|
Ser Pounce posted:It really is, she’s just an emotionally unstable kid trying to impress and emulate ‘daddy’ in the end, and pays for it very heavily by loving with the wrong replicant. I love the Jaws homage at the end there.
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
holy poo poo hahaha e: i'm listening to this in my cubicle and i'm dying e2: the alpha and olmeger?!?! e3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XqjIUXgf9I haha Shageletic fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
brawleh posted:
Taking this a little further, been readin some Jeremy Bentham due to someone mentioning him earlier in the thread. This part in his treatise on morals and legislation (it's crazy how influential it is in today's legal system, it pretty laid the foundation for taking in circumstances when sentencing): quote:"The day has been, I grieve to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? Joi's reactions right before her end pretty much answered that. For me, it's not even a debate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Ser Pounce posted:I'm not entirely sure I buy that, I was watching the film again last night, and looking out for the new model murder scene in particular. This is largely my own thinking, and its very symptomatic of a wide range of enforcer archetypes in totalitarian societies. The mix of fear/admiration/love is a necessary ingredient for survival for a certain class of goose stepper, and the constant struggle to maintain their status versus competitors (mostly imagined, paranoia being always a certain feature in bloody societies) is an absolutely essential adaptive trait. ninjewtsu posted:the problem i have with that is that we explicitly know that joi is definitely trying to make k believe that she's a person, whether or not she'd actually "qualify" as a person. it's all well and good to say "this is a person" when you're in a text chat with something that can provide clear responses, but once you have the knowledge that you were actually talking to a fairly convincing chatbot, which was designed with the express purpose of making you believe it was human (and nothing more), it's hard to, taking that information into account, still say "well it talked to me like a person so it's obviously a person. turning this program off is the same as murder." There's a lot of material out there on what it takes for an entity to be recognized as sentient, but one thing that really gels with me is not whether a thing is, or is not, sentient, but whether under a moral framework, we have an obligation to recognize something as sentient. It's not something that can be quantified, but it is something that is absolutely essential. The expansion of empathy to things similar to ourselves, even if there are marked differences or questions as towards its real mechanics, is a thing that humanity needs to embrace, if we're gonna truly not sink ourselves with our bullshit. Sorry I'm derailing but that's where this conversation is taking me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
I'm basically trying say orangutans are people, if you want a tl;dr of my posting this page. Also the thing about Luv's wariness/amazement of Deckard (god I need to see this movie again b/c I didn't pick on up that the first time), this could be b/c she might just think that Deckard's a replicant, even if he might not be. And therefore managed to escape his particular cage. Do we have any info that says that Wallace definitely knows what Deckard is? Isn't the info on him all mucked up due to the blackout.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Ser Pounce posted:I can buy Orangutans as people, and chimpanzees for that matter, limited but still appear conscious, more so than some purportedly normal people I know for sure. Yeah I buy that if he knew he would have used it, telling/showing replicants they're artificiality/ability to be thrown away (there's a perfect word for this and I'm blanking goddamit) seems to be very much his operating strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
this interview man quote:In the end, the VFX House D-Neg used an animated CGI Joi for that shot. It’s subtle, but it feels like the program conserves energy when she’s not being watched – she defaults to something more robotic. A beautiful happy accident. still reading thru it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
A possible explanation for the long held cuts other than moodquote:The Wallace building, for example, had this slowly moving artificial sunlight. It just felt such a groovy idea, artificial sunlight following the characters around the most sophisticated office on earth, owned by a blind man. That means that a shot like Luv walking down a corridor, which in a normal drama you’d probably hold for three or four seconds, but here with slowly shifting caustics you’d be decimating a world-class cinematic moment if you didn’t give that the necessary slot. I guess the choices are about picking which moments to sell and which to buy. And that made it a really interesting edit. Because it looked cool as poo poo, that's why
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I can't remember, does the scene with the giant JOI projection comes after Deckard rejects new-Rachel because her eyes are supposedly the wrong colour? Nice callback I think. Think so. And looking at this page, I am once again reminded how boring anti-capitalist film critique can be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Cool thing I just learned, the baseline test with the Pale Fire monologue was written into the script, but as far as repeating the different phrases with varying intensity, that comes Ryan Gosling. Apparently its an old acting trick to remember lines.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
quote:What did you make of the way Blade Runner 2049 was received? lol Ridley Scott http://www.vulture.com/2017/12/ridley-scott-all-the-money-in-the-world-reshoots.html the rest of the interview is pretty great as well, even tho I can't agree with him regarding 2049
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Derivative implies he had nothing to do with the actual CONTENT (re: story) as opposed to direction. Eh wouldn't be too sure of that it doesn't go along with the story that Hampton and the rest of the writers said happened re 2049, but you never know. BarronsArtGallery posted:He's an aging douchebag and needs to just retire. If he would have directed this it would have been just as terrible and derivative as Alien: Covenant. This is insanity tho. He still manages good work, American Gangster was a pretty good crime movie and I've heard good things about Hostiles. He does so many movies some of them are gonna be great just by the law of numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Detective Dog Dick posted:Ridley Scott didn't make Hostiles. Woops. Replacee that with the Martian then.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
But I like that Wallace wasn't that charismatic and kind of a nonce.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 18:07
|
|