|
Apologies these posts are a bit long, also this is fairly quote heavy, appreciate it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. “Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces. […] This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; what for the Buddhist (or Theosophist) personality is the fall of man, for the Christian is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. The world-soul of the Theosophists [or Buddhist] asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine center of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. […] All modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into different living souls.” - G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy Joe - “Two people can’t have the same DNA, one of these isn’t real. It’s a copy.” The brief repetition of the orphan memory after Joe’s rescue is worth noting for its shifting of perspective. Freya's retelling of the child's birth, a story that informs the rebellions belief of becoming their own masters, alters Joe's memory. His perception changes to where he’s the copy that simply disappears, the boy who never was. Bearing a key relation to what follows, the torture scene with a woman presented as a copy of Rachel along with fragments of the past. Wallace indifference to suffering to elicit a chemical response from Deckard. And the scene that’s a melancholic reflection on suffering, loss while advertising buying more Joi - again it's torture. Here the rebellions belief stands to likely have them simply sublimated, they're best characterised as waiting for the right conditions, moment and so on. In the perverse way they align Wallace through the idea of natural childbirth. The movie shows that power relations in 2049 clearly contend with this belief, rather it’s naivety contrast with orphans positioned alongside other sub-human laborers. For them it’s becoming their own masters, for Wallace it’s simply a means of explosive exploitation - the means of reproduction are already there. The miracle was not simply the child's birth, but love that's antithesis to Wallace's pontificating. Also notions of why not simply own multiple Joi-pleasure models with multiple settings, each fulfilling individual particular desires, fetishes and so on in relation to the Joi’s personhood is explicitly covered in the movie. Again this simply reasserts the importance of Joe’s attachment to Joi and vice versa - the act of falling in love. Opening the space, however small for Joe to make his own decision, saving a stranger. “Love is violence, not in the vulgar sense of the well-known Balkan proverb “if he doesn’t beat me, he doesn’t love me”, [but] violence is already the love choice as such which tears its object out of its context elevating it to the sublime absolute thing. [...] What if the gesture of choosing temporal existence, of giving up eternal existence for the sake of love, from Jesus Christ to, for example Siegmund in Act II of Richard Wagner’s Die Walküre, who prefers to remain a common mortal if his beloved Sieglinde cannot follow him to Walhalla, the eternal dwelling of the dead heroes. What if this is the highest ethical act of them all? I think this is the message of Christianity which is still alive.” - Zizek
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Hell, I just thought they used a really good Sean Young double with maybe some tiny cg or makeup touchups. poo poo looked real to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:everyone in here in this thread and conversation is really cool, but do you ever wonder what this exact conversation would look like if everyone in here were a lovely Twitter misogynist? Yeah there's no excuse for the stupids, but she went on to post that the movie wasn't about objectification at all and that those scenes were tangential to the plot/themes, which is quite wrong. The replicant in the queasy shrink-wrap fetus who is dumped out of her "wrapping" onto the floor, the ballerina holograms tip-toeing around the streets, the gigantic statues with "O" faces in the ruins of Vegas, the glitching hologram of Marilyn Monroe. All of these refer to the female form as disposable, sexualised, consumer objects, culminating with "Rachael" being shot in the head and of course the giant naked JOI. But the Vegas ballroom scene also has Elvis, which points out that it isn't entirely a male-focused phenomenon. Elvis was popular for his sex-appeal to young women The film is definitely attempting to comment on that stuff more than indulge in it
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
brawleh posted:Wanted to wait until a second viewing before writing anything down, so playing catchup here - also forgive me if this is a bit clumsy, just liked this as a point to jump in on. Belief is quite obviously the central theme and it's quite direct in how it tackles the function of cynical ideology in relation to belief. I think you’re getting ahead of yourself, because you are missing the particulars. The question is which ideology, and whose ideology. What we have in the film are, after all, multiple competing ideologies. “Every leap of civilization was built on the back of a disposable workforce. But I can only make so many....” Everyone has missed the vital nuance of the quote above; Wallace is not referring to the replicants as a disposable workforce, but to humanity - to himself. To be very clear: this is not a case of stereotypical womb-envy. Wallace is not envious but resentful towards the infertile, as he alone is burdened with producing these millions of ‘angelic children’. Replicants, after all, are not his workforce; they are his products - his children. His actual workforce are the (presumably third-world) labourers who remain absolutely invisible, entirely offscreen. The children at the orphanage stand in for these invisible workers (the two overturned radar dishes obviously mirror Wallace’s two pyramids), but the ‘disposable workforce’ Wallace seeks is simply fertile women, able to bear these ‘angelic children’ for him. In this sense, Wallace is actually working to make Replicant technology ‘open source’. So, to be specific, Wallace is not a ‘tech bro’. He is a hardcore Singularity-worshipper, looking to supplant flawed humanity with a race of genetically engineered supersoldiers. Leto’s loopy dialogue and the austere presentation simply obscure that this is a very standard comic-book-movie narrative - even though that’s the reasoning behind all his talk of filling the dark gaps between the stars with light/life: "In the near future - corporate networks reach out to the stars. Electrons and light flow throughout the universe. The advance of computerisation, however, has not yet wiped out nations and ethnic groups." -Ghost in the Shell 1995 The narrative is basically what if one of those Zeitgeist Movement idiots had access to billions of dollars. Wallace is a technologist, a libertarian, and (consequently) a misogynist. His capitalism is a “moneyless capitalism”, and so Blade Runner 2 is less a Blade Runner sequel than it is a Star Trek prequel. (Something about ‘Eugenics Wars’, right?) The problem, I believe, is that people are paving over the vague storytelling of this film with plot-canonical information from the original. So they are operating under assumptions like that Joseph is this ultimate victim, since Batty described himself as a slave. But the actual narrative is of course that Joseph is rather well-off - a target of racism, sure, but also a decently-paid policeman. (He’s a target of racism because he’s a decently-paid policeman. Despite the expository dialogue about ‘pleasure models’, non-experimental replicants are invariably depicted as police or military in this film.) And the point of the film - the basic plot - is that the orphaned children stand in for the invisible workers to Joseph. Where he is unable to think how he was produced, the poetry-induced false memory of being a child labourer generates a sense of outrage, making him temporarily enraged enough to punch the guy in the face and so-on. But we should brutally simplify: Joseph is still nothing more than a stupid policeman in a ‘long distance’ relationship with a subservient woman. And though Joseph does eventually break from the spirit of his conservative superior’s orders by sticking to the letter of them, he does all this just to make a little girl’s dream come true, and bring a family back together, etc.. So again, we are stuck with the frankly stupid debate over whether Joi is a person, when of course she is. The more pertinent question is how Joi, as a woman under patriarchy, can work to free herself. People fixate on the ‘I love you’ as the authentic moment of human connection or whatever, dismissing the colossal demoness as a fake. But this is simply because the ideology of the film is liberal, humanist. Humanists naturally do not realize that the neon demoness is Joi’s true self, this nightmarish maternal(?) fantasy that makes her eyes black as a means of attacking and shaming Joseph. “This structure of double (and thereby self-effacing) disavowal ... reveals the patriarchal matrix of the relationship between man and woman: in a first move, woman is posited as a mere projection/reflection of man, his insubstantial shadow, hysterically imitating but never able really to acquire the moral stature of a fully constituted self-identical subjectivity; however, this status of a mere reflection itself has to be disavowed and the woman provided with a false autonomy, as if she acts the way she does within the logic of patriarchy on account of her own autonomous logic (women are ‘by nature’ submissive, compassionate, self-sacrificing...). [...] Perhaps, the ultimate feminist statement is to proclaim openly ‘I do not exist in myself, I am merely the Other's fantasy embodied’...”. -Zizek To repeat: the film is pointlessly vague to the point of being misleading. The entire scene declaring genetic code analogous to computer code is incredibly misleading, since Joi’s body is the emitter, that black chunk of metal and plastic. It is this technology that is reproduced in factories, based on a blueprint, and that consequently ‘evolves’ over time due to various pressures (market forces and so-on). The virtual woman played by De Armas, made up of 1s and 0s, is simply the emitter’s self-image. This is not too complicated a concept; it’s directly analogous to the difference between (biological) sex and (socially constructed) gender. Joi is a woman despite being biologically cellphone - but, like Joseph, she is seemingly unaware of her origin in a factory. Like Joseph, she seemingly believes that she appeared ‘out of thin air’. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
what
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Zeris posted:what You didn’t actually read all that did you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
this film is total garbage
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Was the sexy hologram named JOI after Jack Off Instruction videos? Good movie btw
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
toadoftoadhall posted:this post is total garbage 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
this kid is nuts posted:Yeah there's no excuse for the stupids, but she went on to post that the movie wasn't about objectification at all and that those scenes were tangential to the plot/themes, which is quite wrong. The replicant in the queasy shrink-wrap fetus who is dumped out of her "wrapping" onto the floor, the ballerina holograms tip-toeing around the streets, the gigantic statues with "O" faces in the ruins of Vegas, the glitching hologram of Marilyn Monroe. All of these refer to the female form as disposable, sexualised, consumer objects, culminating with "Rachael" being shot in the head and of course the giant naked JOI. This a strong, often explicit theme in noir literature as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
personally i think this takes place in an even more alienating society than Deckard's. K is Batty robbed of everything that made him more alive than the human characters in the original.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
this kid is nuts posted:The film is definitely attempting to comment on that stuff more than indulge in it It "attempts" to but it definitely indulges in it A LOT. I don't know terminology about framing a shot or whatever but I've consumed enough media that it's easy to tell when a scene in a movie features "a naked woman" for story/character reasons vs. when a scene in a movie features "a hot woman's rear end" for no reason beyond that. Blade Runner: 2049 is an excellent movie, one I feel makes a great complement, follow-up, and companion to the original (which is my favorite movie, ever), but there's several points where it indulges in the latter at length right after already accomplishing the former. That's not some next level "wow , in watching this you objectified a woman just like replicants are objectified, makes you think" masterstroke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Zeris posted:what Blade Runner 2 has a misogynist villain, but the film is not feminist because its brand of empowerment is all about liberal ‘self-actualization’ and human rights rather than socioeconomic justice. On Joseph’s side of things, he’s just a cop who read a poem that raises awareness of, like, third-world orphans - while indifferent to the drone strikes on sandpeople. There isn’t much progressive in the film and, on top of it, the story isn’t clearly told - leading people to debate nonexistent ‘moral ambiguities’.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:It "attempts" to but it definitely indulges in it A LOT. I don't know terminology about framing a shot or whatever but I've consumed enough media that it's easy to tell when a scene in a movie features "a naked woman" for story/character reasons vs. when a scene in a movie features "a hot woman's rear end" for no reason beyond that. Blade Runner: 2049 is an excellent movie, one I feel makes a great complement, follow-up, and companion to the original (which is my favorite movie, ever), but there's several points where it indulges in the latter at length right after already accomplishing the former. That's not some next level "wow , in watching this you objectified a woman just like replicants are objectified, makes you think" masterstroke. yeah, while I disagree with Kazan about JOI being unnecessary for the plot (her actualization provides a nice mirror of K's and she's arguably the second most important character to the movie), I get what she is saying and there is a lot of sexualization that is probably not necessary and is kinda skeezy. And the prostitute plot was definitely unnecessary, though there were good things and ideas that came of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Super Fan posted:You didn’t actually read all that did you? I knew better than to keep reading once I saw multiple fonts
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Joi is a woman despite being biologically cellphone - but, like Joseph, she is seemingly unaware of her origin in a factory. Like Joseph, she seemingly believes that she appeared ‘out of thin air’. I can actually get on board with this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Just saw it, it was really good. The solar arrays and patchwork fields of grey were incredible, as was the apocalyptic porn landscape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
exmarx posted:Just saw it, it was really good.  My first reaction is that they probably could have cut some of the scenes down but then I realized that you probably ruin some of the impact of those scenes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:It "attempts" to but it definitely indulges in it A LOT. [...] Obviously the point of the giant JOI scene is that Ryan Gosling's "partner" is being degraded and that it is sad. To me that is just an amazing scene and I wouldn't want it changed in any way, but at the same time I know that it's uncomfortable to watch for a lot of people and their offense is probably justified. It's just one of those things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:yeah, while I disagree with Kazan about JOI being unnecessary for the plot (her actualization provides a nice mirror of K's and she's arguably the second most important character to the movie), I get what she is saying and there is a lot of sexualization that is probably not necessary and is kinda skeezy. And the prostitute plot was definitely unnecessary, though there were good things and ideas that came of it. What? The prostitute plot was an amazingly creepy foreshadowing of the future. Siri, hire a prostitute and gently caress me please. Also it’s a great parallel to Ks story. Hell at the end they make sure to really hammer in the fact that people make all this tech disposable by having billboard JOI call K Joe. JacksLibido fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
It’s interesting that the one scene gets referred to universally as a sex scene, when it’s eye contact and kisses shot almost entirely from the shoulders up. The most skin we see is a bra strap from behind. I don’t recall any other pre-sex kisses in cinema being referred to as sex scenes, but the performances and the visuals were impactful enough that we feel like we’re seeing something far more intimate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:Hey, you're the one who set the standard that a nonsentient AI would do nothing if left alone. Seems like it does a lot to me. That horse is worth as much as a gold ingot as well as being a childhood gift. If you had a stranger in your house and your flatmate found them taking a deep interest in your mother's emerald necklace while you slept, what would you expect them to do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:It’s interesting that the one scene gets referred to universally as a sex scene, when it’s eye contact and kisses shot almost entirely from the shoulders up. The most skin we see is a bra strap from behind. I don’t recall any other pre-sex kisses in cinema being referred to as sex scenes, but the performances and the visuals were impactful enough that we feel like we’re seeing something far more intimate. That's what made it so good and refreshing
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
this kid is nuts posted:Really? Because I was never under the impression that stuff was even remotely for wanky titillation purposes. People have been referring to the "prostitution scene" as unnecessary... which one are they referring to? The shot showing the brothel with the translucent windows or the JOI """sex scene"""? Because both are more creepy and sad than hot. Not to mention that the latter actually is integral to the plot/themes of the movie ("Sometimes you have to love a stranger"). Both of those are sequences are great and are what I was referring to in my post where the movie successfully gets something across but then goes up its own rear end at times by indulging. The shot showing the brothel was good and the translucent sex scene was one of the best scenes in the movie.* But the sex scene is a good example. It's great, then the next morning Mariette gets up to get dressed/whatever, but then she just sort of stops and strikes a model pose for ten seconds so the camera can slowly pan up from her feet to her head to give us a good slow shot of her rear end. It's stupid and it really stands out when done with the same reverent pacing as any of the film's establishing shots. You see something similar after Jared's prototype replicant is born. Like, we're aware she's naked and vulnerable and basically worthless beyond being a product to Leto because everything about how the scene works establishes that, but we still get a similar shot of her in between this. I love Blade Runner: 2049 but really don't understand why any time anyone brings up some of the gratuitous use of nudity and the female body in the film everyone just immediately assumes it's because the person bringing it up didn't understand the significance of the JOI love scene when that's spelled out pretty clearly. Like a R rated $$$ Hollywood movie has some gratuitous nudity isn't some super out there concept. *The effects for JOI are one of my favorite things in the movie, I like how consistent everything is with how she's slightly transparent throughout, the way she seizes up after K cashes, etc. The movie does a great job of visually having her be fake while having her act like a "real person." exmarx posted:Just saw it, it was really good. I was really blown away by how good the grey dead cityscapes looked. I mean it's stuff we've seen in a billion movies but it was so detailed and clear here, I couldn't believe how beautiful it looked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I think you’re getting ahead of yourself, because you are missing the particulars. The question is which ideology, and whose ideology. What we have in the film are, after all, multiple competing ideologies. Yeah was never fully discounting this, but wanted to work through it and had to start somewhere, fail better and all that. Where Joi comes in is the point of tension, between this inner life Joe constructs around a memory and his actions. That of executing Sapper, returning home to his Joi, getting the hard part of his day over. The inner fantasy informed by a memory that effectively renders him blind. "Man wants to be loved for what he truly is; which is why the archetypal male scenario of the trial of woman's love is that of the prince from a fairy tale who first approaches his beloved under the guise of a poor servant, in order to insure that the woman will fall in love with him for himself, not for his princely title. This, however, is precisely what a woman doesn't want-and is this not yet another confirmation of the fact that woman is more subject than man? A man stupidly believes that, beyond his symbolic title, there is deep in himself some substantial content, some hidden treasure which makes him worthy of love, whereas a woman knows that there is nothing beneath the mask-her strategy is precisely to preserve this 'nothing' of her freedom, out of reach of man's possessive love..." - Zizek Again this will be clumsy, but Joi as the victim was always the point, so to speak - though this doesn't articulate it quite right. Woman as a exploited universal category as both fantasy, products, fetish etc in tension with the material acts/outcomes that sustain this; formation of a couple, birth, child labor, emitters and so on. Joi's body of course is the emitter, with a projection of “what you want to see” - like Wallace’s cynical reduction of predeterminism by numbers, chemical responses and free-market bullshit or whatever. Though again, here for me, Joi takes his bullshit to an absurd end, undermining it in a sense with a Wagner-esq turn "separation of the universe into different living souls." Not so much the expression "I love you" but the trauma, the fall and losing Joi "I do not exist in myself, I am merely the Other's fantasy embodied" that Joe's insulated himself with. Where in the haze of this violence, what remains is her true self, the giant neon demon and Joe actually seeing her for the first time - in an abstract sense, the glasses on moment from They Live. "We cling to memories as if they define us, but it's what we do that defines us." Ghost in the Shell 2017 Wallace simply desires to further outsource his production through his open-source project by privatizing biological birth - download your uber-app today - the crossover between product and work force. Where replicants simply gain Star Trek’s ‘human’ rights. Ghost in the Shell(2017) has far greater clarity of storytelling and 2049 is absolutely a tale from Mega-City One on the big screen. Along with Scott's sensibilities towards production budget, exemplified by the beautiful cinematography; Even if the movie itself discards inhuman love in the end with it's particularity of human love in fulfilling the child's dream; it's that radical potential of Joi’s Wagner-esq turn, if nothing else, that I love. brawleh fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
I think that complaining about prostitution being a gratuitous element in a film about the commodification of human bodies where the main character's primary trait is loneliness is a little silly, really. As for the complaint on scenes spending too long on someone's rear end, I donno; in a film with super-quick jump cuts I could see that, but this film lingers for a long time on most of its shots, to the point where it would've been more jarring for me if they cut away from the nudity after a second or two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:everyone in here in this thread and conversation is really cool, but do you ever wonder what this exact conversation would look like if everyone in here were a lovely Twitter misogynist? lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Just saw it yesterday, loved it. It really was a gorgeously-shot movie, though the penultimate scene looked ... just bad. Like SyFy-level "two dudes in a studio talking in front of a green screen" bad. It was jarringly out of place given how good the rest of the film looked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
After watching True Blood under duress I'm a lot less sympathetic to these sorts of complaints. Turns out middle aged white women really REALLY like sexualized violence against women when it's marketed to them correctly. But I also don't want to hear what @altrightrapist has to say about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Just saw it yesterday, loved it. It really was a gorgeously-shot movie, though the penultimate scene looked ... just bad. Like SyFy-level "two dudes in a studio talking in front of a green screen" bad. It was jarringly out of place given how good the rest of the film looked. What scene are you talking about??
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
I didn't notice this but I assume when they speak briefly at the very end before Ford enters the workshop? It's such a stark palette compared to everything else I can see how it might stand out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's the one. For some reason it looked super-green-screeny. Bottom Liner posted:What scene are you talking about?? All of the shots outside of Stelline's lab with the characters in the foreground and the snow-obscured background.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Both of those are sequences are great and are what I was referring to in my post where the movie successfully gets something across but then goes up its own rear end at times by indulging. The shot showing the brothel was good and the translucent sex scene was one of the best scenes in the movie.* But the sex scene is a good example. It's great, then the next morning Mariette gets up to get dressed/whatever, but then she just sort of stops and strikes a model pose for ten seconds so the camera can slowly pan up from her feet to her head to give us a good slow shot of her rear end. It's stupid and it really stands out when done with the same reverent pacing as any of the film's establishing shots. You see something similar after Jared's prototype replicant is born. Like, we're aware she's naked and vulnerable and basically worthless beyond being a product to Leto because everything about how the scene works establishes that, but we still get a similar shot of her in between this. When Mariette wakes up the shot is a distant wide shot from the other room and she’s framed in silhouette? What is this slow pan up over her rear end you’re talking about? The only shot with the newborn replicant’s rear end visible is a neutral-framed wide shot of the whole room as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:When Mariette wakes up the shot is a distant wide shot from the other room and she’s framed in silhouette? What is this slow pan up over her rear end you’re talking about? The only shot with the newborn replicant’s rear end visible is a neutral-framed wide shot of the whole room as well. Yeah. I'm straining to recall a single "gratuitous" shot of nudity in this film. That word has meaning, and that meaning isn't "made me uncomfortable."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Too many people are too quick to cry offense at the first sign of being challenged by art these days, to the detriment of real issues and real offenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Yeah. I'm straining to recall a single "gratuitous" shot of nudity in this film. That word has meaning, and that meaning isn't "made me uncomfortable." The JOI advert and the Las Vegas statues are unnecessary IMO, they don't really add much beyond "this future is exploitative of women / sexuality", which we already knew
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:The JOI advert and the Las Vegas statues are unnecessary IMO, they don't really add much beyond "this future is exploitative of women / sexuality", which we already knew The JOI advert was absolutely necessary. It was when K essentially realizes that he's not special but he could essentially become human by saving Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter, which is a relationship much more tangible than anything he'd ever experienced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
I think they mean that the Joi advert being nude was unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:The JOI advert was absolutely necessary. It was when K essentially realizes that he's not special but he could essentially become human by saving Deckard and reuniting him with his daughter, which is a relationship much more tangible than anything he'd ever experienced. The Las Vegas statues foreshadow the advertisement, and further underline the dystopian nature of 2049 society, and it's relationship to women. There's more than a hint of Ozymandias in that sequence as well. Both scenes are rich with potential for interpretation, and I'd strongly encourage people not to turn their brains off simply because they feature portrayals of women's bodies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Not So Fast posted:The JOI advert and the Las Vegas statues are unnecessary IMO, they don't really add much beyond "this future is exploitative of women / sexuality", which we already knew "The JOI advert was unnecessary" is probably the most "I missed the point of the movie" thing I've seen so far
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:23
|
|
