|
It's pure happenstance Deckard survives K's air to air attack. Killing or saving Deckard achieves the same goal.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
How can y'all even tell what happens in the air at the end? Just looked like a car wreck in the rain with poor visibility. It looked like there was a missile fired or something to take out one of the other cars but I think he just rammed them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Featurette on the minature work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLxxbfsj8IM Wallace Corp's tower was supposed to be 3 km tall!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
revwinnebago posted: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. feminist analysis is bad... because it might tell you that your work treats women poorly. also, pretty funny this word "anti-female", a meaningless word i've only seen used by the golden one. edit: also lmao at your ability to interpret the movie in such a ludicrously sexist light. seriously? what you took away is that women existing to satisfy male fantasies as a sole reason is good? and moreover, that the movie would actually champion that viewpoint rather than subvert in ways you're too stupid to pick up? i mean, if you love your lovely reactionary take on the movie, that's fine, but it's a bit much to be dismissing feminist analysis, no? especially considering your piss-poor knowledge of the subject matter. Fututor Magnus fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Nov 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Featurette on the minature work: God drat practical effects are so amazing. Weta is the best there ever was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
quote: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. "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." A large portion of feminism is about how men's fantasies that women are "the only hints of life, humanity, and hope" is not a good thing because it dehumanizes women and makes them more like some sort of symbol or object of desire, instead of just being as human as men are. This is like saying "Some people have criticisms about the way Blade Runner uses exotic cultures and languages to create an oppressive atmosphere. That's pretty stupid because the whole point is that the Asians are becoming more powerful than white people. If you think that's xenophobia then you are a dipshit."
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Cephas posted: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. I never vibed with the first movie for this exact reason, until realizing that's what I (and everybody else) liked about that movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
I'm not sure how I feel about Wallace, he almost seems superfluous, but maybe that's kinda the point - the specific "villain" doesn't matter since capitalism will always make more. Tyrell dead so what, you just get another greed freak with slightly different pretensions of godhood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
JOI is fake but then again she is written as a real person, with jealousy etc, so im confused a bit. It would be a lot easier if there were more cracks in her facade ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:JOI is fake I suspect your confusion is intentional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
No I mean the more that I think about it, the more her depiction doesn't make sense to me. Her being a soulless method of mass control would be easier to accept if they skipped her many character building scenes It'd be easier to make a judgement if they went one way or the other
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:No I mean the more that I think about it, the more her depiction doesn't make sense to me. I really like this movie a lot
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:I'm not sure how I feel about Wallace, he almost seems superfluous, but maybe that's kinda the point - the specific "villain" doesn't matter since capitalism will always make more. Tyrell dead so what, you just get another greed freak with slightly different pretensions of godhood. I think that Wallace being a superfluous and useless fool sort of makes sense, yeah, though I do think Tyrell specifically was important. When you compare him to Tyrell, it's very obvious that Tyrell was an immensely important figure who innovated and created a massive amount of things; Wallace never really created much of anything. He just took Tyrell's achievements, copied them poorly, then put a shiny brand on it. You can see these things by comparing what they made; the greatest achievement of the older villain was(Albeit retroactively put in)a truly humanistic replicant who could have children, something Wallace is desperate for but just not good enough to get. Even Roy Batty stands tall over K and Luv, in my opinion, narratively and physically, though they're both obviously meant to be similar in some ways. I also really liked Turkel's performance, because Turkel is good and Leto is bad, so that reinforces me feeling like Wallace is a watered down nothing in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
I didn't mind Wallace, but I think they made him a bit too weird. He feels a bit like a Joss Whedon character and is out of place compared to the fairly grounded rest of the cast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:I think that Wallace being a superfluous and useless fool sort of makes sense, yeah, though I do think Tyrell specifically was important. When you compare him to Tyrell, it's very obvious that Tyrell was an immensely important figure who innovated and created a massive amount of things; Wallace never really created much of anything. He just took Tyrell's achievements, copied them poorly, then put a shiny brand on it. So Wallace is Steve Jobs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:So Wallace is Steve Jobs? Glad I'm not the only one to make that conclusion. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:So Wallace is Steve Jobs? Honestly, yeah, I feel like that's what they were going for. A modern day "Tech guy" archetype who is pretty much just a normal CEO who uses trendy words and dresses funnily, but has no knowledge of his product beyond what he wants it to do for him. He was all style but no real substance, compared to Tyrell who wore dorky glasses and was comparatively soft-spoken, but who was also by far one of the most intelligent people in the film. I got the feeling that Wallace had no actual knowledge of biomechanics; he was an MBA compared to Tyrell's biomedical doctorate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
So after rewatching Ghost in the Shell(2017) and gotta say it's the superior movie in handling what are some obvious similar themes - past-life memories as an abstract intrusion etc. Another weird point where things start breaking down in 2049 is how Joi speaks or how she's heard. In Joe's apartment it makes sense that he'd have some kind of surround sound or whatever that can project Joi's voice for her, but with the eminator things start breaking down. Where the mobile device starts projecting her voice through the projection - this leads to strange dead ends and kinda dumb to think about, but there it is and that’s the problem with it. Yeah of course it's a necessary aspect of filmmaking that an actor plays the role and whatever, but it's just another thing that doesn't seem thought through in favour of cute naming conventions - again it comes back to Joi is more genie in a bottle than a brain in a jar. brawleh fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
DARPA posted:It's pure happenstance Deckard survives K's air to air attack. Killing or saving Deckard achieves the same goal. During the film whenever we see K indulging in acts of violence (outside his loss of control when discovering his ‘real’ memories) he is inhumanly precise and deliberate, why would you think Deckard’s survival and the other two vehicles total destruction would be accidental?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
I don't think we ever see K miss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
brawleh posted:So after rewatching Ghost in the Shell(2017) and gotta say it's the superior movie in handling what are some obvious similar themes - past-life memories as an abstract intrusion etc. Another weird point where things start breaking down in 2049 is how Joi speaks or how she's heard. The specificity of 'how does this tech work' in a science fiction film seems kinda silly The emitter does some presto magic-o sci-fi ventriloquism, easy. As for in what way that works exactly, it seems a bit weird to dwell on. The specifics of the technology isn't really what the film is about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Snak posted:I don't think we ever see K miss. he has a built in aimbot.exe
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:The specificity of 'how does this tech work' in a science fiction film seems kinda silly If the internet's taught me anything, it's that folks can have some pretty disparate expectations of how science fiction approaches its story and its world. I'm definitely in the camp of not caring how the doodad works because it's all a big metaphor anyway, but for some it seems to be the source of the entertainment. What I'm getting at is that I'm trying to be a better person and appreciate others' terrible, wrongheaded perspectives on movies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Due to how sound works, being able to make sound seem like it's coming from a different place than it is seems hugely more plausible than being able to make light seem like it's emitted from some place it's not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:The specificity of 'how does this tech work' in a science fiction film seems kinda silly It's not so much wondering only about the specifics of the technology, but the form of how "everything you want to hear-see" is presented within the movie - which leads to thinking about the technology's presentation. The simple question, shouldn't we hear Joi's voice from the mobile device when she speaks? Simply goes back to the de-emphasis placed upon Joi's physical body within the movie itself. Like the crash scene that has Joi emitting sound from outside the car. Yeah it's pure fantasy, but again it re-enforces the strange omniscience of Joi. Tangentially related, the last scene with Joi as a neon giantess, where Joe see's Joi for the first time free from the subjective violence of his particular "everything you want to see-hear" is worth repeating. Rather than address the systemic objective violence that places her back within the billboard this violence is simply de-emphasised and left hanging. The presentation is one where Joe internalizes the encounter as a form of subjective violence from a Joi - the casual indifferent humiliation. 2049 just strangely comes across as a utopian-fantasy, In the sense of liberal-utopianism thinking which is squarely rooted in belief that things can't change - rather that it's unimaginable. SMG’s earlier point where ‘woman’ in the abstract that is simply squashed left implicit it’s missing “forever.” brawleh fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:The specificity of 'how does this tech work' in a science fiction film seems kinda silly No, specifics are actually very important - especially in a fantasy film. Even in Star Wars, Luke needs a ship with a big engine before he can ‘jump to hyperspace’. For example: this entire film hinges on Joseph‘s absolute conviction that the furnace memory was something that he, personally, experienced. This conviction is based on two ‘facts’: that his memory is a product of actual human experience, and that directly copying human memories is illegal. From this, Joseph concludes he is a product of childbirth (before the twist reveals that the memory was actually an artistic interpretation of a childhood and therefore technically not illegal). However: Joseph, bizarrely, never considers the third possibility: that his memories may have been illegally copied. He should be full of the same doubt and uncertainty as Deckard in Blade 1. It’s an extremely weird omission, given that the first film is all about how Rachel’s memories were copied directly from Tyrell’s niece. And if Joseph believes that he’s human, he should consequently believe that all of his memories are real. Why not get Stelline to check some of the other ones? Joseph’s artificial backstory must be remarkably elaborate, remarkably coherent, and contain nothing that contradicts the ‘I’m a messiah’ theory. The issue with Joi’s speech is less that it makes no sense, and more that there are too many senses in which it can be understood. Like I wrote before, the best explanation for Joseph’s ability to see and hear Joi is that he is wearing extremely discrete contact lenses and headphones. But the second, less satisfactory explanation is that the emitters somehow beam this information directly into his mind - not hugely implausible in this film given that the underfunded LAPD has non-invasive tech that can track the firing of individual synapses, and a Stelline can directly read people’s thoughts using a scanner the size of a microwave oven. And then, this second explanation opens a can of worms, because there’s nothing stopping the phone from also broadcasting tactile feelings into Joseph’s mind. So not only should Joi be able to feel Joseph, they should both be able to touch eachother.... (And, this again makes Wallace’s drones hopelessly primitive. He has to actually physically plug individual USBs into his neck in order to switch between vision modes.) Then, you also have third option: that Joi ‘actually is’ a normal flesh-and blood human woman, and what we see in the film are various metaphors for the dysfunction of the relationship (she’s clingy, he’s emotionally distant, the sex isn’t good...). This is closely related to the fourth and probably-weakest option: that Joi is purely Joseph’s fantasy, based on the advertisements he drives past every day. These explanations are all equally (in)valid. Each one has vastly different implications for how the narrative is to be understood. Xealot posted:"Advanced" or "nuanced"? Advanced. Your response to my post is a sort of odd non-sequitur where you mix bizarre phraseology like ‘anticapitalism is the perspective that consumption leads to decay’(?) with untenable points like that the film is anticapitalist because the evil CEO (as in half the libertarian Disney-Marvel films) is also a wannabe pharoah (as in another half of the libertarian Disney-Marvel films). This is another example of why specificity is important. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
brawleh posted:So after rewatching Ghost in the Shell(2017) and gotta say it's the superior movie I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No, specifics are actually very important - especially in a fantasy film. Even in Star Wars, Luke needs a ship with a big engine before he can ‘jump to hyperspace’. I don't think he wants to consider that possibility. Keep in mind that Joe's life consists of hunting down and murdering replicants. He doesn't really seem to be having a good time, but he's been conditioned to obey and believes that he must do so. However if he's born and "has a soul" then he is free to choose his own life. The fact that JOI encourages this thinking reinforces this too- she's telling him what he wants to hear. Of course Joe is not really special in the end- but the point is he doesn't have to be a slave because of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:I'm sorry. While I don't think the live action GitS is better than BR2049, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I see it as an interesting and worthwhile companion to the anime version (similar to how I view the Stand Alone Complex stuff), rather than an adaptation or a remake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:If the internet's taught me anything, it's that folks can have some pretty disparate expectations of how science fiction approaches its story and its world. I'm definitely in the camp of not caring how the doodad works because it's all a big metaphor anyway, but for some it seems to be the source of the entertainment. Normally I wouldn't care to speculate how sci-fi technology actually works (because, of course, it doesn't), but in the case of this film its relevant because the technology is also a main character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
GiTs could’ve worked with a more visually ambitious director. The limp and uninspired directing just sank that movie. What a waste. Oh well, we still got the anime
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Normally I wouldn't care to speculate how sci-fi technology actually works (because, of course, it doesn't), but in the case of this film its relevant because the technology is also a main character. In the film you see it working, that's all you need. To turn around and say "it couldn't work" is not relevant. Take the example of a
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Super Fan posted:GiTs could’ve worked with a more visually ambitious director. The limp and uninspired directing just sank that movie. What a waste. I dunno, I thought the movie looked gorgeous and visually interesting as a plausible cyberpunk world without just copying "Blade Runner" or even straight copying, say, Johnny Mnemonic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:I'm sorry. It's simply the better movie, it doesn't have the strange open ended story ambiguities that get in the way of effective storytelling. 2049 is undoubtedly beautifully shot and something everyone loves about it, but the uncertainty in the handling of Joi’s presentation leads to a strange uncertainty in the story being told. With both treading very similar thematic waters and coming out within the same year it's worth mentioning for the stark ideological contrasts between them and hell, they’re both good looking movies.      
brawleh fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Just got back from watching 2049 and I'm pretty blown away. Stupid question though: In Vegas after Deckerd gets hauled off, why didn't the kill K. They just didn't need to? Or am I missing something obvious?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No, specifics are actually very important - especially in a fantasy film. Even in Star Wars, Luke needs a ship with a big engine before he can ‘jump to hyperspace’. Oh boy here I go quoting a Super Mecha Godzilla post Anyway, the fact that K never considers the third possibility actually works well for me, because it's a very human act; I spoke about this earlier in the thread, actually. Him having been the child makes literally no sense whatsoever, and with how intelligent and capable he is in the rest of the film, he should realize that. However, he doesn't, and that's not an inconsistency, it's him wanting to be special and believing it irrationally in spite of the fact that it doesn't make sense. K is efficient and precise with a massive amount of what he does, but he very obviously constructed a narrative and ignored what didn't fit into it; this is his most human act, in my opinion, and does a lot to show that he's not just a machine. The explanation for the tech doesn't have to be nearly that in depth. It works because it works and this is science fiction. She can be seen and heard but not felt, and is, in essence, a ghost. The technological manner in which this is achieved just doesn't seem that important to me. bollig posted:Just got back from watching 2049 and I'm pretty blown away. Stupid question though: In Vegas after Deckerd gets hauled off, why didn't the kill K. They just didn't need to? Or am I missing something obvious? My personal thoughts on it were just that Luv likes him and didn't want to kill him. She has a lot of stuff going on in her character, obviously likes him, and the other people with her obviously just want to get the gently caress out of there. I don't find it unrealistic that she just wouldn't bother killing him, or would hesitate enough that she'd end up just leaving. Blade Runner fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
starkebn posted:In the film you see it working, that's all you need. To turn around and say "it couldn't work" is not relevant. How is that a reply to what I said? I already agreed normally, like in the case of the lightsabre, it doesn't matter. I already said it only matters in this case because Joi is a character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:How is that a reply to what I said? I already agreed normally, like in the case of the lightsabre, it doesn't matter. I already said it only matters in this case because Joi is a character. I would say it's because the technology of the item itself, even if it's a character, is unimportant to the overall narrative. It is not important that we know exactly how Daneel Olivaw's power matrix works. Or, for a more direct/relevant example, how exactly the markings on Roy Batty's body allow him to interface with his armored suit. We know that these things exist, but the actual hard facts of them just aren't really important; Joi's emitter is essentially a token that summons a spirit which is mostly disconnected from it. If it is broken, she is destroyed. You can see it as basically a form of magic. This is fine for the story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:
Yeah like she wasn't ordered to do it so why do it. Cool thanks. One of the weirdest leaps of logic, for me, with this film is having to think of replicants as characters. Which exposes my deep seeded anti-replicant prejudice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
How about: JOI isn't a hologram. It's a nanomachine cloud. There are objects with mass that exist within the projection; they're just very small. There's some question during the rooftop scene if the JOI program is tracking and projecting raindrops or if less-dense substances like water can interact physically with her/its (I guess the right pronoun depends on how you interpret JOIs nature) 'skin'. ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 17:33
|
|
