|
porfiria posted:[spoiler]Wallace is blind because he's the least human and most overtly villanous character in the Blade Runner universe. He's surrounded by mechanical "bees" (I am sure I read somewhere there's some apocrophya about Satan being surrounded by mechnical/metallic insects but I can't find it anywhere) contra Deckard's real bees. Beelzebub, depending on where you look, is another name for Lucifer. He's the Lord of Flies. Anyvay, WHAT is a Deckard Rick? Lov lov lov luv how the movie didn't give you an answer, retaining the ambiguity that's fed and cultivated its particular audience for a few decades, something I can easily see with 2049. Full disclosure/shame, I've never sat thru a full showing of the original Blade Runner before the run-up to my screening of 2049. I had seen so many parts of the film over the years, disjointed or not, that I always felt that I had gotten its full imprint, but gently caress me if I wasn't wrong catching the theatrical cut a few days ago. Mechanical, with astonishing production values, intense intellectual ideas, and a refusal to spoonfeed its audience over a well-tested narrative frame. Classic Ridley Scott. This movie is a departure. It wears its emotions on its sleeve much more, its much more expansive than a classic Ridley joint, with characters much more wont to mouth off paragraphs of exposition and motivation in service of a very passionate theme, in this case, like most Villaneuve movies I've seen, the tribulations and eventual glory of welcoming love into your life. Joi is the key, and thematic point of the whole exercise. Whether she was truly human is almost beside the point, as much as Batty being a replicant affected his worthiness to live. What mattered was what mattered, what seemed real was real. What else is there to be believe in this hosed up irradiated world. Speaking of Batty, my appreciation for how smart a play it was to make the Batty 2.0 (this time with full bodied wall crashing action) the hero of the sequel, a souped up and prettied-up version (like a newer IPhone) that still pumps out more power and efficacy than previous models. I could have easily seen the movie having K be a supporting character, the robot that again saves a protoganistic Deckard's life in the end, his arc terribly elided. Thank god for new ideas. The mood, the production, the ideas are what makes this Blade Runner. But the inventiveness and emotional punch is what makes it 2049. From freshly watching the original as a whole, I can say that its relative subtleness (Tyrell watching Rachel being V-K'ed for just a moment, his glasses flashing is so much more of an elegant way to get across his character than Wallace's constant monologuing). But the visuals, and the underlying thematic nugget in 2049, and how it so competently extends the originals ideas, is why it makes it one of the most satisfying sequels of all time.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
I normally don't get impressed by action/ gunplay in films unless it's like, John Wick or whatever, but goddam was K's no look shooting neat. it just smashes the idea he's a literal killing machine back into your head. You see Gosling's kind face for so long it's easy to forget he can just start blasting haters left and right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
I've seen Gosling in four movies now and in three of them he played a character who's impassive but prone to sudden violent outbursts. In two his characters drown someone but that probably doesn't mean anything. e: also, looking back over my earlier posts on this thread I realize I was fairly cynical about the prospect of this movie but I'm having to eat my words here, it's really drat good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:The prostitutes are also a Wallace product. “Syncsex” in this case would be like ... like... an Alexa module, perhaps. Like Linguica said in a post, having actual sex with your e-waifu has got to be like item #1 on a wishlist. Do we have confirmation that JOI was a Wallace product? I mean the advertising is in another language, I can't remember them explicitly mentioning it, even Luv following her could be regular ol' hacking. It would make more sense for (my) interpreting the moment when Luv crushed her module, a moment before looking like she was staring in JOI's eyes while saying the line "I hope you enjoyed our product", presumably referring to K. Speaking of Luv, whooof there's a lot to be said there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:He dies. If the acting doesn't imply it, the music does. Its the same song that played when Roy Batty died Nice pull. He really was Roy Batty 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I've seen Gosling in four movies now and in three of them he played a character who's impassive but prone to sudden violent outbursts. Honestly, I couldn't shake the feeling I'd pretty much seen this movie before while I was watching it in the theater, and it totally just clicked for me why. BR2049 is a loving stealth remake of Drive, and not a particularly subtle one, and holy gently caress I sincerely hope I'm not the first person to have this realization because it's kind of blowing my mind a little.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Do we have confirmation that JOI was a Wallace product?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:He dies. If the acting doesn't imply it, the music does. Its the same song that played when Roy Batty died Thematic death. As in his story is concluded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:It shows the Wallace logo every time K goes into her menu. Also during Luv's smalltalk with K at Wallace HQ the Peter and the Wolf ringer goes off and she says something like, "I see you're also a customer"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:It shows the Wallace logo every time K goes into her menu. Fair enough. Can we talk about water positively infesting the movie as a metaphor. From the cool simulations in Wallace's pad, to the crashing waves at the climax. I mean it's obviously a birthing metaphor, water of life and all that. But seeing a high faluting idea like that pervade a movie through visuals alone is absolute catnip for me. Just such a great grasp of visual language. The sex-sync is prob my favorite scene of the year, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Veib posted:They speak Finnish, and one of them even is Finnish: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1279980/ I can vouch that Dr. Badger was speaking perfect Somali. Makes sense since he's the "I'm the Captain Now" guy. Great appearance, rooting for the guy. e: Pedro De Heredia posted:Would that even work well? It's a memory about a child fighting for her peace of happiness no matter the consequences. There's def a rebellious edge to it, but I'm leaning towards it being just an artist fitting her experiences into her art. One of my fav things about this movie is that what occurred, the larger plot, would have chugged along without K's involvement. He was only trying to stop what his actions threatened to reveal. e2: Rageaholic Monkey posted:Saw it again. Noticed things I didn't notice the first time. It's still great, and I still think it's better than the original. It's captivating throughout the entire runtime. For 2 hours and 45 minutes, I never wanted to look away from the screen (except when K sticks his hand into the box full of bees It's a callback to the original's shoving a hand into ice cold mist or whatever. I can't stop posting about this movie! Shageletic fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:20
|
|
But it makes sense considering
|
I read this whole thread and no point pointed out that "JOI" is a real genre of pornography and is exactly 100% what joi is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Trap sprung 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Can we talk about water positively infesting the movie as a metaphor. From the cool simulations in Wallace's pad, to the crashing waves at the climax. I mean it's obviously a birthing metaphor, water of life and all that. But seeing a high faluting idea like that pervade a movie through visuals alone is absolute catnip for me. Going with the general theme of eyes (and thus vision) that continued from Blade Runner, I noticed that a lot of the time the water was used as an obscuring effect, whether that was rain on a window or the general visual busy-ness of the climax or even messing with Joi's appearance. I haven't quite formed an articulate critical analysis of it, but it follows that you can't judge what's human or not by what you see. Ironically, the eye is what is used to actually identify what is human or a replicant. Also this is one of those rare movies where every frame was a visual treat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I read this whole thread and no point pointed out that "JOI" is a real genre of pornography and is exactly 100% what joi is? People have pointed it out. It isn't an accident. I don't think there's much of the movie that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
david_a posted:I love how people's interpretations of Joi are completely opposite too! She was in the movie from the first conception quote:Fancher: It was just the character of K. I had written a little “Blade Runner” short story about a new kind of blade runner and I named him Kard, with a K. So there was this character who could be investigating something and that could maybe be a through-line [for the sequel]. There was also a romance with a digital woman. So there were certain ingredients, some flavors. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-blade-runner-screenwriters-20171009-htmlstory.html Shows how integral JOI was. Hampton Fincher has a way with words quote:“The image was this: A handbook turns into a poem through his experiences and his ordeal and love. He also says this is what happens to JOI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:40
|
|
She's definitely the new "replicant question."
|
Can i ask you guys something: Why does the dichotomy of replicant and human persist even after you've watched both movies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
The number of reviewers paradoxically downplaying the importance of female characters in this film in order to launch into a tirade about how the film is man-centric is truly special. Every single plotline in the movie orbits around a female. The whole society orbits around giant holograms of women. Maybe there's a statement being made about the irradiated postapocalyptic future yearning for holographic women while having to breed robot babies to stay alive, I dunno maybe I went to film school 101 or something call me crazy.Owlofcreamcheese posted:I read this whole thread and no point pointed out that "JOI" is a real genre of pornography and is exactly 100% what joi is? Well I'll be durned. unzips pants GrandpaPants posted:Going with the general theme of eyes (and thus vision) that continued from Blade Runner, I noticed that a lot of the time the water was used as an obscuring effect, whether that was rain on a window or the general visual busy-ness of the climax or even messing with Joi's appearance. I haven't quite formed an articulate critical analysis of it, but it follows that you can't judge what's human or not by what you see. Water: Look at the themes of those scenes. Tyrell scene: "Memories! You're talking about memories!" Rooftop: "All these memories will be lost in time.... like tears in the rain." Much like Ridley Scott wanted you to "hear" light in the movie, he wanted you to see and feel memories crashing over you like waves. Eyes: It's based on the idea of eyes being the window to the soul. That's why the movie opens with the shot of an eyeball, it is a metaphorical journey. Replicants eyes reflect because they're empty inside... or are they overly full?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Same. Seriously why are we even putting spoilers with spoiler tags itt? what ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I've seen Gosling in four movies now and in three of them he played a character who's impassive but prone to sudden violent outbursts. If it makes you feel any better I had a vivid flashback to Only God Forgives when K puts his hand in the beehive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
What's the deal with the rain drops on Joi when she first feels rain? Is she projecting them onto herself to make it feel real or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
I can't stop posting random things that I noticed: In the memory, everyone is saying the child was a boy, but it has hair, which only the female children have in the scene with all the orphans putting together computer pieces. Everyone else is shaven down to stubble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Jehde posted:What's the deal with the rain drops on Joi when she first feels rain? Is she projecting them onto herself to make it feel real or whatever? It's that or her emanator adjusting to make the simulation appear more real (she also becomes soaking wet). Either way she appears to FEEL like she is being rained on, which makes her happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:BR2049 is a loving stealth remake of Drive, and not a particularly subtle one, and holy gently caress I sincerely hope I'm not the first person to have this realization because it's kind of blowing my mind a little. Could you...explain this please. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Al Cu Ad Solte posted:Could you...explain this please. Driver is an android on a quest to become a real boy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Al Cu Ad Solte posted:Could you...explain this please. A reeeeeeal human beeeeeing
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Look just because Ryan Gosling is an actual replicant IRL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:A reeeeeeal human beeeeeing bean*
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:Regarding replicant's being forced to obey orders, you have reminded me of when K says to princess bride "I wasn't aware that was an option". That sentence now holds multiple layers for me. what do you mean "more than just an AI?" Artificial intelligence in these types of films are essentially equal to real human intelligence. That's why it doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant. AI and real-I are indistinguishable. It's like having a human without a body. The next step that many movies take is how the soul plays into this. The short "Blackout 2020" makes a passing reference to this about how they won't go to heaven or hell, but I think the real interesting point to be examined is what exists in us humans that we define as a soul? From my perspective as someone who doesn't believe in religious things, it's the vast instances of ions shifting across cell membranes which cause our neural synapses to fire over and over again -- something so complex and difficult to comprehend that I literally cannot see how we'll ever map it out. It's literally a bunch of electrical charges going at incredible speed throughout our brain. But how this forms what we see as a self and an individual -- it's an incredible valley to comprehend and I really wish a film could try and capture that aspect. But general audiences are better able to relate to the "soul," which is a kind of thing that honestly probably doesn't exist, but it makes us feel better to describe whatever we think it is. Because "you're just a bunch of chemicals scattering around your brain" freaks people out. edit: lol this poo poo schizophrenic
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Saw it last night, movie is great. But like the first film, I'm still unclear on what a replicant actually is. I was under the impression that they were androids, part organic part machine, like a Terminator, or maybe wholly machine but entirely lifelike, like Ava from Ex Machina. But at no point do we see any nonorganic machinery behind the replicant facade. They bleed, seemingly have organs, bones, DNA. So are they just genetically engineered humans then? If that's the case, then the interesting argument about the line between replicant and human seems less interesting or difficult. Is the argument for the replicant v. human dichotomy, in the logic of the movies, just that if someone isn't "traditionally" born, they don't have a soul and thus aren't a person (this seems to be the justification for the dichotomy that Robin Wright gives)? Like everyone has been saying, the issue of Joi being a person is the most interesting bit here because she's entirely synthetic. If replicants aren't synthetic, then the question of their personhood just feels like a reiteration of the question "are genetically engineered/modified babies people?" or "are clones people?", which is a far less intriguing issue to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:It's that or her emanator adjusting to make the simulation appear more real (she also becomes soaking wet). Either way she appears to FEEL like she is being rained on, which makes her happy. Yeah, she acts like a person being projected by a computer, not a computer with a personality (as with Her in Her). Her behavior is based on an assumption that she doesn't entirely control her virtual environment. It seems more like she has a few tricks she can deploy, like presenting dinner, changing outfits, syncing up to the motions of a physical person, without being able to, say, transform into a flashing siren when she's trying to wake up her unconscious companion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Al Cu Ad Solte posted:Could you...explain this please. They're both disconnected robots doing wrong at the start. They become human (or "a real hero") by an act of willing self-sacrifice. They both take out the main villains' lieutenant by running their car off the road and drowning them. They save people but are fated to wander off alone/die. They both get Lance of Longinus'ed in the abdomen because they're Jesus. Origami Dali posted:Saw it last night, movie is great. They're something close to engineered humans, yeah. There are definitely differences, they're not quite just tube babies though--Roy and Co are freakishly strong, only live a few years, etc. That's stuff you'd only be able to see if you cut them open though, hence the Voigt-Kampf test, etc. Probably the more interesting in question in both films re: replicants isn't whether or not they deserve rights or whatever (that's more a plot/character level thing) but what does it mean to be a bespoke person with no memory and no past. The replicants in the first movie are obsessed with photographs because they're trying to build identities for themselves. Rachel is experimental and "more human", apparently, because she has implanted memories from Tyrell's niece. K is a further iteration in that he has implant memories but he knows they're fake--and nevertheless wants to believe they're not, obviously. K wants to have be born not necessarily for metaphysical reasons of ensoulment at birth or whatever but because it will mean he has a past and a choice. Otherwise he's just a six month old piece of LAPD equipment or whatever. porfiria fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Thematic death. As in his story is concluded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Robot cellphone love and sex much better than Her Giant sinister hologram sex symbol not as good as Macross Robot fight not as good as Alien Covenant Overall tho 5/5 drat that was pretty great
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
porfiria posted:They're both disconnected robots doing wrong at the start. They become human (or "a real hero") by an act of willing self-sacrifice. They both take out the main villains' lieutenant by running their car off the road and drowning them. They save people but are fated to wander off alone/die. They both get Lance of Longinus'ed in the abdomen because they're Jesus. They both wear coats that would be dorky as hell irl but are cool as gently caress on screen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Saw it last night, movie is great. In BR1 they wouldn't have bothered with the V-K test if replicants could be distinguished from baseline human beings via simple physical/observational tests. They appear to be kind of like, organisms constructed of 3D-printed tissue that otherwise looks ordinary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
porfiria posted:They're both disconnected robots doing wrong at the start. They become human (or "a real hero") by an act of willing self-sacrifice. They both take out the main villains' lieutenant by running their car off the road and drowning them. They save people but are fated to wander off alone/die. They both get Lance of Longinus'ed in the abdomen because they're Jesus. Yep. Also, they both have love interests with fairly empty lives outside of the romance, whose alienation from them is the spur for them to start making proactive decisions, immediately followed by drowning one of the villain's lieutenants. I'd need to rewatch 2049 to go into more depth but it seems fairly uncanny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
This movie isn't about robots really. We live in a world where many people don't believe in the soul or the spirit today. A replicant is just the modern man, we view ourselves as biological machines programmed by an impersonal nature and devoid of authentic meaning ie as replicants which is why there isn't so much worrying about who is and isn't a replicant this time around vs what it means to be a replicant
Sinding Johansson fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
2049 is the best film this year since Alien: Covenant. It's too bad films with thematic depth like these underperform. Everybody just wants their stale comic book movies these days, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:In BR1 they wouldn't have bothered with the V-K test if replicants could be distinguished from baseline human beings via simple physical/observational tests. Not necessarily. They could be on a "presumed innocent" type system, where suspected replicants are presumed human and still have certain rights concerning ones own bodily autonomy. So you can't just physically probe anybody suspected of being a replicant, and it seems like it would take a great deal of probing to get down to the machinery (unless we take the glowing eyes of Rachael, the owl, and other replicants literally as glowing machinery). The VK makes it so that one can identify them without violating basic human rights in the event that they're wrong. I doubt this is the case, considering the future depicted in the films feels hostile to everyone, but it could be that human rights are strictly protected to further solidify the stark difference between human and replicant in the minds of the public. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:56
|
|