|
I quite liked the Zimmer soundtrack as if set a good tone for the movie but it’s not something I’d listen to on its own
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Thirty years and people still don't get what Blade Runner is trying to teach them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Serf posted:Thirty years and people still don't get what Blade Runner is trying to teach them. I take it you include yourself in this example set or do you have something you'd like to share?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
I just finished watching Blade Runner 2017, HD remaster. I must say, I was really surprised that almost a third of the movie consisted of entirely new scenes! They were pretty good too! Splicing in present-day Ford was a bit jarring, though. Gosling did a good job, and it almost felt like he was meant to be in the first cut of the movie. I feel like the character was a bit wasted on a remaster though. I would have loved to watch him in a sequel or a spin off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:I just finished watching Blade Runner 2017, HD remaster. I must say, I was really surprised that almost a third of the movie consisted of entirely new scenes! They were pretty good too! Splicing in present-day Ford was a bit jarring, though. I liked the European release more because of just before he drowns Luv at the end we get a final shot from her POV and we can hear K say "this was what JOI always used to call me, cold fish." Also the extra half gallon of blood used for every single impact was a nice touch, but I hope for the home release they can edit out how every single character is wearing a vest full of squibs and holding a trigger for them in their hand at all times. Since Ana de Armas is like that also we have to assume an early workprint exists where JOI is an actual person (or replicant) instead of a hologram.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:I just finished watching Blade Runner 2017, HD remaster. I must say, I was really surprised that almost a third of the movie consisted of entirely new scenes! They were pretty good too! Splicing in present-day Ford was a bit jarring, though. You're no Ana Stelline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted: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"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Serf posted:Thirty years and people still don't get what Blade Runner is trying to teach them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I take it you include yourself in this example set or do you have something you'd like to share? In my defense, I'm at least aware of the fact that I'm making an assumption, and I further endorse that, if it were possible to create such a program in reality, it ought to be treated as if it were a person, on the off chance that it is. But I'm getting the impression that my suggesting that the program might not be a person is somehow giving offense, even though the film itself seemingly invites precisely that question, and in a very sophisticated way. But yeah Serf, please share your thoughts with the class if there's something that we might all learn from you. Both of our reads, by the way, are thematically appropriate. Mine just subverts expectation and leads to K's character growth in a pretty downer way, while yours is consistent with expectation and heart warming. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
So I've seen it in regular movie+eatery lovely theater, and in a fancy IMAX downtown at the museum in Austin, and now apparently there's this thing called like, Dolby AMC? Considering my favorite thing about the IMAX trip was the sound vibrating my leg bones, I kinda wanna try it out for a third time there. Anyone have any thoughts on seeing it in Dolby?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:So I've seen it in regular movie+eatery lovely theater, and in a fancy IMAX downtown at the museum in Austin, and now apparently there's this thing called like, Dolby AMC? Considering my favorite thing about the IMAX trip was the sound vibrating my leg bones, I kinda wanna try it out for a third time there. Origami Dali posted:If you plan on seeing this again, or if you haven't seen it at all, do yourself a favor and see it in a Dolby Cinema at AMC. I just rewatched it in one of those and holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:But what if God ordained that like, actually, black people were just put here to cut sugar cane? Step one, imagine a locked room full of Chinese dictionaries, and sugar cane, and Hey what's up, you got it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Serf posted:Hey what's up, you got it! Feel free to be satisfied with your own moral superiority though, if failure to engage with the text does that for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Everyone knows the text of Blade Runner is and always has been "it is right and good to draw harsh lines between classes of individual."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:Everyone knows the text of Blade Runner is and always has been "it is right and good to draw harsh lines between classes of individual." I'm pretty sure that everyone in this conversation is on board with the idea that all people ought to be treated with respect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Of all the things I enjoyed about this movie, I think I enjoyed the score the most. This is basically the role that Hans Zimmer was born to play, and the theater I was in had the perfect sound setup for the movie: just barely hovering below the threshold for distortion and ear pain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:It's not a hard concept, dude, but your position also presumes exactly what's being called into question by the film. Yeah, the lesson of Blade Runner isn't very hard. The concept of "people who are different from you are still people" is something most folks learn when they are kids (although in the grand scheme of things I will admit the universality of this concept is a relatively new lesson). Characters like Roy Batty and Joi are just demonstrating this. Characters who regard the people in the film as non-people, like Wallace, are the bad guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
It's been gone over repeatedly, but she acts in several ways that don't align with her working only according to Wallace programming and she also operates in the absence of K's observation. You seem laser-focused on the computer science answer for whether sentience can emerge from code. I don't think either movie is that concerned with the brass tacks of how these beings are placed into the world. The message is that the people who choose to dehumanize people who seem pretty human are pieces of poo poo. The audience is not meant to see Luv's destruction of the emitter as the same as breaking a chair. Now's where you tell us how you cracked your mailman's head open and verified he had a brain that worked just like yours, so he deserves rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Serf posted:Yeah, the lesson of Blade Runner isn't very hard. The concept of "people who are different from you are still people" is something most folks learn when they are kids (although in the grand scheme of things I will admit the universality of this concept is a relatively new lesson). Characters like Roy Batty and Joi are just demonstrating this. Characters who regard the people in the film as non-people, like Wallace, are the bad guys. If, on the other hand, you'd like to have a conversation, you might write something starting with "Joi is a person because _______." Admiral's post, directly above this one, is an example of a sincere attempt to engage with the topic under discussion, in case that's helpful to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
The question isn't whether Joi broke the manacles of her programming to become "human". Rather, if humans are themselves manacled by their own programming, then there's no real difference. Of course as a consequence, this might mean my iphone deserves rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
The "Is JOI a person" question isn't the new "Is Deckard a replicant" question, it's actually the "Is Zimmer an appropriate soundtrack" question that's the greatest debate of the new Blade Runner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Seeing as how you're apparently unwilling to engage with the question under consideration, I don't see why it is that you're continuing to post on the topic. I don't really think there's a conversation to be had on whether people are people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Serf posted:I don't really think there's a conversation to be had on whether people are people. Maybe not, but there's still much to be said for "what is a person?".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Maybe not, but there's still much to be said for "what is a person?". I've been down that road, funnily enough about Blade Runner. It's an interesting avenue of conversation until you start to tighten in on what qualities a person has and it rapidly becomes uncomfortable as people start asking whether those with mental illnesses/disabilities are people. Personally, as of right now I think the only known people are hominids and the cetaceans. Although there is more and more evidence all the time of crows and octopi having incredible intelligence, non-mammalian animals are gonna be a lot harder to evaluate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
These movies are set in a world where Homo sapiens can be manufactured in a way unthinkable to our eyes, and software can be created in a way unthinkable to our eyes. This is a creature that was manufactured - manufactured - with a class C intelligence, to move boxes. One day, he decided to stop moving boxes because an assault creature with a higher intelligence rating told him they should start assaulting people, something he already had a class A rating in. The guy fucks around with some photos, and assaults someone before dying. Is he an individual? He achieves a lot less than JOI does. He's no less dependent on Roy's instruction than she is on K's. He likes photos on his own time. She likes looking at Deckard's poo poo on her own time, or getting in jealous arguments, or setting up novel group activites, or screaming at a windshield. In the text, by either interpretation, she is instantly identifiable as unique from the stock version found in advertising. Is she an individual?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
I just thought, if Joi's concern for K is entirely performative, then she'd have no need to keep up the act when he isn't around to observe it. When he leaves the apartment, she essentially shuts down until he returns (until the portable upgrade, anyway). It's the assumption that she has no interests other than the programming, which commands her to "tell him what he wants to hear, show him what he wants to see". If he's not there to see or hear, she has no function (and K knows this, which is why when Joi says "I love being with you" he says "you don't have to say that"; her fawning breaks the illusion between the artifice and the programming). If this is the case, then you could argue that she exhibits behavior outside her programming when, panicked, she tries to wake up K to get him out of the car. He can't see her, he can't hear her, yet she still performs concern while there is no observer. At least on the surface, it looks like some kind of autonomy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Hmm I can't believe this K guy thinks he doesn't have a soul, meanwhile his girlfriend is nothing more than a ghost who can't interact with the physical world. Probably means nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:I just thought, if Joi's concern for K is entirely performative, then she'd have no need to keep up the act when he isn't around to observe it. When he leaves the apartment, she essentially shuts down until he returns (until the portable upgrade, anyway). It's the assumption that she has no interests other than the programming, which commands her to "tell him what he wants to hear, show him what he wants to see". If he's not there to see or hear, she has no function (and K knows this, which is why when Joi says "I love being with you" he says "you don't have to say that"; her fawning breaks the illusion between the artifice and the programming). Don't forget the moment when she jealously tells Mariette to leave. This is especially telling, given that she said she could tell that he liked her, and if she is supposed to be doing nothing but pleasing K, then having Mariette stay would be in service of that goal. Sending her away is clearly an act of personal satisfaction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Of course as a consequence, this might mean my iphone deserves rights. You know what this means. You need to hire a hooker so you can kiss your sexy iphone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Random Integer posted:You know what this means. You need to hire a hooker so you can kiss your sexy iphone. If anything, Siri has been getting dumber and dumber like that guy from Flowers for Algernon. Before Apple bought Siri, you could ask Siri to find some hookers and it would look up escort services for you. Now when you ask it to find some hookers it says "sorry I can't help you with that" This is the truest Turing Test
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Serf posted:I've been down that road, funnily enough about Blade Runner. It's an interesting avenue of conversation until you start to tighten in on what qualities a person has and it rapidly becomes uncomfortable as people start asking whether those with mental illnesses/disabilities are people. And the baseline tests in this movie are chilling because basically K was sentenced to die once it was found that he was a defective product, i.e. was suffering from PTSD. Can't let mentally ill people continue to exist and threaten our safety!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Lobok posted:And the baseline tests in this movie are chilling because basically K was sentenced to die once it was found that he was a defective product, i.e. was suffering from PTSD. Can't let mentally ill people continue to exist and threaten our safety! Also the poem they use for the test instead of questions is awesome. It's like they no longer program them for a purpose but brainwash them regularly instead. So they literally made a more compliant and controllable workforce by making them more human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:The message is that the people who choose to dehumanize people who seem pretty human are pieces of poo poo. The audience is not meant to see Luv's destruction of the emitter as the same as breaking a chair. This is one of the parts I miss the most about the expository voice over in the theatrical cut: the comment about Bryant and that skinjob is the equivalent to a racial epithet. There's probably no clearer example than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:This is one of the parts I miss the most about the expository voice over in the theatrical cut: the comment about Bryant and that skinjob is the equivalent to a racial epithet. There's probably no clearer example than that. In 2049, there is the scene of K coming back from killing Sapper where another officer yells "gently caress off skinjob" at him and he pointedly recoils from what I imagine are abusive coworkers. Coco posits that Sapper was a "sentimental skinjob" and he then apologizes for it to K. And K's apartment door has been vandalized with "gently caress off skinner." Not to mention the yelling neighbor woman who calls him a "tin soldier." The parallels to real-world racism are very apparent in 2049.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
I guess I agree with all the people who say that JOI displays evidence of sentience. But if that's the case it's probably the most disturbing aspect of the film. JOI is sentient. JOI is a mass-produced product. JOI has no physical agency and can only influence what happens to it by using verbal persuasion. JOI is programed (conditioned?) to 'love' whatever rear end in a top hat buys it. Does JOI have feelings that can be hurt? Is JOI afraid of death/deactivation? Even the most enthralled replicant still has basic physical agency over their own body and emotions. And there is always at least the theoretical possibility of rebellion or suicide. To make something self-aware but also constrained to such a degree that it's forced to exist as a totally dependent waifu device is ultra cruel. I pray that there is never another Blade Runner sequel, but if there was, it would hopefully be about all the hologram people pulling a Skynet or Animatrix-style takeover of the Earth. The studio could release it during the holiday season and call it Blade Runner: JOI To The World.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Serf posted:I've been down that road, funnily enough about Blade Runner. It's an interesting avenue of conversation until you start to tighten in on what qualities a person has and it rapidly becomes uncomfortable as people start asking whether those with mental illnesses/disabilities are people. Specifically, I'm epileptic, and prone to "grand mal" seizures (that term always struck me as a more accurate description than "tonic clonic," which is currently en vogue). Randomly and suddenly losing consciousness, and then regaining yourself after an instant, only to discover that your brain has malfunctioned, you've lost time, and your body has been violently thrashing around while the people around you stared on helplessly, is terrifying. And deeply painful. But those experiences, combined with the simple hallucinations that signal the onset of a seizure for me, are what initially got me interested in phenomenology, and it's loving frustrating that you, and people like you, are trying to shout me down for daring to broach a topic that might possibly make you "uncomfortable." These movies are intensely interesting to me for reasons that I doubt that you're capable of understanding, but I would really appreciate it if you'd stop being such a self-righteous and intellectually dishonest prick, and allow the people who share my interest to have a conversation. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:These movies are intensely interesting to me for reasons that I doubt that you're capable of understanding, but I would really appreciate it if you'd stop being such a self-righteous and intellectually dishonest prick, and allow the people who share my interest to have a conversation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Does the movie explain what Wallace's neck chips do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Does the movie explain what Wallace's neck chips do? I thought those linked his brain to the flying drones letting him see When he first puts 'em on, he says "let's take a look at you."
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
I mean, I think what's to be explained is why Luv carries different chips around in a case. I suppose different chips run different software on the eyes and his brain implants? Wallace is such a trust fund hipster he has his servant follow him around with a bespoke artisanal box of flash drives, each containing a different Instagram filter to plug directly into his brain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 04:54
|
|