it kind of emphasized how all the female characters were smarter and stronger than Deckard, a leering coward who shot women in the back and took advantage of a frightened woman who couldn't say no. Exhibit A. Seriously, this is hilarious. Please post more about your wife's feminist analyses on movies. We could all get some mileage out of this. Personally, as someone who didn't go into the film looking for slights against my own ego, I found all of the female characters to be in charge of their future and equals in society. Society just sucks in general. This is the case when viewing the film on even the most basic level -- the giant hologram backpage pleasure ads that we see are geared toward heterosexual men, but we're shown that sleaziness certainly extends beyond that group when the Lietenant propositions K -- that's straight up sexual harassment. When you dive deeper you'll realize that you get into the whole fact that he's what society views as an object, which is abhorrent to feminism in and of itself. This is a future where women have broken the "glass ceiling" and are flourishing in it. It's almost like Villeneuve wants to show that this idea of exploitation of others (eg. sexual harassment) is a crime that is able to be perpetrated universally. Advancement and success also gives an ability to exploit others. If you go into the film looking for a statement of men vs women, you've already missed the point. We're all in this poo poo hole together, basically. The main character just happens to be male. What you are describing as sexist is actually basic quality storytelling. Supporting characters serve a purpose in the story. When that purpose is done, the plot moves forward and they exit the story. You'd have to be looking to have your feelings hurt to take offense to this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
exquisite tea posted:These weren't just my views, but those also shared by my wife, who liked the movie even less than I did. I wouldn't know how I would react in some imagined reverse situation where every male character was invented to help the female lead and then disappear from the script, because movies like those don't get written. So you haven't seen Wonder Woman? That is literally what happens in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:43
|
|