|
MisterBibs posted:
oh god what's wrong with you or you just winding ppl up this time.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:Tyrell's interests, from chess to robooots, where shown in the original, his desires easily seen, making him very human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Tyrell's interests, from chess to robooots, where shown in the original, his desires easily seen, making him very human. It absolutely judges him, he delivers all this controlling messianic bullshit and displays a notable lack of humanity, which is why I enjoyed his performance so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It absolutely judges him, he delivers all this controlling messianic bullshit and displays a notable lack of humanity, which is why I enjoyed his performance so much. Oh I def agree with the movie judging him, it's just not coming out and saying EVIL MAN HERE or whatever. Both movies really did their self a service by holding back on doling out info on the beings truly controlling their respective universes. Tyrell only grows more interesting over time even when he had only like, 10 lines of dialogue in BR?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:No, they're made to suffer. It's their lot in life. I can get people not understanding that the droids are people. We're very visual creatures. But two movies about replicants being people as well when they look just like us and folks still don't get the point. That's wild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:No, they're made to suffer. It's their lot in life. So what's the difference? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Serf posted:I can get people not understanding that the droids are people. We're very visual creatures. But two movies about replicants being people as well when they look just like us and folks still don't get the point. That's wild. But it is kind of amazing that some viewers make it all the way through the original BR without concluding/understanding that the replicants are bio-engineered people. I'd imagine that's why they felt the need to literally spell it out this time around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:There was a valid debate to be had to re: droids, prior to there being a scene in Phantom Menace shot from 3PO's anxiety-ridden point of view. That should have clinched for everyone that droids subjectively experience being. Man, I dunno, the line from the quoted post, plus all sorts of poo poo like the droid torture room in Return of the Jedi, pretty much told me that the droids were just robotic people long before that scene in TPM. It wasn't a hard conclusion to draw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:An interesting thing about that "looming fear": no one thinks replicants are dangerous. There's no mention of bloody rebellion. Wallace doesn't fear any disobedience from his ninja factotum. K's neighbours and coworkers don't hesitate to provoke him. His boss wants to gently caress him. She's also genuinely surprised that their latest victim put up a fight. (Sapper is just quietly doing the same thing he'd be doing as an obedient replicant: producing for the corporation in a desolate backwater.) I always took the fear and prejudice around replicants not to be a fear of physical violence but that if you can manufacture something indistinguishable from humans in a factory, better even - more human than human - well then being a human isnt actually worth that much. Humans arent special or unique in the universe, just replicants produced by evolution rather than engineering and therefore just as disposable and "unreal" as replicants. I like that in 2049 the replicants display the same kind of contempt towards Joi as humans do to them because of course Joi is to replicants as replicants are to humans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:There was a valid debate to be had to re: droids, Like it's bizarre that I've often heard Star Wars derided as "not really" science fiction, yet many people stumble over this extremely basic exploration that a person is a person regardless of how they came into being. Random Integer posted:I always took the fear and prejudice around replicants not to be a fear of physical violence but that if you can manufacture something indistinguishable from humans in a factory, better even - more human than human - well then being a human isnt actually worth that much. Humans arent special or unique in the universe, just replicants produced by evolution rather than engineering and therefore just as disposable and "unreal" as replicants. I like that in 2049 the replicants display the same kind of contempt towards Joi as humans do to them because of course Joi is to replicants as replicants are to humans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Random Integer posted:So I dont know if this has been mentioned but does anyone think Wallace's blindness is a nod to Gnosticism? Wallace is the demiurge, a self-appointed God blind to spirituality who enslaves the creations of the real God Tyrell who created replicant Adam and Eve - Rachel and Deckard. Dont think its important, just something that struck me when I saw Wallace is blind. I was trying to think what god or god-like figure was blind and how that related to Wallace. I mean I figured there had to be some kind of deeper symbolism to his blindness since there's no reason why he couldn't just grow a new pair of eyes for himself. QuoProQuid posted:I took it much less poetically: Wallace is blind because he lacks vision. He does not see or care about the consequences of his actions and this failure makes him a shadow of Tyrell. That reminds me, the first time I saw him in a trailer it didn't give any plot context and I assumed that Jared Leto's character was a replicant and that speech about human progress and slavery was supposed to be advocating for a replicant uprising. I don't think I realized he was human until I watched that 2036 short but other than the three shorts I avoided reading or watching anything that might spoil the movie. Like I wasn't sure whether or not Ryan Gosling played a replicant and I can understand the studio's NDA for people who attended early screenings. Halloween Jack posted:If Tyrell is Disney, Wallace is, like, the Soylent guy. Don't know much about soylent guy but I thought of Elon Musk. I don't think it's the case in the movie but there was a really interesting article about Elon Musk and how his savior-complex was just an act. Like he doesn't actually believe we're living in a simulation, he just describes the plots of sci-fi stories as real and people believe him because he's rich, and therefore must be very smart and insightful. And going back to the "why doesn't Wallace just make some new eyes?" I recently noticed that Elon Musk appears to be balding in older photos so he must have gotten hair transplants at some point. Halloween Jack posted:
Pomplamoose fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:Honestly though there needs to be a moviegoer campaign to bring back intermissions. Nah. An intermission would have ruined this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Aside from the reasons always thrown out (longer movies equals less runs equals less money), I think one hangup that theaters want to avoid is people taking other folk's seats during the intermissions. Plus, folks wondering when the movie is coming back on, etc. Like you. They need to hire YOU. Someone who is smart. Someone who knows what really makes a movie great: how much it makes at the box office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
No, please, let the neo-Paulette continue on about what's wrong with auteur theory.  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:oh god what's wrong with you He is a literal child with a child's bladder and brain
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
RichterIX posted:I've been thinking about the lifespan of replicants in this movie. When K goes in for his baseline testing, the operator calls him "Steady K" or something like that which is interesting in the context of him being but not really being the "Chosen One." It sort of gives the sense that maybe he has outlasted other replicant blade runners and that them going AWOL is just considered an inevitability instead of a looming fear. In that case, K basically only survives because his boss is incredibly thirsty. Constant K. Yeah watching this scene again felt creepy to me because there is a heavy implication that the replicants who work for the police (as bladerunners or otherwise) have a pretty quick .. uh.. turnover. K is special in that nothing fazes him (until the memory), apparently. His boss even mentions she's been through a lot of bladerunners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
I could have sworn that I heard a bit of a trailer where Wallace says that replicants will now only live as long as the customer wants, which made me think they had custom-designed lifespans or they had figured out how to extend their lifespans. Blade Runner is a movie all about avoiding death and Blade Runner 2049 is all about trying to create new life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
That was in the Nexus Dawn short. When Wallace is giving his initial pitch to the three. One of the things he mentions is living as long as the customer wants. Which I kind of took to mean getting some sort of life extender every so often, like renewing a contract for another week/month/year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:If Tyrell is Disney, Wallace is, like, the Soylent guy. Or to put it more generally, Tyrell was an old school billionaire whereas Wallace could easily be a CEO somewhere in Silicon Valley Like when he first came on-screen I felt like he was too young compared to Tyrell but then the longer i watched i thought "wait no he's got exactly the right age and look" Tim Burns Effect fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Nah. An intermission would have ruined this. If right after the action scene in Vegas it faded to that ad and then to the actual in-movie cityscape it would have been in icredible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:Hard to say, but it's possible that she just likes him enough to do so. She wasn't ordered to bring K back or murder him, which gives her agency to do something, and a lot of her narrative seems to be punctuated with a longing for affection she knows she can't possibly get from Wallace but knows K has the potential to give, even if not to her. That's another reason I feel like she kills Joi both so she can display honest, pointless cruelty and in jealousy. Re: spoilered text I haven't seen anyone else mention it, but when Luv kills Joi(lets read that phrase again) she first says "I hope you enjoyed our product" in a vicious, jealous manner. She's looking at Joi when she says it. I think this correlates with the ideas others have of her being interested in K.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
The Joi ‘realness’ debate is really interesting to me, probably this film’s equivalent of ‘is Decard a replicant’ although a little more philosophical. There are three possibilities concerning Joi’s personhood: 1. Joi is not really ‘intelligent’ at all, just a very sophisticated chatbot. There are a lot of reasons why this isn’t plausible, the biggest being when she gets K to break the emitter - a chatbot would never be programmed to ask their owner to break their own hardware 2. Joi is a ‘weak’ AI, a philosophical zombie that perfectly emulates the results of consciousness without being conscious. If true, this has subversive implications for the message of the original in that it creates a mentally/emotionally human-like character that is, unlike the replicants, not actually a person. There’s one scene that I think contradicts this: Mariette, in the aftermath of the sync sex scene, comments that ‘there’s not as much in [Joi] as [she] think[s]’. This implies that Mariette at least thinks that is conscious and self aware, and presumably the general public would know if AIs are conscious. 3. Joi is a ‘strong’ AI, conscious and just as much a person as the other characters in the film. Joi having consciousness makes her relationship with K a lot more meaningful and her death scene way more impactful, and thematically the idea of a genuine, unconditional love packaged and sold as a product is extremely fitting with cyberpunk as a genre. As others have mentioned, it also creates an interesting parallel with Batty: both are products created for a specific function (her loving, him killing), both grow beyond their intended design, and both of their deaths precipitate the end of the film, Joi’s less directly than Batty’s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
I don't think the chatbot option is correct. We never see JOI post essays about Zack Snyder films on the internet, nor does she ever quote Zizek.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:3. Joi is a ‘strong’ AI, conscious and just as much a person as the other characters in the film. Joi having consciousness makes her relationship with K a lot more meaningful and her death scene way more impactful, and thematically the idea of a genuine, unconditional love packaged and sold as a product is extremely fitting with cyberpunk as a genre. As others have mentioned, it also creates an interesting parallel with Batty: both are products created for a specific function (her loving, him killing), both grow beyond their intended design, and both of their deaths precipitate the end of the film, Joi’s less directly than Batty’s. In that sense, she is more like Pris, who was likewise a literal "pleasure model." They're both designed to be passive sex workers who exist for other's pleasure, and they both go off-program alongside their replicant boyfriends. I'd contend that JOI insisting K offload her from the console and break the emanator antenna is a similar moment of rebellion. What's interesting is that I doubt anyone would argue that Pris isn't "real," or that she's merely operating under sexbot guidelines at Roy's behest. But somehow JOI is different...not being traditionally embodied, people are less likely to accept her seeming personhood as real. Obviously, I don't agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
The funny thing about Wallace is that he's the most unhuman character in the movie. From his total lack of empathy to the more overt things like his weird eyes and his robotic neck implant - he creates beings more human than he is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Xealot posted:In that sense, she is more like Pris, who was likewise a literal "pleasure model." They're both designed to be passive sex workers who exist for other's pleasure, and they both go off-program alongside their replicant boyfriends. I'd contend that JOI insisting K offload her from the console and break the emanator antenna is a similar moment of rebellion. What's interesting is that I doubt anyone would argue that Pris isn't "real," or that she's merely operating under sexbot guidelines at Roy's behest. But somehow JOI is different...not being traditionally embodied, people are less likely to accept her seeming personhood as real. Obviously, I don't agree. To be fair(And I'm 100 percent on the side of Joi being a real being who loved K), I think that's because Priss goes off program by trying to kill Deckard and Joi doesn't. The big issue is that Joi never does anything that goes against her inherent nature as a loving being; she loves K, and continues loving K until she is eventually killed. Compare this to every other being who is seen to ascend to sentience; Roy and K are murderers, made for murder, who decide to save a life when they have every reason to try and end it. Pris is a pleasurebot made to love and give pleasure, and tries to kill Deckard. Even Joi's biggest moment of rebellion is still a moment where she is acting out of love for K; she wants to protect him, and so she insists he break the emitter. She never does anything particularly hateful or outside of her inherently programmed nature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
If this was a lesser movie Joi would have had some Wallace backdoor that made her betray K at a crucial moment. I'm glad they didn't go with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:To be fair(And I'm 100 percent on the side of Joi being a real being who loved K), I think that's because Priss goes off program by trying to kill Deckard and Joi doesn't. The big issue is that Joi never does anything that goes against her inherent nature as a loving being; she loves K, and continues loving K until she is eventually killed. Compare this to every other being who is seen to ascend to sentience; Roy and K are murderers, made for murder, who decide to save a life when they have every reason to try and end it. Pris is a pleasurebot made to love and give pleasure, and tries to kill Deckard. Even Joi's biggest moment of rebellion is still a moment where she is acting out of love for K; she wants to protect him, and so she insists he break the emitter. She never does anything particularly hateful or outside of her inherently programmed nature. She's lovely to the hooker in a jealous way. K isn't looking, and her only motivation is to prevent his happiness with someone he is attracted to so that he stays with Joi. I guess you could say preventing outside relationships could be a built-in customer retention tactic, but if she had such restrictions then she wouldn't be recommending that he delete her backup and potentially destroy her. I'd say calling the hooker in the first place is probably pretty far from the realm of what AI are meant to be doing. It certainly doesn't seem to be a familiar concept to Mariette
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
If I were Wallace Corp I would encourage my AI products to make risky decisions, so if they get themselves killed the customer would have to buy another one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:To be fair(And I'm 100 percent on the side of Joi being a real being who loved K), I think that's because Priss goes off program by trying to kill Deckard and Joi doesn't. The big issue is that Joi never does anything that goes against her inherent nature as a loving being; she loves K, and continues loving K until she is eventually killed. Compare this to every other being who is seen to ascend to sentience; Roy and K are murderers, made for murder, who decide to save a life when they have every reason to try and end it. Pris is a pleasurebot made to love and give pleasure, and tries to kill Deckard. Even Joi's biggest moment of rebellion is still a moment where she is acting out of love for K; she wants to protect him, and so she insists he break the emitter. She never does anything particularly hateful or outside of her inherently programmed nature. True. My counter is that I read JOI's purpose as more to coax the user into passivity. To maintain a complacent domestic lifestyle, to consume passively, to direct feelings of dissatisfaction or lust or ennui onto this product so people don't act out in more disruptive ways. She's built to love him, but I got the sense it was in a very specific way that might discourage him from self-actualizing, or going against his superiors, or doing something dangerous or subversive. JOI definitely *does* help him do those things, which I read as more than programming. I suppose you could also say that she was following her program in ways her programmers didn't intend, but isn't that still a way of saying that "free will" asserted itself? That she became more than the sum of her parts by doing something "she wasn't supposed to," etc. Xealot fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Xealot posted:True. My counter is that I read JOI's purpose as more to coax the user into passivity. To maintain a complacent domestic lifestyle, to consume passively, to direct feelings of dissatisfaction or lust or ennui onto this product so people don't act out in more disruptive ways. She's built to love him, but I got the sense it was in a very specific way that might discourage him from self-actualizing, or going against his superiors, or doing something dangerous or subversive. JOI definitely *does* help him do those things, which I read as more than programming. I suppose you could also say that she was following her program in ways her programmers didn't intend, but isn't that still a way of saying that "free will" asserted itself? That she became more than the sum of her parts by doing something "she wasn't supposed to," etc. I think that's definitely a valid interpretation, and I personally subscribe to it, but I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate to the concept of why many people could disagree with Joi being human while Roy, Pris, and K all are. It isn't nearly as cut and dry for her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Tyrell had imperfect vision. He certainly did after meeting with Roy Batty!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
revwinnebago posted:Let me remind you of the actual Blade Runner music, and please take a second pass at how much this resembles the music you think makes you nostalgic for Blade Runner: Yeah, I wouldn't pick Perturbator or Carpenter Brut or Dance with the Dead or anyone along those lines. My choices of synthwave artist were pretty deliberate; one of the more EDM-influenced artists would have been horrible, but one of the ones that does dark, atmospheric, ambient stuff would have been perfect, because it's essentially hitting the same atmosphere but with more advanced production. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nVtzdAeKr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ud5yDjM63I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAnzS1ITOqU e: the last one kind of stops being what I'm talking about and goes a little in the wrong direction after the 2:15 mark, but the first half of it is exactly the type of thing I was hoping BR2049's soundtrack would sound like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
I thought the movie was great up until Ford arrived. It's not that he'd bad in the role, but I didn't like them having to rely on old characters. It could have been a totally self-contained movie set in the same world as the original, as opposed to a sorta sequel. The scene with Ford and Leto and the replicated Rachel was probably the weakest scene for me. Everything else was great!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
I was a little disappointed by the soundtrack but synthwave (including those examples just posted) would have been much worse and I'm extremely glad they didn't go that direction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
I'm the glad the soundtrack takes a bit of a back seat and serves more as atmospheric sound design rather than melodic music. You know what would be an absolute fantastic use of all these alternative soundtrack suggestions? Fan tribute videos. I mean this sincerely, I hope we see a tonne of videos set to all this  music.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Ccs posted:I thought the movie was great up until Ford arrived. It's not that he'd bad in the role, but I didn't like them having to rely on old characters. It could have been a totally self-contained movie set in the same world as the original, as opposed to a sorta sequel. The scene with Ford and Leto and the replicated Rachel was probably the weakest scene for me. I like that scene; it shoots nostalgia right in its loving head
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Another question, is this just a case of face blindness (which I do not usually suffer), or did anyone else think at first that Mariette was Kiera Knightley?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Serf posted:If this was a lesser movie Joi would have had some Wallace backdoor that made her betray K at a crucial moment. I'm glad they didn't go with that. I thought for sure she was a "double agent" early on when I was wondering how they knew what K knew about the child. They set it up perfectly with Luv noticing K carrying her when they go to enter the archive. It's clear they were spying on him through her, but when she asks him to break the antenna, there's no indication of her knowing how Wallace corp was using her. I will say there several "twists" that I was expecting that never manifested. I also thought hookerbot was implied to be human by her introduction, even making K think she was human. The other two wander off because he's a bladerunner and they're replicants; she isn't phased by it along with the "real" girls comment. She also behaved in more 'human' manner than the other two. I took his surprise at seeing her with the resistance more the realization that she is a replicant as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Haven't seen this posted in a bit, sorry if it has been: Here's a podcast where Rian Johnson interviews Denis Villeneuve. It's spoiler-heavy. https://soundcloud.com/thedirectorscut/episode-96-blade-runner-2049-with-denis-villeneuve-and-rian-johnson Listening through it now and it seems like mostly "how did you do this scene" and "what was it like doing x"
Pirate Jet fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 04:59
|
|
