|
Simiain posted:There is no 'ambiguity' about Mariette being a replicant, she's just a replicant and this is straightforwardly shown to the viewer a bunch of different times. She 'syncs' with Joi and then chides her, saying she has 'been inside' her. [...] She is an active part of the looming robot revolution. You’ve misunderstood what happens. Joi synchronizes her movements with Mariette’s with motion-tracking software. Mariette does not upload her mind into Joseph’s cellular phone; she is talking about standing ‘inside’ the holographic overlay. Your last point is why the distinction actually is very important: is Freysa’s ‘revolution’ inclusive towards the lowest levels of humanity, or is it exclusive to replicants? And, for that matter: we know Mariette is prejudiced against cell-phones, but is Freysa? That’s all to say: is this movement egalitarian or not? That question is vital, because it informs Joseph’s decision not to kill Deckard. And if Freysa is a replicant supremacist and we read Deckard as human, then he must have been forced into exile. (And Deckard is human, as far as Freysa knows.) So again a pointless ambiguity appears: is Deckard’s exile self-imposed, or is he trapped in Vegas under threat by a ruthless Freysa who only spared his life in exchange for record-scrambling techniques? That certainly makes more sense than the plan to... remain ignorant? What’s increasingly clear is that Blade Runner 2 is not science fiction but fantasy, moreso than any film I’ve seen. It will not have the staying power of the original because it is so impossibly vague.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
exquisite tea posted:They called the 8th line of replicants Nexus-9s. I had actually assumed that the apparent non-existence of Nexus-7s was a joke riffing on how Microsoft went from Windows 8 to Windows 10. Both Win8 and the Nexus-6s were something of a disaster that the company wanted to distance itself from as quickly as possible, so they skipped a version number.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You’ve misunderstood what happens. Godfuckingdamnit, yes you're quite right. I guess there are more general, intended ambiguities and very specific unintended ambiguities generated by the need to cover up any and all plot holes that arise as the superficial plot bombs along. For me, because I'm a bit dim to be looking out for them, these smaller ambiguities go unnoticed, Mariette is a new, legal replicant simply because thats what the movie tells me when she 'syncs' with Joi and when she shows up with Freysa. If one explores these unintended ambiguities at too granular a level then you wander into Alien Covenant territory, lose the forest for the trees, and create something forgettable. However, I think because the movie resolutely refuses to get bogged down in the lore and instead institutes your ambiguous, super-positioning soft-retcon in order to maintain the same broad-strokes as the original, that it dodges this trap and will have the original's lasting impact. For me the one element of the film where I could feel the writers struggle with it's superficial plot-beats/characterisation was Luv's frequent, unnecessary and gratuitous cruelty. It just seemed radically at odds with the languid, futile tone of the film as a whole, and felt to me as if the writers felt like they needed to reproduce some Batty-ish rage and didnt know quite where to put it. Simiain fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Feb 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Simiain posted:Godfuckingdamnit, yes you're quite right. I saw her anger as that of the Dutiful Son when the Prodigal returns. Luv did everything she could for Wallace, perhaps even going beyond what he would strictly approve of in order to please him. Despite this, she is still disposable in Wallace's eyes. I dunno, I think SuperMecha is looking for ambiguities where none exist, but he's really observant so I want to try and debate.  SuperMechagodzilla posted:You’ve misunderstood what happens. But that still proves that Mariette is a replicant, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to sync/perform at all, right? Which kind of blows a hole through the "maybe she's human" angle, yeah? In any event, your own point explodes this theory: in Freysa mind Deckard is human, and therefore replicants require natural humans in order to breed so the movement must be egalitarian, ne? And to your earlier point, is it all old N8s in the rebellion? Joe joined the rebellion so there must be new models involved. Joe has been with the LAPD for a while, but there is obvious animosity between human and replicant officers. Joe is required to go through an extensive series of "baseline tests" whenever something stressful happens to him. It is noted several times in the film that he has performed these tests successfully in abundance, and that this level of compliance is an aberration (I would say it is implied that his "rough" childhood memories make him more suited for this line of work, rather than replicants with happy, birthday-party-memories, hence "Constant K"). The words and questions of the test are obviously designed to produce an emotional response, in contrast to the VK test in 2019, which tried to hang the AI in a kind of logic loop, right? The Baseline test seems purpose-built to elicit, not just an emotional response, but a human response, and that such emotional involvement is seen as extremely dangerous and likely met with "retirement."
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:But that still proves that Mariette is a replicant, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to sync/perform at all, right? Nah. It could just be the holographic version of those Messenger/Snapchat/whatever filters that overlay a dynamic mask on the user's face during a video. We know that JOI's hardware can map the environment around her, since she appears correctly aligned with the floor, objects in her environment, etc. It seems to be just doing this at a fast enough cycle that it can paint JOI in the air on top of where it detects Mariette to be. It's not hard to believe she can do that without assistance from Mariette given everything else we see her do. If I recall, JOI's most impressive trick is being seemingly able to view the DNA readout from inside K's pocket. That's drat near straight-up magic, unless she's just pretending that she can see the code that she's commenting on. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Feb 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Yeah, Joi isn't literally syncing with Mariette like your phone syncs to itunes because replicants aren't machines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nah. It could just be the holographic version of those Messenger/Snapchat/whatever filters that overlay a dynamic mask on the user's face during a video. We know that JOI's hardware can map the environment around her, since she appears correctly aligned with the floor, objects in her environment, etc. It seems to be just doing this at a fast enough cycle that it can paint JOI in the air on top of where it detects Mariette to be. It's not hard to believe she can do that without assistance from Mariette given everything else we see her do. That's exactly what it is and, in an incredible touch, they very subtly left the effect slightly unfinished whenever JOI/Mariette are out of K's line of sight because they realized it makes it seem like JOI is saving memory as efficiently as possible while doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Simiain posted:If one explores these unintended ambiguities at too granular a level then you wander into Alien Covenant territory, lose the forest for the trees, and create something forgettable. However, I think because the movie resolutely refuses to get bogged down in the lore and instead institutes your ambiguous, super-positioning soft-retcon in order to maintain the same broad-strokes as the original, that it dodges this trap and will have the original's lasting impact. Alien Covenant is a film that rewards close reading. I wrote a short book about it over in the designated thread. Likewise the original Blade Runner - nothing about it is vague. It’s important to distinguish between ambiguity of ‘the lore’/canon and thematic obscurity. I am not at all concerned with the former. When you look at how the film presents Freysa, for example, the formal superpositioning of mutually-exclusive interpretations has a flattening, depoliticizing effect. When the characters are egalitarian revolutionaries and supremacist reactionaries simultaneously, the result is centrist ‘horseshoe theory’ bullshit that’s part-and-parcel with the film’s overall project of resurrecting the liberal-humanist Tyrell - rehabilitating his image as good corporate father. The truth of the film is in where the mutually-exclusive interpretations overlap. And so the truth is that Freysa’s politics don’t matter to the narrative because she simply is political, in the abstract, and therefore automatically poses a threat to the film’s postpolitical, gradualist ideology. More pointless ambiguity: was Stelline deliberately set up to be adopted by rich foster parents, or (more likely) is that a wrench in Freysa’s evil plans? Again, this isn’t quibbling; Stelline is working for Wallace!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What’s increasingly clear is that Blade Runner 2 is not science fiction but fantasy, moreso than any film I’ve seen. It will not have the staying power of the original because it is so impossibly vague. This point will ring true for none of the bourgeois psychoanalytic or critical theory you've spilled over these thread pages, but mostly because the original, despite all of its difficulties in production and flaws through continuous re-cutting, is a much simpler and direct film. It has fewer points to make and can spend more time making them rather than asking a lot of questions it does not manage to answer very satisfactorily. Still liked 2049 on a shallow level, however. The oddball, half-analog tech was entertaining, as well as the cyberpunk settings and fashion. Essentially the reasons why I liked the original as a teenager.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Misc posted:This point will ring true for none of the bourgeois psychoanalytic or critical theory you've spilled over these thread pages, but mostly because the original, despite all of its difficulties in production and flaws through continuous re-cutting, is a much simpler and direct film. It has fewer points to make and can spend more time making them rather than asking a lot of questions it does not manage to answer very satisfactorily. That’s not what “bourgeois” means. And this is where I observe that people never say anything specific about Blade Runner 2049’s concepts. What about it is complex and... indirect? What are the “questions”? The standard is to say “it’s about what it means to be human” and leave it at that - presumably because the characters in the film are constantly sitting around talking about what it means to be human. But that’s obviously more of that obscurantism. Note that, in Blade Runner 1, nobody really talks about ‘what it means to be human’. They talk about what it means to be enslaved - and this is soon revealed to be a nuanced subjective position: “Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.” So we have this point that Deckard may very well be enslaved, but he is not conscious of it. So we’re talking class consciousness and proletarianization - which is ultimately tied to Deckard’s identification as not human but inhuman. So what is said in this film?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That’s not what "bourgeois" means. If your name is Deleuze or Guattari, I guess it isn't. SuperMechagodzilla posted:And this is where I observe that people never say anything specific about Blade Runner 2049's concepts. What about it is complex and... indirect? What are the "questions"? The standard is to say "it's about what it means to be human" and leave it at that - presumably because the characters in the film are constantly sitting around talking about what it means to be human. But that’s obviously more of that obscurantism. The central theme of this film which I read into the most, as well as in the original, is the pervading nihilism of postmodernity. An examination of a handful of people born, created, or simulated, the actual distinction rather irrelevant since replicants are humanity attempting and failing to create (and I'm holding my nose here) a "body without organs", who are seeking deeper meaning of their existence where there is none, a big Other with no strong superstructure to hide its lack of existence and a population which on the surface pretends to not care. I'm reminded of Batty taunting Deckard, "Not very sporting to fire on an unarmed opponent. I thought you were supposed to be good. Aren't you the "good" man?" as well as Bryant's "If you're not a cop, you're little people." These are just as much a taunt at Deckard's reputation as being skilled at his job as it is the morality of it, as well as the notion that one's career accomplishments define one's necessity for existence. Batty ultimately accepts his experiences, while having an emotional impact upon himself, will amount to nothing, and ultimately accepts his place among the dead having as much value as among the living. 2049 is a sequel, so it begins with the similar theme, but ends with the same desperate optimism which ends The Lego Movie, 'You may not be special but you can do something special.'  Then there's the scene with the Rachel copy, which attempts to repeat Benjamin's arguments Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical reproduction, but is completely undercut by the "her eyes were green" one-liner which robs the scene of any intellectual depth were Wallace able to produce an exact replica of Rachel. And why is Luv using Joi's emanator antenna to track K's movements when the LAPD had means to track their replicants all along (and somehow the Wallace corp doesn't have this data as well)? The idea that Wallace would manufacture replicants for state use without some sort of backdoor aligns them more like an arms manufacturer than a culty silicon valley startup as many others in the thread have tried to parallel. And with all that, I still find myself strangely attracted to the film as just, like, a cool thing to look at. That might be shallow or a waste of 3 good hours, but I don't exactly plan to see the film again anytime soon. Misc fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Feb 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
Misc posted:The idea that Wallace would manufacture replicants for state use without some sort of backdoor aligns them more like an arms manufacturer than a culty silicon valley startup as many others in the thread have tried to parallel. Conflating the two just makes it sound like 2049's writers had their finger on the pulse: "Elon Musk sells out of his 20,000 flame-throwers in days despite questions over legality"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
Misc posted:The central theme of this film which I read into the most, as well as in the original, is the pervading nihilism of postmodernity. An examination of a handful of people born, created, or simulated, the actual distinction rather irrelevant since replicants are humanity attempting and failing to create (and I'm holding my nose here) a "body without organs", who are seeking deeper meaning of their existence where there is none, a big Other with no strong superstructure to hide its lack of existence and a population which on the surface pretends to not care. Are you clumsily conflating and misreading the works of three vastly different thinkers to make a bad-faith point about "postmodernism" or are you just playing mad libs here
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
Why is "Peter and the Wolf" K's ringtone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Why is "Peter and the Wolf" K's ringtone? I thought it was pointing to K's naivete. Peter is a 6-year-old who thinks he's going to catch a wolf with his pop-gun. He fancies himself a hunter, but really he's a child wandering out into danger. I haven't thought about it too deeply, that was just my reaction as someone whose kids listen to Sterling Holloway's version at least a couple times a day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
If you're asking within the context of the movie, K didn't choose that tone. It was seemingly the default tone for the Wallace Joi emanator, which is why Luv and Mariette instantly recognize it. Still could be a thematic reason Villeneuve chose it, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:If you're asking within the context of the movie, K didn't choose that tone. It was seemingly the default tone for the Wallace Joi emanator, which is why Luv and Mariette instantly recognize it. Still could be a thematic reason Villeneuve chose it, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
CARL MARK FORCE IV posted:Are you clumsily conflating and misreading the works of three vastly different thinkers to make a bad-faith point about "postmodernism" or are you just playing mad libs here I wouldn't really call Deleuze / Guattari and Lacan "vastly different" by any stretch unless you're the type of person who thinks any of their work adds up to more than a pseudoreligion, and I didn't use the word postmodernism, but I'll cop to the bad-faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Actually, something I just thought of: with the knowledge that N9s like Joe (and even N8s like Batista) are able to blend in so seemlessly, how is nearly everyone able to mark Joe as a replicant almost instantly? Specifically, I'm thinking of the scene at the orphanage, when the director is like "better men than you have tried to bring me down...and they were men at that..." How does he know Joe is anything other than human?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
Because K is tall, good looking and doesn't seem malnourished/physically disabled. Part of the conceit of Blade Runner is that most of the humans left on earth were in some way considered unfit for space travel; they're people like J.F. Sebastian, the Director or Dr. Badger who probably wouldn't make the trip out of earth's gravity so well; so people can reasonably guess Joe is a replicant just by looking at him.
Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Feb 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Aren't there only X number of replicant looks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
Misc posted:I wouldn't really call Deleuze / Guattari and Lacan "vastly different" by any stretch unless you're the type of person who thinks any of their work adds up to more than a pseudoreligion, and I didn't use the word postmodernism, but I'll cop to the bad-faith. Instead of struggling to deceive, just write truthfully and accurately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Aren't there only X number of replicant looks? Mmmmyeah, that too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Aren't there only X number of replicant looks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Mariette, the replicant prostitute, is almost a deadringer for Pris, the "standard pleasure model" from the original Bladerunner. It certainly suggests that Replicants intended for the same purpose may resemble each other more often than not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
There is Nexus 7(?) model in Wallace's hallway that is a dead ringer for Bautista
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
WENTZ WAGON NUI posted:Because K is tall, good looking and doesn't seem malnourished/physically disabled. Part of the conceit of Blade Runner is that most of the humans left on earth were in some way considered unfit for space travel; they're people like J.F. Sebastian, the Director or Dr. Badger who probably wouldn't make the trip out of earth's gravity so well; so people can reasonably guess Joe is a replicant just by looking at him. Oh yeah! Forgot that! Unoriginal Name posted:There is Nexus 7(?) model in Wallace's hallway that is a dead ringer for Bautista This bothered me because, knowing Wallace like we do, I assume those replicants in the tank are fully sentient and know they are just sitting there like goldfish all day, unable to move... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:Oh yeah! Forgot that! I always assumed that there's a not massive number of folks used as templates for specific roles but that there's still a ton of variation overall since they're more grown than built. Bautista (a notably older replicant than most others in the film) in the tank, to me was another indication to me that everything about Wallace's company is a flashy but not particularly better rehash of stuff the Tyrell corporation already did. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Feb 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
K shows the guy at the orphanage his badge...
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:There is Nexus 7(?) model in Wallace's hallway that is a dead ringer for Bautista Now that the home video release is available, can somebody post some better pictures of Tank Replicant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Bautista (a notably older replicant than most others in the film) in the tank, to me was another indication to me that everything about Wallace's company is a flashy but not particularly better rehash of stuff the Tyrell corporation already did. Bautista is actually a “tail-end Nexus 8”, meaning he’s one of the youngest of his kind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Well, I finally watched it. It wasn't good. It was just so...sterile and lifeless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
I love that the soundtrack was boat horns blowing randomly. *nothing happens* ~~BWOOOOOOOOOOO~~
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Well, I finally watched it. What everyone said about Blade Runner in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:What everyone said about Blade Runner in the 80s. Yup, for years the common review of that flick was that it had nothing going on in it besides looking pretty. Now I wonder if twelve years later there will accidentally be a screening of a shorter version of it with some minor changes that radically alter the movie that people will think is way better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
All they have to do is mute the dialogue and the boat horns and it would be vastly improved
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
The boat horn is a subtle indicator that BR2049 is actually a direct sequel to Arrival, signaling the beginning of The Villanueve Cinematic Universe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The boat horn is a subtle indicator that BR2049 is actually a direct sequel to Arrival, signaling the beginning of The Villanueve Cinematic Universe. It’s the Villeneuverse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
I liked this movie and watched it twice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
sean10mm posted:What everyone said about Blade Runner in the 80s. True. It did take a while for people to come around, but I don't see it for the sequel. I'll come back in ten years or so and apologize if it does. I liked the original right away but I'm weird like that. I remember seeing it in the theater when it first came out. Me and that other guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 02:38
|
|