|
wyoming posted:It is actually a fairly hollow movie. Would a voice-over narration have helped?
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Would a voice-over narration have helped? It already exists, needless exposition was Joi's main role. But the theatrical cut of Bladerunner is always worth a watch, the narration fits the feel of the movie and hilariously hammers home at what a dweeb Deckard is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Maybe if you didn't enjoy this movie you're just... ... bad at watching movies? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Maybe if you didn't enjoy this movie you're just... this unironically
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
wyoming posted:It is actually a fairly hollow movie. Yep and Joi's story comes to an end in a completely pointless way. She's just no longer in the movie, and no one cares. At least she made Joe K experience an emotion in that moment, I guess? He spends the rest of the movie on tranquilizers, as does Luv who also gets her own woman in the fridge scene also with no lasting effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Well yeah; Wyoming is right. Discussion of Joi (her personhood, her consciousness, etc.) is disconnected from basically everything else that happens in the film. And this is because she overwhelms everything else, which points to a certain failure in the narrative. Nobody gives a poo poo about the family drama of Stelline, Rachel, Joseph and Deckard. There’s nothing interesting about them. Joi, on the other hand, sticks out because she doesn’t make sense - she’s an alien intrusion from an entirely different film, the MC Skat Kat to Gosling’s Paula Abdul. As a recap: Blade 2 presents, on the level of plot, a relatively straightforward situation where Joi is a person whose brain and (incredibly advanced) sensory organs are contained in a jar always about 1-3 metres away from what she identifies as ‘herself’. Joi’s self exists inside a virtual reality that overlaps with (and ‘augments’) Joseph’s symbolic reality. Problem #1: Joseph’s presumably budget-priced iphone is the most advanced piece of technology in the known universe. Compared to what the cellphone can do, Wallace’s little fish-drones and Luv’s airstrike drones are hopelessly primitive. I mean, Luv needs to wear clumsy glasses and issue verbal commands just to fire a single missile. And such technology should eliminate the need for, say, windows in a hover car. So, as with the earlier question of how the emitter ‘works’, the film isn’t really playing fair in the first place. The only way to redeem this is to read it as characterization - e.g. that Wallace and Luv are hipsters using outdated technology ‘on purpose’, and/or that Joi is a metaphorical fantasy character who only exists in Joseph’s mind.... Problem #2: People are approaching the film backward with this “what if you die when you sleep, maaan” free-range theorizing - which, again, ignores what’s going on in this specific film. In the case of Joi, the film uses a collection of metaphors to illustrate and ‘work through’ all the various de rigeur philosophical arguments (brain-in-the-jar, Mary’s Room, blah blah, whatever). Joi is depicted as being (like) a woman in a long distance relationship, since her only connection with Joseph is ‘over the phone’. And, in this respect Joi is also (like) a housewife from a hyperreal first-world consumerist paradise who, for whatever reason, is obsessed with this sad-sack killer living in the slums (chatting endlessly with him online, etc.). But Joi is simultaneously (like) a paraplegic, needing Joseph to take care of her. She cannot go outside, disconnect her internet, or even eat and feed herself without Joseph’s assistance. And on top of this, Joi is also (like) a hardcore videogamer. To understand how she experiences her reality, picture that you are sitting at your computer desk, wearing those doofus Oculus Rift goggles. Now picture that, inside the goggles, you see an perfect real-time simulation of your room - including a doofus sitting at the computer desk, wearing Oculus Rift goggles... You can even take things one step further and picture that this data is being fed directly into your nervous system, bypassing the goggles entirely. You can feel the simulated floor with your simulated feet, smell the virtual air... Of course, you would not recognize that little figure in the chair as your ‘self.’ This is what Joi goes through when she sees Joseph’s cellular phone. That’s not her. Again, though, when you go over what is supposedly happening in the plot, you can see the various narrative ‘cheats’. With Star Trek scanners able to track individual raindrops and simulate them in real-time, Joi‘s virtual environment should contain a simulated Joseph that is as tangible to her as the simulated raindrops. None of that ‘hover-hands’ stuff, or passing through him like a ghost. (Even if we buy that there is a delay in synchronization between the raw tracking data and the simulation, Joseph should always appear to Joi looking like this:  ...the same way she ‘sees’ two overlapping books on the table, or two overlapping raindrops striking her virtual skin.) To make sense of the discrepancy, it is necessary to remember that the phone that contains Joi’s mind is also a computer (linked to the corporation), which generates the virtual universe where what she experiences as her ‘self’ resides. This computer is an externalized, Evil Malebrachian God: “Since the computer coordinates the relationship between my mind and (what I experience as) the movement of my limbs (in the virtual reality), one can easily imagine a computer which runs amok and starts to act like an Evil God, disturbing the coordination between my mind and my bodily self-experience - when the signal of my mind to raise my hand is suspended or even counteracted in (the virtual) reality, the most fundamental experience of the body as ‘mine’ is undermined...” -Zizek The most clear-cut illustration of this is when Joi leans in for a kiss and her body is put on pause by the interrupting phone call. So what we can surmise is that Joi is not allowed to touch Joseph (or anyone else, for that matter). The primary question of the Joi subplot is not whether she is conscious (because of course she is) but the degree to which her body is ‘hers’. Cutting her wifi, after all, does nothing to remove the computer that is still inside her physical body - and then, even if we were to somehow fully disconnect it, would Joi experience something like a psychotic break or ‘merely’ be deprived of her sense of touch? And, for that matter, is Joi an invisible woman (to Joseph) when in ‘passive mode’ or does she gain quasi-omniscience while ‘disembodied’? There’s no real answer to these questions because - it bears repeating - Blade 2 isn’t a feminist film. There’s no analysis of the social relations and material supplements from within which Joi’s mind emerges, and the film is not conducive to such analysis. Joi is just an expression of ‘Woman’ as an abstraction, and then she gets squished. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
That was a clean and rad and powerful SMG post
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
Reading SMG posts make me feel dirty and violated...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
This might be the first time I've read a whole SMG rant. And I agree with it. Now I don't know what to feel.
Renoistic fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:This might be the first time I've read a whole SMG rant. And I agree with it. Now I don't know what to feel. It's a post designed to provoke an emotional response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:It's a post designed to provoke an emotional response. INTERLINKED
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
One good thing I will say about the film is that the end climax was very well done. I didn't expect a cheapening out of being at ocean's edge in the dark to be satisfying but the way it was shot and paced it totally was.SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well yeah; Wyoming is right. Discussion of Joi (her personhood, her consciousness, etc.) is disconnected from basically everything else that happens in the film. And this is because she overwhelms everything else, which points to a certain failure in the narrative. Nobody gives a poo poo about the family drama of Stelline, Rachel, Joseph and Deckard. There’s nothing interesting about them. Joi, on the other hand, sticks out because she doesn’t make sense - she’s an alien intrusion from an entirely different film, the MC Skat Kat to Gosling’s Paula Abdul... This is very true, and actually something I overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Blisster posted:INTERLINKED It's a post designed to provoke an emotional response interlinked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Say Zizek three times interlinked
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
hey I definitely gave a poo poo about Joseph
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Joi was a tool for manipulation and control, that manipulated both K and the audience into caring about it, and convinced K to believe things that made K feel better (and us feel better for cleverly seeing the twist before Joi spelled it out "needlessly," that wasn't really the twist after all), and was then bluntly revealed to be a tool for manipulation with a big naked hologram. None of this strikes me as a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
I found K pretty immensely interesting. He's very dry and obviously unhappy, but Gosling's performance was good and there's a lot to unpack about him. Joi stands out because she's designed to be a happy ray of sunshine in a depressing, horrible world. She's the most obviously charismatic thing because that's her purpose, where K's purpose is to be a machine who hunts down and murders other beings while being utterly emotionless, so you'll inevitably have to dig deeper to find a connection with him. I think a lot of the point of Joi is that she doesn't belong in the world, while at the same time she honestly does. In a depressing ultra-capitalist society, she's a dream, the concept of love and happiness being sold by a company. Someone like Joi doesn't belong in this world, because such a horrible place couldn't produce someone like her; but the product itself, something that loves and cares for you which you can pick up at a store, fits perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Joi kinda feels like the spiritual successor to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep's mood organ. I thought that's what it was until the hologram appeared.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
I admit my thoughts about the film are pretty shallow because I just saw it and am still digesting it. My take on replicants vs. Joi so far is basically this: 1) Flesh and blood people who are only "not-people" because of elaborately constructed distinctions are still people. Blade Runner just makes this super literal in the construction of the people because, well, sci-fi movie. 2) Your iPhone is not a person just because Siri sounds nice in a way that makes you want to gently caress it, it's a product made with slaves (which Blade Runner makes super literal because... that's just how poo poo actually works) that's made that way so it sells. Losing his attachment to Joi was part of K's path to really becoming a person. She drops out of the movie because ultimate she's just a thing that got broken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:I admit my thoughts about the film are pretty shallow because I just saw it and am still digesting it. My take on replicants vs. Joi so far is basically this: Ersatz fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Joi was a tool for manipulation and control, that manipulated both K and the audience into caring about it, and convinced K to believe things that made K feel better (and us feel better for cleverly seeing the twist before Joi spelled it out "needlessly," that wasn't really the twist after all), and was then bluntly revealed to be a tool for manipulation with a big naked hologram. Right, exactly: that doesn’t strike you as a problem. Because the film is not actually feminist, nothing about it has prevented you from cynically concluding that the lead female character is a ‘manipulative tool’. It is, again, very easy to contrast Blade 2 with much-better films like THX 1138. In the dystopian future of THX, where everyone is a clone, Robert Duvall’s character returns home from work every day to watch his holo-TV: holo-porn featuring nude ‘exotic’ black women, holo-footage of black men being beaten by police, etc. THX eventually has a mental breakdown and goes on the run. So at one point he, to his shock, encounters a black man ‘in real life’ for the very first time - a fellow escapee, played by Don Pedro Colley. THX: Who are you? SRT: I’m a hologram. SRT continuously refers to himself as a hologram - so, when I first saw the film long ago, I chalked this up to fantasy - primitive sci-fi with a bad understanding of what a hologram is, like Star Trek’s ‘holodeck’ silliness. How else could a hologram walk around and converse with people, without any apparent source? Of course I was dumb; the unstated truth is that, in THX’s dystopia, black people are bred to produce a race of entertainers, so that Colley’s character has been enslaved from birth, and made to ‘perform’ for white audiences. THX quickly realizes that SRT’s not a bad guy, and they team up. But what makes THX 1138 an antiracist film is that SRT insists on identifying as a hologram, even after having escaped.bThat’s the point of Zizek’s statement: “I do not exist in myself, I am merely the Other's fantasy embodied”: SRT has escaped captivity, but he has not escaped racism. Even in his interactions with THX, he is performing for a white person (and to say otherwise is to claim racism is over, or you are post-ideological, or whatever). So SRT’s “I am a hologram” amounts to a refusal to naturalize things and say ‘authentic black people are like this and that’. SRT is saying outright that, because he lives in a racist society, his identity (which is a socio-symbolic identity) isn’t his. And the same is true of Joi, as a woman living under patriarchy. Blade 2 just confuses things badly by having her appear as a literal hologram in the plot of the film, via expensive special effects - then sending her go on a quest to become “a real woman” when of course she already was. (The inconsistency of the film’s presentation is undoubtedly a result of them beginning with Joi as a woman and working backwards from there.) Your take is familiar from, for example, the view that women use clothes and makeup to trick men, and misses that Joi does not perceive herself as a tool and does not perceive what she is doing as manipulation - no more than you do when you speak or wear clothes. She perceives herself as a free individual, just like you. This isn’t new stuff. Solaris came out in 1972.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
that again depends on whether or not we agree that Joi can perceive anything and isnt just a series of very inter-active surface responses (not an AI expert here though) I admit that it is a horrible thing if it is the former, but I thought the whole pink giant joi scene was there to make us consider the latter
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Yeah, Joi is very clearly not sentient. As demonstrated by the giant hologram and repeated shots of the tagline "Says what you want to hear". But I guess watching movies is hard when you're all zizeked out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
DeafNote posted:that again depends on whether or not we agree that Joi can perceive anything and isnt just a series of very inter-active surface responses (not an AI expert here though) In order for Joi (any of the Jois) to perceive and interact with Joseph’s symbolic universe, she (they) must have language. The pink giant scene confuses people because the film is a failure. It’s got you thinking women are maybe literal objects, p-zombies, and therefore there is nothing horrible about the slavery. Perhaps worse, you consider this a useful ambiguity like “maybe they are people or maybe they aren’t. I’m just asking questions here...”. The point of the billboard scene is not that Joi is subhuman but that Joi is something of a collective of empaths, and this particular incarnation isn’t owned by Joseph. Consequently she appears to Joseph as this colossal and threatening mother-figure who makes fun of his size(!). And so Joseph, rather than being inspired to buy a new phone, slinks away to die. In this sense, Joi is freed of his influence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Was Ex Machina also a failure, since it led viewers to question whether Eva was a p-zombie? Or did resolution in what was apparently the opposite direction absolve it of that sin?
Ersatz fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Was Ex Machina also a failure, since it led viewers to question whether Eva was a p-zombie? L You’re getting the causality backwards; the failure of the narrative is what causes the p-zombie interpretation. Ex Machina also has some major problems, dumping a bunch of uncommented-upon literary references in there as Blade 2 does with Nabokov and Kafka. In Ex Machina, both male characters are fans of Wittgenstein, but still participate in a lengthy experiment to figure out what (or if anything) is going on behind the robot Ava’s beautiful face. However, here is what Wittgenstein actually wrote on the topic: “You look at a face and say 'I wonder what's going on behind that face?' - But you don't have to say that. The external does not have to be a facade behind which the mental powers are at work." “Nothing is hidden here, and if I were to assume that there is something hidden that knowledge would be of no interest.” Both characters should have known well in advance that Ava was a person. The best we can say is that their pontification was just a means of escaping this obvious truth and objectifying her. One of the Blade 2 filmmakers summed up the narrative as a story in two parts. In the first part, Joseph loses his virginity. In the second, he dies. So the Illuminati eye in the opening shot is replaced, at the start of Part 2 with the gaze of the mysterious prostitute (when Joseph reawakens after last night’s sex). There may be a temptation to read some sort of ‘deep’ intellectual narrative here, but really we should take it at face value. The film is ‘merely’ about a depressed adult virgin. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Crap, I just realized I have not yet hidden SMG's posts so lemme just blow some holes in his attempts to look like he's saying smart things before I hide that drivel. You should do the same.SuperMechagodzilla posted:The pink giant scene confuses people because the film is a failure. It’s got you thinking women are maybe literal objects, p-zombies Yes, when I learn something about one specific woman I instantly believe it is true of all women. Even if the women I learned that thing of is a hologram. Especially since we can also see the police chief, who is not a hologram nor a replicant (probably) and who suffers from none of that ambiguity. People who use the f-word suffer from a problem of thinking it's the only valid lens through which to view subjects. It's not even a good lens, nor a helpful one. 2049 harkens back to older science fiction. One major points of this sort of futurism is that this barren, dying, stark, cold world is only populated by men and/or men's fantasies. The only hints of life, humanity, and hope happen in close proximity to women. If you end up thinking that's anti-female, you are a dipshit. I'm sorry for your loss. This narrative can't be tackled very well at all by the modern feminist lens, that's true. Which means your feminist lens is the wrong one. Try another. SuperMechagodzilla posted:In Ex Machina, both male characters are fans of Wittgenstein, but still participate in a lengthy experiment to figure out what (or if anything) is going on behind the robot Ava’s beautiful face. However, here is what Wittgenstein actually wrote on the topic: Weird it's almost like they're complex characters, who don't have only one dimension of narrative or inspiration. Ex Machina is not a particularly complex movie in a narrative or philosophical sense. The good things about it are that it's well-made, not afraid to take its time to dwell on its beautiful photography and banging soundtrack, and that there's just enough of a twist to keep you in your seat. Great film. So-so philosophy. It'd put it in the top sci-fi films of all time just above The Matrix, which also is babby's first philosophy class, but is also a well-made movie. I think Matrix is shockingly dated though in its overall mood and trenchcoat philosophizing. Matrix feels really stilted and of an era where Ex Machina is quite a bit more timeless. If the Facebook/Apple/Google references fade over time EM might actually feel less of its era. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Of course I was dumb; the unstated truth is that, in THX’s dystopia, black people are bred to produce a race of entertainers, so that Colley’s character has been enslaved from birth, and made to ‘perform’ for white audiences. Or he's a reverse Pinocchio. He thinks he's just a wooden toy in the same way THX used to think he was a real boy. Now THX isn't so sure, so maybe this guy is onto something. Is anyone in the complex really human? Then what does it matter that this guy thinks he's not human? ...or he's slightly crazy and was just used as the physical model for a hologram. In which case he's accurate in a literal sense, he is (the basis of) a hologram. He just doesn't know he's a person in real life, since nobody interacts with him in real life, they just interact with the hologram. Either way it would benefit him to play the hologram, because people will interact with the hologram in ways they wouldn't interact with the other residents. And SMG goes on the ignore list. I did my part to clean up the forums. Did you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Usually SMG's posts are nonsensical but his past few in this thread have been very interesting and yours was basically "Have you thought that different people have different viewpoints" which isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Crap, I just realized I have not yet hidden SMG's posts so lemme just blow some holes in his attempts to look like he's saying smart things before I hide that drivel. <THREAD>
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
SMG Hot Take: Child slaver dude was the most important character in the film. Here are 21 reasons why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Monglo posted:Yeah, Joi is very clearly not sentient. As demonstrated by the giant hologram and repeated shots of the tagline "Says what you want to hear". But I guess watching movies is hard when you're all zizeked out. That was also the main selling point of Wallace's replicants. And child slaves. And prostitutes. 2049 is not a movie about AI and technology. Hologram is just a term to deny personhood, like replicant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Monglo doesn’t grasp that the phrase ‘everything you want to hear’ is, itself, what he wanted to hear. I am the ultimate killing machine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I am the ultimate killing machine. Yes, you’ve ruined another thread! Ultimate killing machine indeed!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
revwinnebago posted:Weird it's almost like they're complex characters, who don't have only one dimension of narrative or inspiration. Ex Machina is not a particularly complex movie in a narrative or philosophical sense. The good things about it are that it's well-made, not afraid to take its time to dwell on its beautiful photography and banging soundtrack, and that there's just enough of a twist to keep you in your seat. Great film. So-so philosophy. It'd put it in the top sci-fi films of all time just above The Matrix, which also is babby's first philosophy class, but is also a well-made movie. I think Matrix is shockingly dated though in its overall mood and trenchcoat philosophizing. Matrix feels really stilted and of an era where Ex Machina is quite a bit more timeless. If the Facebook/Apple/Google references fade over time EM might actually feel less of its era. Thank you for rescuing the thread with your gripping analysis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Snifffffff Vell you shee there ish sniffff muchsh deeper meaning when it's shpelled out for you sniffff in big letters You stare into the trash can and the trash can stares back
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
K and The Real Girl
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Joi and real dolls are similar in that they're both not real and are problematic because they're merely objects of affection rather than real affection for a person and who they are
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
If you’ve actually seen Lars And The Real Girl, you know that it’s a science-fiction film along the lines of Her and SimOne, where Bianca (that’s her name) is ‘brought to life’ by the small Christian community in the film - and becomes a ‘real girl’. Since everyone decides to treat her as real, Bianca becomes the locus of their collective intelligence, and most specifically of the town’s women - doing such things as, for example, choosing to go to the salon with her girlfriends instead of spending time with Lars. Now you would probably object that Bianca has no brain, she’s made of plastic, etc. But that is the same silly error as saying Joi is made entirely of light or that SRT is just an image on the holo-TV. In truth, Bianca of course has dozens of conscious minds, because she is (or becomes) an extension of the town’s women, who rightfully perceive her as an aspect of their identities that they must fight to reclaim/appropriate from the sexist doll manufacturer who exploits imagery of women. LatRG is ultimately a liberal film that doesn’t take things to a logical anticapitalist conclusion, but it’s much more advanced in its politics than Blade Runner 2. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Nov 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:LatRG is ultimately a liberal film that doesn’t take things to a logical anticapitalist conclusion, but it’s much more advanced in its politics than Blade Runner 2. "Advanced" or "nuanced"? It seems to me that BR2049 caters to a pretty unmistakably anticapitalist perspective, where consumption leads to slavery and decay, the proletariat are more capable of ethical good, and the avatar of entrenched capitalist power is a blind demiurge who venerates the Pharaohs. Hard disagree on your read of the billboard scene. It's an intentionally grotesque doppelgänger of the JOI that K knew, set against K's recollection of Sapper talking about "miracles." It's not that K is disturbed that he doesn't own this version of her, he's internalizing the extent to which the JOI he knew transcended whatever she was designed to be. The context of the scene is K, a replicant designed to kill things, deciding if he'll kill Deckard in service of the resistance. His next act is to martyr himself to save Deckard's life instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
I think it's kind of funny that some people think BR:2049 is shallow and relies on aesthetics and worldbuilding, because I disliked the original Blade Runner for those reasons. 2049 took the story in a direction I find much more interesting. The central narrative of whether K's backstory is authentic or inauthentic is just plot to me; the thing that draws me in is the complicated way that K engages with his fantasies and how he lets them shape his sense of self. The most powerful scene in the movie to me is when he asks if his childhood memory is real, and when he hears yes, he loses control and gets really violent. It's really heartbreaking to me, this realization he has of like "what the gently caress kind of life am I living? who am I?" On another layer, it's really pathetic that the most important thing he has in his life is this memory of being a child and getting chased down and beat up by a group of kids. All of Joi's complications work really well for his character, because not only does he lack self-knowledge, he's in a relationship with this being who's impossible for him to really know. Like he does with his childhood memory, K loves her deeply but at the same time he dismisses her reality because he believes that everything important in his life is soulless. idk, BR:2049 gives me the same vibes that a good Paul Auster novel would, like the New York Trilogy. I think its emotional and intellectual core are pretty closely in line with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? in that it's less about "what is real and what is fake?" and more about "why do you want to believe that something is real?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 01:51
|
|
