|
it is coincidentally the scene with two michael fassbenders on the scene at the same time
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Serf posted:Also, all those questions are interesting but have the same answer. Much like the question of whether replicants are people, despite not being human. AdmiralViscen posted:Both movies are more about asking why we allow some people to be viewed as worthless commodities than explaining why replicants and people are totally different from each other I get this, and yet I still find pondering the questions concerning the enslavement of humans (and if Replicants are biologically identical to us, then they are humans, not just human-like) to be less intuitively interesting than questions concerning whether or not something synthetic can be a person/slave. Though the answers may be the same, one question makes it easy to see and the other doesn't, which is why I care far more about Joi's arc than K's. Wouldn't that also negate Roy's "discovering his human-ness" arc as well? He is human, so what's so special about him discovering he doesn't have to be a murderer? If we are to contrast Roy with Deckard, Deckard is the more robotic of the two while Roy is full of zeal for living even though he isn't human. It's my understanding that this is the lesson Deckard learns from Roy. It took a robot who learned to be a person to teach the very human Deckard how to live like a human being, which prompted him to chance running away with Rachael. There's a poetic irony there. If instead Roy is just another human, then we're essentially watching Nat Turner lay waste to the slavers before laying down his arms on the battlefield to die, which isn't nearly as novel an idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:I get this, and yet I still find pondering the questions concerning the enslavement of humans (and if Replicants are biologically identical to us, then they are humans, not just human-like) to be less intuitively interesting than questions concerning whether or not something synthetic can be a person/slave. Though the answers may be the same, one question makes it easy to see and the other doesn't, which is why I care far more about Joi's arc than K's. This is a big part of 2049. Can someone be a person (human or replicant) if they weren't born? I think the movie wants you to think yes, but not because of K. K certainly is important and discovers his personhood through the events of the film, but the more relevant character, as you indicate, is Joi. Joi is Roy Batty, and she prompts the same questions that he did. Roy is a replicant with a limited lifespan, but Blade Runner attempts to convince you that there is no distinction between human and replicant through the ambiguity surrounding Deckard. Joi is a digital being, a mind with no body, and I think the movie wants you to realize that she is no different from the other people we see presented in the Blade Runner movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Any box office experts want to weigh in on Blade Runner's performance including overseas? Looks like already 86 million globally, with openings in China and Japan later in November. I'm hopeful this will not lose the studio money even of we go by "it needs to make double its budget in order to be successful" mantra. Really though, no sequels please. Let's not T3 this franchise. One thing I wondered about, maybe a glaringly obvious answer to this: why aren't replicants marked by something to make it clear they are replicants? Something conspicuous. Because aren't they just cheap labor and entertainment? What difference would it make if they had a large red mark on their hand for example?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Any box office experts want to weigh in on Blade Runner's performance including overseas? Looks like already 86 million globally, with openings in China and Japan later in November. I'm hopeful this will not lose the studio money even of we go by "it needs to make double its budget in order to be successful" mantra. Their mark is on their eyeball But more to the point, because that's not what the story is about. If replicants were easily identifiable, then the concerns raised by the movie... wouldn't be raised.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Any box office experts want to weigh in on Blade Runner's performance including overseas? Looks like already 86 million globally, with openings in China and Japan later in November. I'm hopeful this will not lose the studio money even of we go by "it needs to make double its budget in order to be successful" mantra. I am not a box office expert but by all accounts it's a massive failure. Which is just depressing to me. Studios are even less likely to take chances on a film like this. Marvel and Star Wars forever!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Yaws posted:I am not a box office expert but by all accounts it's a massive failure. I mean, you also have to consider that this movie was absurdly, extravagantly expensive. More than making studios think "we can never make anything smart again," it'll likely make them think "we need to spend less money on smart poo poo." e: It's also apparently meeting expectations overseas, it's just not doing great in the domestic box office. And even then, with the absurdly positive word of mouth, it'll probably have longer legs than most movies (and might even have a second weekend increase instead of a drop). WeedlordGoku69 fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Loved this movie. Totally didn't care it was 2049 minutes long, it made the movie better, and I want to have sex with the score.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Serf posted:Their mark is on their eyeball It crossed my mind that blade runners would have easier jobs and the replicant fugitive problem would be much more manageable if the corporations gave then conspicuous markings. The first models I totally get. But still none 30 years later, with the problem persisting? I guess you need a movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:It crossed my mind that blade runners would have easier jobs and the replicant fugitive problem would be much more manageable if the corporations gave then conspicuous markings. The first models I totally get. But still none 30 years later, with the problem persisting? I guess you need a movie. I think that a lot of these movies that have to do with "are our creations just as deserving of rights as we are" are basically trying to teach you the simple lesson of "we are all the same." Blade Runner sits on one end of the scale where the creations in question look exactly like us. The same lesson could be imparted in a different way, but that's a different movie. Like in real life the people who we are denying rights to do look just like us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
One thing about the original film that struck me as a little weird was how Pris flipped out and flailed around on the ground after being shot. Like I bet there's some kind of thematic reason (her fighting against her inevitable death, I dunno) but it just always seemed weird. Like the replicants are supposed to be bioengineered and largely identical to humans, but Pris flails around like a malfunctioning machine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
After awhile it kinda slipped my mind that K was a replicant until he loving burst through that wall like it ain't no thang 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Setting aside more thematic reasons (like, she's surrounded by clanky robot dolls), I suppose it stands to reason that a person with enhanced reflexes would move like that when they're flailing around in a panic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Once you've realized people are about the same no matter where you're at, why is there a difference between races? Ah i get it. Since we do not exist in a post racial society we must still use the terms to distinguish between peoples of different ethnicity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
double post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:It was a great film I agree and the scene as a whole was thrilling with all the disorienting negative space and the sinking car but I didn't like Luv the spinning kick lady vs the girly man fight like I did Fassbender v Fassbender, it lacked a certain weight to it considering they were all super strong Just watched the scene for the first time. Uh they were just throwing each other around on wires man. Serf posted:I don't know that I agree with this assessment. Wishing to live, especially when someone very real and physical has denied you a full life, is a perfectly worthwhile motivation. To seek salvation is incredibly human, born out of fear. There was definite a lackadaisacal lack of value in human life, present throughout the movie. They killed when they didn't need to. Like they enjoyed it. That's pretty human, in a way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Any box office experts want to weigh in on Blade Runner's performance including overseas? Looks like already 86 million globally, with openings in China and Japan later in November. I'm hopeful this will not lose the studio money even of we go by "it needs to make double its budget in order to be successful" mantra. Like make them have black skin tone? Anyways so the tipping point for the replicants was when they somehow realized they were fighting wars against themselves for the pleasure of humans? I usually take a very anti-anime stance but it did seem fill in the blanks cheaply.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:23
|
|
The robot fight in Covenant is extremely good because it's both a ridiculously brutal throwdown like something out of Terminator, and also involves 100% more Michael Fassbender than any other movie to date.Xenomrph posted:One thing about the original film that struck me as a little weird was how Pris flipped out and flailed around on the ground after being shot. Pris doesn't know how to kill people.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:The robot fight in Covenant is extremely good because it's both a ridiculously brutal throwdown like something out of Terminator, and also involves 100% more Michael Fassbender than any other movie to date. Exactly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCGyxJm41M edit: you know I never noticed that Walter's face is cut during the fight (when no when but David would have been around to see) and also after the fight (after he and David presumably have switched places) Sinding Johansson fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
My late-take: a beautiful movie that just needed a bit more emotional resonance at the end. K dies too peacefully. This denouement should be the calm that allows his emotional breaking point. I want to see an ugly yet beautiful expression of his humanity. Choking back tears for arriving at the destination that this is not his fatherthat he is not The One, yet resolute and proud of proving his humanity by achieving that noble sacrifice. A longing, bittersweet end would have been a nice soft gut punch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:18
|
|
To anyone who thinks JOI isn't 'real' because she's programmed, well, I direct you to the words of Oscar Isaac.quote:You decided to be straight? Please! Of course you were programmed, by nature or nurture or both and to be honest, Caleb, you're starting to annoy me now because this is your insecurity talking, this is not your intellect. Film was pretty great. As much as I thought the replicant resistance came a bit out of nowhere, it's absolutely relevant to K's story. He refuses Wallace's megalomania and he refuses the planned genocide of the resistance. He chooses his own path.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:To anyone who thinks JOI isn't 'real' because she's programmed, well, I direct you to the words of Oscar Isaac. Although you are right to point to Ex Machina, since that movie deals with the same problem, with Caleb and Nathan making opposite and unverifiable assumptions about Ava. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:34
|
|
Ersatz posted:The problem isn't that she's a program; it's that there's no reason to believe that she's actually self-aware, as opposed to simply being a convincing simulacrum. What's the difference? I think that's BR2049's thoughts on the subject. "What's the difference? It's real if it feels real." When you meet the mailman, you only 'know' he is self-aware because of his similarity to you. That similarity is based on physical appearance as well as biology. It doesn't mean it's right. It's only an assumption. You can't actually peek under his skin to see his skeleton. You certainly can't read his firing neurons to be sure he's real. Of course, thinking that JOI is a person -- or can become a person -- is one of those things that then means humanity is enslaving AIs much as they enslave/d replicants. Only, this enslavement is even more palatable because they don't look like we do. No one 'reasons' their way into seeing something as self-aware. That's only feeling. People use reason to find ways to argue that someone or something isn't. It's what's been happening in this very thread. If JOE does something, it is reasoned away as being 'her programming'. And, really, a lot of her behaviors seem to go beyond what you'd assume a mass market reassurance and emotional support AI would be capable of. But if her programming does actually include things like hiring a replicant for sex, rebelling against authority with your replicant boyfriend, deleting your own existence because of worry of tampering, and many other things then the only fallback is 'she's made of chips and wires and code' which isn't an argument of sentience as much as it is form. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
there's no indication in either film how replicants are "constructed" right? In the first film you see the "eye-guy" say that he made their eyes, but do they have to be made and then installed? Or is him "making their eyes" him experimenting with the genetic code until he gets it right and can pass that on to Tyrell? Same with Sebastian saying he worked on their hands. I have always thought they were an accelerated vat grown system, so basically just genetically tinkered humans in every respect, not something that is stitched together like Frankenstein's monster. I don't think either film shows for sure though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
But really, I just thought JOI was fascinating because she's a logical extension of the loneliest online lonely men things from around the net. From her name being a reference to a certain type of 'pornography' and those holographic girlfriends that text you and say good morning to you and stuff in Japan...
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:What's the difference?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
starkebn posted:there's no indication in either film how replicants are "constructed" right? In the first film you see the "eye-guy" say that he made their eyes, but do they have to be made and then installed? Or is him "making their eyes" him experimenting with the genetic code until he gets it right and can pass that on to Tyrell? Same with Sebastian saying he worked on their hands. I think they've always had them grown, although having individual tissues like bones, muscle, etc. grown in cultures then assembled like an automobile is definitely not out of the realm of possibility. I don't anyone at the time had thought about it, but it's something that's would become possible with advances in tissue engineering. It also makes repairs from injury easy if you have all these replicants tissue both in reserve and on demand. Roy Batty loses an arm or gets a lung punctured in combat, here's a new one already custom grown to spec. Also, I like to point out that Sebastian apparently has a woman stashed in his bathtub. You can only really see her clearly in the opening montage to Dangerous Days, but you see her leg popping up out of a bathtub in the fight between Deckard and Roy, right after he runs his head through the wall. None of them acknowledge her, it's just some weird poo poo that's going on in the background. I've wondered who she is, if she's one of Sebastian's toys and the bathtub is some sort of DIY garage home vat. Or maybe she's a homeless woman and Sebastian was using her for as a growth vat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:13
|
|
Ersatz posted:Assuming that you're self-aware, I'm sure that you know the difference between yourself and an object. The object, on the other hand, doesn't know anything. That's the difference. This is an assumption, that I 'know things'. If I tell you I am self-aware -- and really, 'I' am just words and data on a forum -- then I haven't proven I am self-aware. All I've done is told you I'm self-aware. I've proven nothing and if you take my declaration of sentience as sufficient proof, then why not JOI, or something like her, saying that she is self-aware? Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Seriously, I can't wait for this to hit digital media because I really want to shave 45 minutes off it and give it a better score (maybe reuse Vangelis' stuff from the original?) and see if it comes out a perfect movie. I don't think there's any scenes I'd cut outright, but almost every one could probably be trimmed a bit, and that score is just loving terrible and nearly sunk the movie on its own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Seriously, I can't wait for this to hit digital media because I really want to shave 45 minutes off it and give it a better score (maybe reuse Vangelis' stuff from the original?) and see if it comes out a perfect movie. Please make your dream come true so I can tear the result to loving shreds. 45 minutes? Holy poo poo I want to see how bad this could get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
The only things I would cut were the quick flashbacks they did to explain some of the plot developments. Felt a bit unnecessary. But still feel free to edit in more Vangelis music. That would be fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
 if you disliked 2049's score but loved Dunkirk's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Basically, Ersatz, and this isn't a go at you personally, I'm just using you as a sounding board, but the problem is how do you define sentience? What's the criteria someone could use to prove that someone else is self-aware? "Oh, it's if they know they're self-aware." How do you know if something is self-aware? It says it does? Well, that is, of course, a problem.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
The score was awesome and the sound in IMAX nearly outshone the visuals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:2049 is tied with Mother! for best film this year. drat, I knew I felt like this feeling I had could have been implanted from someone else's feelings! Also I almost got choked up at how lovingly and frame-perfectly 2049 seemed to draw, visually, from the original. The visual precision in this movie was astounding both as a standalone effort and a continuation of what came before. strangemusic fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Please make your dream come true so I can tear the result to loving shreds. 45 minutes? Holy poo poo I want to see how bad this could get. You realize that would still leave the film a minute longer than the original, right?  Like, that was actually part of why I landed on that specific number, because I feel like the original did almost as much minus nearly a solid fuckin' hour.e: also, I haven't seen Dunkirk, but... the fact that you're comparing the score of this to the score of a WWII movie is pretty telling as to the problem with this one. It doesn't sound like Blade Runner. It just sounds like every other Hans Zimmer score, with extra inexplicable bass drops. THAT SAID, I don't think Johannson would have nailed it, either; my pick for the score would have been, like, S U R V I V E or Dynatron or Tonebox. (Hell, S U R V I V E already proved that they can do a really loving awesome score, they did all the non-licensed music for Stranger Things.) WeedlordGoku69 fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
The score was perfect for a Blade Runner film made in 2017. Trying to score it to evoke a feeling of it being younger or older than it was would just feel wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:This is an assumption, that I 'know things'. I used the example of self vs. object just in case you were legit confused about the concept of the subjective experience of being (it seemed as if you might be, assuming that your question wasn't merely rhetorical). You're right that I won't take a declaration of sentience as sufficient proof of the same. Indeed, I additionally reject the notion that effective simulation should be considered sufficient. This is why I brought up Turing tests and the chatbot example earlier in the thread. In everyday interactions, I, like most people who aren't suffering from mental disorders, subconsciously assume that the people around me have internal lives. I can rationalize this as an extension of the definite knowledge that I have of myself as a thinking being, combined with the notion that my mind is somehow manifested from activity within my brain, and with the observation that other people have brains similar to my own. It's reasonable to do so, so as long as I recognize that this isn't really "proof." In Joi's case, the chain is dodgier. Granted, you can compare a person's mind, with the brain as the physical substrate from which consciousness emerges, to software running on hardware. But now we're introducing and relying on analogical reasoning regarding brains and computers. You might be satisfied with that, but I am not. From an ethical perspective, it arguably makes sense to treat Joi as a person, since there is a possibility that she is self aware. But there is no proof of that awareness, and there can't be. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Jehde posted:The score was perfect for a Blade Runner film made in 2017. Trying to score it to evoke a feeling of it being younger or older than it was would just feel wrong. On the other hand, analog synthesizers and cyberpunk are like chocolate and peanut butter, and going for a BWOOOOOOOMM-heavy Zimmer score felt way the gently caress more wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
I liked parts of the score (not all of it), but goddamn, I couldn't help but think how much this already great movie would've been elevated had the score been done by Perturbator or a similar artist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0kg80jAtI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwgDMsVKOtM It wouldn't have had to mimic Vangelis' score from the original, just achieve a similar tone that I didn't really feel like the Zimmer score delivered on. Zimmer's good at certain things and he's used so much in movies because of that, but I don't think scoring a Blade Runner movie was really his forte. I saw Perturbator live a few weeks ago and the thought that kept recurring in my head the whole time was "Fuuuuuuuuck, I need to hear this type of stuff in the new Blade Runner." Rageaholic fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 07:50
|
|
