|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What you've presented is just a tautology where conscious experience exists, continuously, so long as the experience of consciousness is continuously existing. *fart noises*
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:*fart noises* I mean how good physicalists account for consciousness and phenomenal experience is interesting, but lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
I just saw it. Holy poo poo the cinematography. The visuals were astounding. The sound too! It really captured just how irritating a city like that would be, and the baseline tests were appropriately unnerving interlock. Sylvia Hoek was amazing. Absolutely fierce. The underwater growling....  I might see it again at the Arclight dome just for the visuals alone. It would be so worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Snak posted:I can't tell if you're being serious. Well obviously they didn't use the original actress because she doesn't look like that anymore or is dead. I don't think anyone would disagree that their use of a different actress resulted in an uncanny valley discomfort. They also showed her face just a few shots earlier, compounding the effect. Assuming that not showing her face or using computers to create a more convincing representation were on they table (which I don't think is unreasonable to assume), this means they did it deliberately. It might not have been deliberate, ofc, its just speculation. Telephones fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Oct 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Sylvia Hoek was amazing. Absolutely fierce. One thing I found fascinating about her performance was the way she sort "sang" her lines when interrogating Joshi. I suppose it was somewhat like her tears in showing her underlying emotional state, still not sure how to read all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Well obviously they didn't use the original actress because she doesn't look like that anymore or is dead. I don't think anyone would disagree that their use of a different actress resulted in an uncanny valley discomfort. They also showed her face just a few shots earlier, compounding the effect. Assuming that not showing her face or using computers to create a more convincing representation were on they table (which I don't think is unreasonable to assume), this means they did it deliberately. They used a different actress, but the head was entirely cg.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
zygnal posted:One thing I found fascinating about her performance was the way I liked the way the “where is he” line sounded almost like it was specifically like a robot screaming it. Like if Siri was done loving around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I mean how good physicalists account for consciousness and phenomenal experience is interesting, but lmao Is there something I am missing here? My post is referring to Antonio Damasio’s theory of consciousness, where the organism first, non-consciously, forms a ‘map’ of its neural patterns in order to maintain its homeostasis against outside disturbances. “Core consciousness” then emerges as a second-order account of how it feels to be an individual organism experiencing disturbance. (Zizek complicates this a lot, of course, arguing that the two levels sort-of collapse into each other, and so-on, but that’s a whole other tangent). The point is that Xealot dismisses the non-conscious experience of being alive as unimportant for some reason, even though we are shown in the film that this is how Joi ‘works’: Joseph’s cellular phone is always on, always passively scanning the environment (so that even individual raindrops that fall within its range are recorded). The phone is always on, always alive. Joi - the symbolic identity of the cellular phone - exists inside of a symbolic universe generated by (and to make sense of) this raw experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Well obviously they didn't use the original actress because she doesn't look like that anymore or is dead. I don't think anyone would disagree that their use of a different actress resulted in an uncanny valley discomfort. They also showed her face just a few shots earlier, compounding the effect. Assuming that not showing her face or using computers to create a more convincing representation were on they table (which I don't think is unreasonable to assume), this means they did it deliberately. You should probably read this: https://www.fxguide.com/featured/mpc-replicating-rachael-in-blade-runner-2049/ Also lol at saying Sean Young might be dead. She's given a supporting actor's credit in the film!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Daaamn that was good. The screening we went to finished around midnight and I'm still  from my eyeballs. Every frame a painting would even exaggerate it. My fried reserved the tickets and unfortunately we were so far back and so high that it was above the screen level so that wasn't even the best possible audiovisual experience.But that's of course just one level, but it totally delivered everything I could've hoped for in a Blade Runner sequel and more. I think a few shots could've been trimmed down a bit and some story elements adjusted (like the blackout, or the "was Rachael a plant" retcon) but overall it's a very impressive piece of film making. Two crushed thumbs up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Rachel a Replicant retcon? She was always a Replicant. There was no ambiguity there in either films. Also the presence of the blackout is kind of integral to the state of the film's world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
No, not that she's a replicant, that's clear, but that she was deliberately created and placed to bone Deckard. I realize the blackout is important for the state as portrayed but it felt a bit too convenient though I din't mind it too much either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:No, not that she's a replicant, that's clear, but that she was deliberately created and placed to bone Deckard. I realize the blackout is important for the state as portrayed but it felt a bit too convenient though I din't mind it too much either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
I was reading this Guardian article about biohackers and the last one reminded me a whole lot of Niander Wallace and his blind but not blind situation.quote:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Is there something I am missing here? Oh dear, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
is it just me or does the guy who plays Tyrell also play Lloyd in The Shining?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:is it just me or does the guy who plays Tyrell also play Lloyd in The Shining? Ridley meeting him on the set of The Shining is what got him the part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
How is there not an art book with all of Syd Mead's BR work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:How is there not an art book with all of Syd Mead's BR work? I think it's sprinkled across his other books. I have one signed by him that has a chapter on blade runner but hell if I know where it is now. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Oct 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Arkhams Razor posted:Ridley meeting him on the set of The Shining is what got him the part. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Young Rachel CGI is what prevents this film from being a masterpiece. I still can't believe the screenwriter and director couldn't come up with a way to write around something so bizarre like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Young Rachel CGI is what prevents this film from being a masterpiece. I still can't believe the screenwriter and director couldn't come up with a way to write around something so bizarre like that. In the same way that the wires visibly holding spinners up in the theatrical/directors cuts of the original prevented it from being a masterpiece, sure
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Wallace might have been making that up to manipulate Deckard. Yeah. Wallace is just speculating and talking poo poo; a big part of his character is that for all his self-satisfied bluster Tyrell achieved something he can't - producing a replicant that can give birth - decades before him. He's basically idly musing about what the only person more godlike than him in his mind might've been capable of. At the end of those lines, he even reintroduces the question of whether Deckard's a replicant at all. I legitimately think he may not be any more certain than the audience is ever supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
I'll say Rachel CGI did not work at all for me.  Do those look like the same woman to you, or does the first one look too much like the stand-in actress was CGI'd?  Sean Young was a rare beast, and CGI (in motion, speaking) just isn't good enough for such an iconic face yet.  viral spiral posted:Young Rachel CGI is what prevents this film from being a masterpiece. I still can't believe the screenwriter and director couldn't come up with a way to write around something so bizarre like that. It might have worked even better if they were just playing the sound files and had a Big Purple JOI-like hologram of her. Could have lifted all her frames directly from the original film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Maybe some of you are seeing some flaw I don't see, because that looks like Sean Young to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
the eye movement was bad but that was basically it i think
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I've seen the film twice and it's worked fine for me, especially in context of the fact that Deckard rejects the replicant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:the eye movement was bad but that was basically it i think The eyes were definitely the uncanny valley bit, but in general it was way better than Tarkin from Rogue One. Probably not an apt comparison since Rachel get less screen-time, less lines and benefits from the lighting of the room (and the lack thereof).
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
The Rachael clone is supposed to be subtly off and unnerving. The entire sequence is meant to highlight Wallace's inability to understand humanity. He recreates a person, but not the subtleties and details that made her her. He expects Deckard to fall in love with a ghoulish Halloween mask of his dead lover and is forced to recalibrate when that plan fails.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:The eyes were definitely the uncanny valley bit, but in general it was way better than Tarkin from Rogue One. Probably not an apt comparison since Rachel get less screen-time, less lines and benefits from the lighting of the room (and the lack thereof). QuoProQuid posted:The Rachael clone is supposed to be subtly off and unnerving. The entire sequence is meant to highlight Wallace's inability to understand humanity. it works in the sense that it helps us feel the same dread and weird butterfly feeling that deckard does i think its ok anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:The Rachael clone is supposed to be subtly off and unnerving. The entire sequence is meant to highlight Wallace's inability to understand humanity. True, but they didn't manage to make it look like a 'failed' replicant. Instead it's another bad CG experiment that shouldn't have been in the movie, like Tarkin in RO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:True, but they didn't manage to make it look like a 'failed' replicant. Instead it's another bad CG experiment that shouldn't have been in the movie, like Tarkin in RO. Regardless of your opinion on the quality of the experiment, the craft doesn't get pushed forward unless you actually try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:True, but they didn't manage to make it look like a 'failed' replicant. Instead it's another bad CG experiment that shouldn't have been in the movie, like Tarkin in RO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:I was creeped out by that scene, but I don't think that reaction had anything to do with the effects, which were convincing to me. Wallace was doing some really horrendous poo poo there. It kind of worked until it spoke and the face moved in a really unnatural way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:True, but they didn't manage to make it look like a 'failed' replicant. Instead it's another bad CG experiment that shouldn't have been in the movie, like Tarkin in RO. I don't think that we are saying incompatible things. The fact that the illusion is shattered at all suggests that Fake Rachael is a failed replicant. Her CGI makes her both an almost perfect copy and something alien. The scene itself doesn't pretend that the Fake Rachael is anything but horrific. ("Her eyes were green.") I can understand your objections as a matter of personal taste, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Yeah, the neat thing about that scene is it works whether or not you're convinced by Rachel.
Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Serf posted:Regardless of your opinion on the quality of the experiment, the craft doesn't get pushed forward unless you actually try. Very true, look how far they've come from not-Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy. Or since the late Oliver Reed in Gladiator. Mierenneuker fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:Very true, look how far they've come from not-Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy. Or since the late Oliver Reed in Gladiator. I would have also accepted Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in X-Men 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Serf posted:I would have also accepted Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in X-Men 3. Let's not accept anything about X-men 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
Serf posted:Regardless of your opinion on the quality of the experiment, the craft doesn't get pushed forward unless you actually try. ...oh yes, do tell us about the craft of CGI'ing young/deceased actors and why we should pursue it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:11
|
|