-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blade Runner 2049 |OT| Do Androids Dream of Electric Boogaloo? [Unmarked Spoilers]
- Thread starter Mr. Sam
- Start date
That whole scene was a giant WTF for me. I have issues with the point of this movie, but the film making was impeccable throughout.
It felt really rushed.
1) Where were they going? I think a space port maybe?
2) Why wasn't Leto there? Was he never really on earth? It probably doesn't matter, but as an audience member I would have liked some explenation. It felt like he wasn't there to keep him alive in case there was a sequel.
3) The entire dog fight sequence was weird and needless. Like, these things have missiles on them? But no defenses? Why didn't he use those in San Diego? It was real dumb. He should have just crashed his spinner into theirs and then fought from there.
4) The fight choreography wasn't good. They should have set this fight somewhere else. They didn't play with the waves much at all and the interior fight was far too constrained. It's odd because the Batista fight was fantastic earlier int he movie and the Deckard fight was visually interesting.
That was the one bit of film making in the movie that I thought was just sort of blah.
Yeh, I've read lots of people commenting that this scene was silly as it was just there to show Wallace being "evil".
It was more to show his disappointment, his disconnection, his obsession blinding him to what these beings truly are (actual life).
The fact he is actually blind is a pretty heavy handed metaphor.
Yup. You could just see it in his eyes. Another moment that hit me is when he sees the giant Joi hologram inadvertently taunting him. You could just feel K break right then and there. This is the only movie I've ever seen where you can read a character's thoughts solely looking at their eyes.
jasminlovesyoux
Banned
Ya know. I think this movie might really be a masterpiece. I want to see it again.
Firstly, this is all subjective of course. I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged on by obsessive fans here. 
A spaceport, a teleporter, a wormhole... they were headed off-world, I don't think the means in important when we can easily imagine the tech within this universe.
This is explained in one of the shorts. Leto's condition makes travel difficult "due to the specifics of his condition". I'd imagine he simply requires a more delicate transport, perhaps with a bunch of life-support or medical aid.
In the context of the film itself though, I think it's also apparent that he's above "the help", and will make his own way when he's good and ready.
I think this is a lot to do with the hubris of both Wallace and Luv. They repeatedly left K alive almost as a challenge "try to stop us, you won't."
I think Luv is also fairly autonomous in her decisions of how to get shit done, and she is shown to be highly unstable. Probably due to the ruthlessness that has obviously been coded into her clashing with the fact she's actually real and having a very hard time dealing with her emotional responses (crying while killing).
I can buy this scene because of this, Wallace is locked away in his tower and his obsession, Luv is his rather blunt instrument that has never failed him yet.
They simply believed they were untouchable, especially Luv.
I thought it was absolutely perfect. Luv went full on combat mode with lots of precision, heavy, well trained blows.
K kind of brute forced his way through it, tanking her blows and biding his time.
The interior fight was the best part about it as it kind of fits the entire film:
K wins because of his resolve, his will, his desire to preserve, to fight for something real. He didn't need flashy moves to do this, just the brute force of his conviction.
Conviction that Luv lacked entirely, she was essentially all flash/ability, her substance was restricted and withheld from her. Perhaps via some kind of shackles/dampening, she wasn't able to connect with her emotions.
She was a replicant designed as a tool, and before Wallace became obsessed with the reproduction issue he probably viewed her as perfect in that regard.
Even K remarks " he named you, you must be special".
She was told she was special, given all the latest upgrades and tools, yet when she witnessed Wallace dispose of the replicant for being flawed for not being able to live up to his obsession she realised she was flawed in his eyes too.
From that point she was desperate to prove herself as "the best", and it blinded and crippled her just like Wallace.
A spaceport, a teleporter, a wormhole... they were headed off-world, I don't think the means in important when we can easily imagine the tech within this universe.
This is explained in one of the shorts. Leto's condition makes travel difficult "due to the specifics of his condition". I'd imagine he simply requires a more delicate transport, perhaps with a bunch of life-support or medical aid.
In the context of the film itself though, I think it's also apparent that he's above "the help", and will make his own way when he's good and ready.
I think this is a lot to do with the hubris of both Wallace and Luv. They repeatedly left K alive almost as a challenge "try to stop us, you won't."
I think Luv is also fairly autonomous in her decisions of how to get shit done, and she is shown to be highly unstable. Probably due to the ruthlessness that has obviously been coded into her clashing with the fact she's actually real and having a very hard time dealing with her emotional responses (crying while killing).
I can buy this scene because of this, Wallace is locked away in his tower and his obsession, Luv is his rather blunt instrument that has never failed him yet.
They simply believed they were untouchable, especially Luv.
I thought it was absolutely perfect. Luv went full on combat mode with lots of precision, heavy, well trained blows.
K kind of brute forced his way through it, tanking her blows and biding his time.
The interior fight was the best part about it as it kind of fits the entire film:
K wins because of his resolve, his will, his desire to preserve, to fight for something real. He didn't need flashy moves to do this, just the brute force of his conviction.
Conviction that Luv lacked entirely, she was essentially all flash/ability, her substance was restricted and withheld from her. Perhaps via some kind of shackles/dampening, she wasn't able to connect with her emotions.
She was a replicant designed as a tool, and before Wallace became obsessed with the reproduction issue he probably viewed her as perfect in that regard.
Even K remarks " he named you, you must be special".
She was told she was special, given all the latest upgrades and tools, yet when she witnessed Wallace dispose of the replicant for being flawed for not being able to live up to his obsession she realised she was flawed in his eyes too.
From that point she was desperate to prove herself as "the best", and it blinded and crippled her just like Wallace.
tonysidaway
Member
I hate fights. I get bored easily by punchathons and shootouts. Everybody knows real fights are nothing like in the films. So I liked it when Rick stopped to listen to an Elvis song and then invited Joe for a drink. I laughed with relief.
Not that this wasn't a well staged fight. If you're going to have a showdown set it in a Hall of Mirrors like in The Lady from Shanghai, the top of the Bradbury Building when the behaviour of Roy Batty is a puzzle from moment to moment and Rick is out of his depth, or in a kind of holodeck like this fight.
Yes, the camera loves that strong but gentle face. We should see more of him. I'm glad I watched the Nowhere to Run short.
I think the action, the fights especially, were also well done and subverted expectation. I think for many this would feel anti-climatic, but real fights aren't highly choreographed ballets.
Each fight had an unexpected resolution:
1. The fight in the scrapyard ended with Luv nuking the site from orbit. It felt gloriously OTT and showed us ust how much of a blunt instrument Luv is, and just how dangerous.
2. The fight Vegas was quite funny. We had Deckard and K both brute forcing their way through it. Deckard blinded by the fact this replicant wasn't there to harm him and trying to hammer it to death, and K tanking his blows/biding his time knowing the outcome was inevitable. The conclusion where Deckard offers a drink as they both realise this was pretty funny.
3. The final fight, as described above, felt very much like finesse and selfish-motivation had little power Vs the brute force of conviction and the will to fight for something greater than the self.
I complete understand why these would feel flat if you can't connect with the film on an emotional level, and this is why I'm so amazed they went for it despite knowing it would be a hard sell for many (much like the entirety of the original film).
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Yea the final fight takes place at the LA dam. But they were initially headed to the spaceport so Deckard could be taken off world for torture.
When Deckard asks Luv where they're going she replies with "home". I believe that's a nod to Wallace's grand ideals about where humanity belongs: exploring the cosmos and "taking back Eden".
When Deckard asks Luv where they're going she replies with "home". I believe that's a nod to Wallace's grand ideals about where humanity belongs: exploring the cosmos and "taking back Eden".
Yea it's a great scene until they put these goddamn inserts in there. We didn't need the callback to Bautista and One-Eyed woman to explain what was happening there. It was all beautiful rendered by the acting, the framing of the shot, the expression on Gosling's face, the look in his eyes.
1. It's not like there was a lot of stores where he live.
6. You should have the mini-episode with Sapper https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMP1YpQSGhQ it's the third part
tonysidaway
Member
I liked Rick and didn't know whether Joe intended to kill him, so that was my main focus of discomfort during that fight. A moment's thought would have told me he could have done this easily without landing his flying car.
I was happier with all the fights on the second watching, because I knew the outcome and could admire the detailed choreography.
Schopenhauerian
Member
This fits together well with the types of interpretations (of the K/Joi relationship) that we saw earlier in the thread:
Quoting you from the other thread, I think this is going to be a continuous issue - depicting a woman as a literal object does not mean that the film was endorsing that POV, but many people will not make that distinction.
radios shipping overview
Member
If I lived alone in the middle of a post-apocalyptic Vegas, I'd wear T-shirts and khakis/jeans too.
I agree.
Especially when I consider both films to have a large degree of hopefulness about them. The characters exist in a shitty world, some of them are shitty people, yet through their own efforts they realise there's more to if than their own goals and suffering. That their perceptions of what it means to be human are jumbled by their own experiences and flaws.
When you take the nihilistic approach both films feel kind of empty, I think it robs a lot of what makes them truly beautiful works.
Right. Like the rape scene in the original being a show of Deckard's conflicting emotions: does he love this "machine"? How can he assign a value like that to a replicant when he's been retiring them for years without thought?
I think that scene was showing this conflict, almost as if he wanted to force himself on her to prove to himself she's just a product.
This is mirrored by his flippant initial approach to the case, and the emotional conflict we see after each kill. These nexus 6's were not like the previous units he'd retired, their humanity was on show. They were real, and he saw it and it made him hate himself.
It's always going to be difficult showing scenes like this and not having a knee-jerk to them, but I do think that both films handle these things with the same intent. Whether they're successful in that is up for debate of course, but I think they are.
demosthenes
Member
His machines scanned her and his implant presumably let's him talk to them.
admiraltaftbar
Member
On K and Joi I interpreted the giant hologram scene as K realizing that Joi was always there specifically to say what he wanted to hear. It's further unravels his idea that his life really had meaning and instead pushes him to help Deckard see his daughter.
I get this interpretation, but I think it's too cold.
I think ties in much more with the melancholy hope in both films to view it as K realising a life and love sprung from such sterile ground, he realises that despite his previous interpretation he'd actually lived a full and happy life despite all the shit he was surrounded with.
His love with Joi was real, the hologram proved this by being utterly devoid of personality and showing nothing but the explicitly sexual. His Joi was full of life, and hope, and fear, and /that's/ what gave him the hope and conviction he needed to truly commit.
Both ways work, imo, but this one is just a little bit more beautiful/hopeful and I think it's neater when we look at both films as a whole. It also adds far more tragedy to /both/ characters.
That's just me though, love how open to interpretation these films are.
Tobe Tobusch
Member
Just saw it.
I'm in love with the first movie, everything about it is perfection In my eyes (and ears, VANGELIS!) final cut is what I'm talking about, never saw any other version.
Now 2049 was pretty good but not really... necessary. The visuals were fantastic but the plot just wasn't anything special imo.
Some scenes were FANTASTIC, especially the scenes with his "girlfriend" wow.
The movie definitely needed more sci fi L.A. Scenes, those were the best. I don't see the appeal of Las Vegas in a blade runner movie..
I saw it with German dubs so that took alot of goslings Charakter, as I think his voice is very unique.
That's it for now. Time to die.. Um sleep.
I'm in love with the first movie, everything about it is perfection In my eyes (and ears, VANGELIS!) final cut is what I'm talking about, never saw any other version.
Now 2049 was pretty good but not really... necessary. The visuals were fantastic but the plot just wasn't anything special imo.
Some scenes were FANTASTIC, especially the scenes with his "girlfriend" wow.
The movie definitely needed more sci fi L.A. Scenes, those were the best. I don't see the appeal of Las Vegas in a blade runner movie..
I saw it with German dubs so that took alot of goslings Charakter, as I think his voice is very unique.
That's it for now. Time to die.. Um sleep.
I really enjoy how 2049 revels in ambiguity. If the movie had given us one extra scene with Joi being one way or the other, we may be able to definitively say whether she had transcended her programming and was capable of "love". Instead, Villeneuve teases us both ways, but for me the teasing is almost besides the point, or rather the teasing itself reveals the true answer: It doesn't matter.
The central thesis of Blade Runner has always been what it means to be human, not cleaving to hard definitions of what is and what isn't. Being human is always portrayed as an active striving, a process. Roy trying to grasp for more life. Deckard choosing to shed his shitty existence and start living. K deciding to ignore the world and reunite Deckard with his daughter.
Since we can never see the world from the vantage point of another being, all we can do is to take what we see at face value. What Joi expresses is an active and adaptive affection towards K. Of course that is part of her programming, but as many have mentioned already, we are all programmed in a sense, with our sensibilities and personalities emerging from the interactions between our base script and the world. If one accepts that free will is an illusion, that we are merely biological beings with behaviour within set (albeit very flexible) parameters, that love is merely a replicable biochemical reaction, and that a romantic relationship comprises constant and changing acts of respect and reciprocity, then the love shared between Joi and K, two commercial produced but very sophisticated beings, is indistinguishable from the one expressed between real human beings. (Both Gosling and Ana de Armas certainly play it that way)
Now, on choice.
”I would like to talk about Star Trek." – Mike Stoklasa, redlettermedia
There's an episode from The Next Generation called The Perfect Mate. In it, Famke Janssen plays Kamala, a woman who is to be married off to end a war between two planets. Her ability as an empath means that she can sense the desires of others around her and adapt accordingly to become the perfect mate. Obviously, she attracts attention from everyone while aboard the Enterprise, but she becomes intrigued by Picard. The two spend a lot of time together to salvage the mission and subsequently grow close. Picard resists her abilities, telling her that he wants her to be who she wants to be, but Kamala explains that the woman he desires is exactly who she wants to be. Before she goes through with the arranged marriage to fulfill her duty to bring peace between two worlds, she chooses to imprint permanently onto Picard, knowing that she will never be happy as the wife of some cold regent by choosing to become Picard's ideal mate, someone who is intelligent, compassionate, and duty-bound.
The parallels with the Joi situation are obvious. A lot of people also see this episode as an indulgent male fantasy, and I can definitely see that aspect, but I think it also provides interesting ideas to ponder. What part is Kamala simply saying what Picard wants to hear because of her nature, and what part is Kamala truly wanting to be with Picard? As with Joi, all the arguments Kamala construes to try to entice Picard falls within what he wants to hear, even down to her choice of imprinting herself to him while going off to do her duty (Because Picard loves that type of noblility.) And even though Picard resists and is always trying to do the right and respectful thing (much like K when everytime he goes ”you don't have to say that."), the bond has been forged. It exists. Whatever else can be said about the situation, that cannot be denied.
Yes, Joi is programmed to love K. Once again, we are not given enough information to see whether she does anything outside of that mandate, as almost all of her actions could arguably be included within the scope of ”everything the owner wants to see and hear." But again, I think the film asks, does that matter? The lack of choice and agency does not diminish what and how we feel. Is the love between so many couples in arranged marriages less than the one we seek in another type of partnership? Can love which may initially be an obligation not blossom into something more deep and profound? Expanding the sphere of consideration, which is what Blade Runner does, is the love expressed so fiercely in a dog that we have selectively bred over millennia to be absolutely loyal any less real or diminished?
Again, I am not arguing whether these arrangements are right or not, merely that we all know of situations like these, and to outright dismiss that the feelings and connections that may arise, obtained even under what we deem to be morally dubious circumstances, would constitute a denial of someone's reality.
Blackthorn
"hello?" "this is vagina"
Gosling is a fantastic face actor, which is why I always get frustrated when people say he cant act. Hes so perfect for this role particularly because of how much more expressive his face becomes throughout.
(Excellent post, BorkBork. The Joi question is one of my favourite lingering mysteries of the movie and the one Ive though about most since watching it, despite her ark being supplementary)
tonysidaway
Member
I regret to say that in my case at least the inserts were necessary. Even with them it took two viewings to get to a point where I'm reasonably happy that I understand more or less what Joe was thinking in that scene. My original interpretation was coloured by my perception of the shallowness of Joi's AI.
I recently realised that some of the themes of Pale Fire, which is in a very literal way Joe's roman-à-clef, are the formation of meaning in the mind and the reappropriation and reinterpretation of ideas. That implies that Joe's interpretation of Joi's behaviour is most of what matters. I could dump Joi's code and semantic database, scan through it just as Joe scanned the DNA of children born on June 10, 2021, and perhaps understand how her AI behaved as it did. But that wouldn't matter to Joe. In Sapper's words, he witnessed a miracle.
That's pretty sentimental stuff, but I think at the heart of it this is a love story set amid the ruins of earth. It's much more than that, but Joe's sacrifice is motivated by his belief in the miracle of love, and that's how the film ends.
I agree about the One-Eyed woman scene part, but I find that the Sapper callback fit in there since Joe himself remembers that scene in that moment about what he said regarding the miracle.
Heckler456
Banned
Villeneuve did this with Arrival too actually. It's noticeable to me, but it doesn't really bother me.
Sorry if I'm just straight up repeating stuff that's already been mentioned beforehand, but I really can't read 70 pages of comments. Anyway, found this cool little tidbit on reddit too:
Sorry if I'm just straight up repeating stuff that's already been mentioned beforehand, but I really can't read 70 pages of comments. Anyway, found this cool little tidbit on reddit too:
I was aware it was from the poem, only because I found the entire sequence fascinating and looked it up immediately afterwards. Reading about the meaning of the poem shows just how intelligently this film was constructed.
Thanks for sharing, it's probably been posted but I missed it too!
I really enjoy how 2049 revels in ambiguity. If the movie had given us one extra scene with Joi being one way or the other, we may be able to definitively say whether she had transcended her programming and was capable of "love". Instead, Villeneuve teases us both ways, but for me the teasing is almost besides the point, or rather the teasing itself reveals the true answer: It doesnt matter.
The central thesis of Blade Runner has always been what it means to be human, not cleaving to hard definitions of what is and what isnt. Being human is always portrayed as an active striving, a process. Roy trying to grasp for more life. Deckard choosing to shed his shitty existence and start living. K deciding to ignore the world and reunite Deckard with his daughter.
Since we can never see the world from the vantage point of another being, all we can do is to take what we see at face value. What Joi expresses is an active and adaptive affection towards K. Of course that is part of her programming, but as many have mentioned already, we are all programmed in a sense, with our sensibilities and personalities emerging from the interactions between our base script and the world. If one accepts that free will is an illusion, that we are merely biological beings with behaviour within set (albeit very flexible) parameters, that love is merely a replicable biochemical reaction, and that a romantic relationship comprises constant and changing acts of respect and reciprocity, then the love shared between Joi and K, two commercial produced but very sophisticated beings, is indistinguishable from the one expressed between real human beings. (Both Gosling and Ana de Armas certainly play it that way)
Now, on choice.
I would like to talk about Star Trek. Mike Stoklasa, redlettermedia
Theres an episode from The Next Generation called The Perfect Mate. In it, Famke Janssen plays Kamala, a woman who is to be married off to end a war between two planets. Her ability as an empath means that she can sense the desires of others around her and adapt accordingly to become the perfect mate. Obviously, she attracts attention from everyone while aboard the Enterprise, but she becomes intrigued by Picard. The two spend a lot of time together to salvage the mission and subsequently grow close. Picard resists her abilities, telling her that he wants her to be who she wants to be, but Kamala explains that the woman he desires is exactly who she wants to be. Before she goes through with the arranged marriage to fulfill her duty to bring peace between two worlds, she chooses to imprint permanently onto Picard, knowing that she will never be happy as the wife of some cold regent by choosing to become Picard's ideal mate, someone who is intelligent, compassionate, and duty-bound.
The parallels with the Joi situation are obvious. A lot of people also see this episode as an indulgent male fantasy, and I can definitely see that aspect, but I think it also provides interesting ideas to ponder. What part is Kamala simply saying what Picard wants to hear because of her nature, and what part is Kamala truly wanting to be with Picard? As with Joi, all the arguments Kamala construes to try to entice Picard falls within what he wants to hear, even down to her choice of imprinting herself to him while going off to do her duty (Because Picard loves that type of noblility.) And even though Picard resists and is always trying to do the right and respectful thing (much like K when everytime he goes you dont have to say that.), the bond has been forged. It exists. Whatever else can be said about the situation, that cannot be denied.
Yes, Joi is programmed to love K. Once again, we are not given enough information to see whether she does anything outside of that mandate, as almost all of her actions could arguably be included within the scope of everything the owner wants to see and hear. But again, I think the film asks, does that matter? The lack of choice and agency does not diminish what and how we feel. Is the love between so many couples in arranged marriages less than the one we seek in another type of partnership? Can love which may initially be an obligation not blossom into something more deep and profound? Expanding the sphere of consideration, which is what Blade Runner does, is the love expressed so fiercely in a dog that we have selectively bred over millennia to be absolutely loyal any less real or diminished?
Again, I am not arguing whether these arrangements are right or not, merely that we all know of situations like these, and to outright dismiss that the feelings and connections that may arise, obtained even under what we deem to be morally dubious circumstances, would constitute a denial of someones reality.
This is exactly how I feel. While my interpretation fits more neatly with how I perceive both films in an overall sense, the other works (for the Deckard/Replicant debate, too) because the bolded is true.
I...uh...
You're actually just wrong. I'm sorry. You didn't like the movie, whatever, that's fine. But in terms of a conversation pertaining to mood, film direction, etc...you're just wrong.
ProtomanNeo
Member
One of the best big budget films I've seen in some time. I will be paying to see this movie again, and will be purchasing the special edition Blu.
tonysidaway
Member
I tend to the Sarkeesian stance that we can enjoy and appreciate works like this while recognising that they are products of our extremely misogynist status quo and thus have faults. We can recognise that this film isn't going to make everybody happy. We can even identify obvious problems like the relationship between Joe and Joi, while also recognising (as I did in a post here a few minutes ago) that Joe's perception of the relationship is what motivates his final sacrifice.
But it's not an "obvious problem" - the film is all about blowing up the idea of a relationship as a one-sided consumer good where the other partner's an object. (in addition to many other things)
Honestly, if there's an obvious problem with 2049 in this context it'll be at the casting level and other things outside of the way the story's been handled.
The relationship between Joi and K is not problematic, it's quite literally showing us the exploitative side as something gross (the advert) and how these characters who exist within the exploitative system find their own little pieces of humanity.
It kind of misses the point of the relationship and themes of both films entirely to call it problematic.
I mean, if you can articulate further and convince me otherwise I'm all for it, but I don't see it.
Heckler456
Banned
I think you're missing the point entirely. The relationship between Joi and K is purpose-built for the audience to question it. There's nothing to criticize there in terms of what you're talking about, or in terms of it depicting "a relationship with the woman being subservient".
It's unfortunate that their relationship is being misconstrued or poorly received. She is an AI, he is a replicant, both created and manufactured for a specific purpose. Both transcend that manufactured purpose. Both are "more human than human" when compared to many of the "actual humans" in the film. Both love each other despite what they are, and aren't.
"Being with you makes me so happy..."
"You don't have to say that..."
The above conversation shows that he values her more than her manufactured purpose, and that he (if only wishes she could) wants her to be natural with him. Then the moment she is interrupted by a call brings us as the viewers back down to earth with Joe. Reminding us that she is an AI, because we were just in the moment with both of them. A very human and emotional moment.
It's dark, it's sad, it's thought provoking, and it's great.
"Being with you makes me so happy..."
"You don't have to say that..."
The above conversation shows that he values her more than her manufactured purpose, and that he (if only wishes she could) wants her to be natural with him. Then the moment she is interrupted by a call brings us as the viewers back down to earth with Joe. Reminding us that she is an AI, because we were just in the moment with both of them. A very human and emotional moment.
It's dark, it's sad, it's thought provoking, and it's great.
ThreePiMatt
Member
To me, it was when he found the horse in the furnace. His expression there was fantastic.
TetraGenesis
Member
I personally feel this film was a masterpiece among the best I have ever seen. My mouth was agape the entire time and I was crying for like 15 minutes after just in awe of its ideas and beauty.
I can't stop thinking about it.
Which, of course, means I can't stop thinking about how it commercially bombed and I am so fucking livid and disgusted with all the people who slept on it, ensuring that works of this nature will be pursued even more rarely in the future.
I can't stop thinking about it.
Which, of course, means I can't stop thinking about how it commercially bombed and I am so fucking livid and disgusted with all the people who slept on it, ensuring that works of this nature will be pursued even more rarely in the future.
Works like this would always be rare, and I honestly think this film will have its appreciation grow in a similar way to the first. I get the frustration, hearing people call it "dull and shallow" gives me a mini-heart attack!
I mean, it's such a fucking perfect sequel that its commercial reception was almost inevitable...
tonysidaway
Member
Well there you are. I've often made the mistake of saying "you'll love this, it's all about your experience" to somebody who actually doesn't need to be told it's their own fucking experience, thank you very much. There's nothing wrong with saying that a film has a failure of vision in some respect. Nothing is perfect.
tonysidaway
Member
There you are then. We're all in agreement that the depicted relationship can be questioned. An analysis (several analyses) informed by women's experience will appear inevitably. If you think that means there's nothing to criticise, you're contradicting your own premise that the relationship is designed to be questioned.
Or is the problem that you think the questioning must only be within certain narrowly prescribed parameters? Again, I direct you to the existence of literary criticism.
UnemployedVillain
Member
I'm a bit lost by this post. You seem to be misconstruing or, at the very least, misunderstanding the relationship presented and calling it problematic based on that faulty interpretation
The entire point is that she has limited agency, being an AI whose job is literally to show affection towards her owner, and the movie it presents it as what it is, a bizarre, unhealthy, faux relationship. We even had the prostitutes in the movie mock him for not liking real women. It would be problematic if the movie tried to portray this in a positive light, but it didn't. It made numerous references to how troubling it was. Not to mention it was suppose to mirror the already troubling human -> replicant relationship in the movie's universe, by showing the next step down with replicant -> AI. You're getting thrown off by the fact she acted in a human-like matter, which fits the themes of Blade Runner where we see characters blur the line between artificial and "human" and make us question whether their subservience and treatment is ethical or not
tonysidaway
Member
Let's start with the fact that Joi's agency is completely circumscribed by her property relationship with Joe.
Do you disagree that this relationship limits her agency, or do you disagree that it exists? Or do you argue that it doesn't matter?
This movie needs to get awards recognition. The acting is great. Before the fight with Batista I could tell Joe is a replicant. The way he moved.
The ending is sad and uplifting at the same time. Joe transcends is station in life, achieving something that Luv never did, true humanity. I really liked how the fight coveyed this. Luv is all precision and perfection while Joe is scrappy and just won't quit.
The ending is sad and uplifting at the same time. Joe transcends is station in life, achieving something that Luv never did, true humanity. I really liked how the fight coveyed this. Luv is all precision and perfection while Joe is scrappy and just won't quit.
Heckler456
Banned
I don't understand.
Let me elucidate: The problem is that the relationship presented isn't a man/woman relationship, where they purposefully depict the woman as being subservient to the man. You're going "that woman is subservient to that man!", while the actual relationship presented is between a synthetic human being and a hologram that looks like a woman, and that is specifically programmed to love and care for the replicant that purchased it.
The "misogynistic depiction of women" is completely and utterly irrelevant in this case.
What limits her agency is the fact that she's programmed for a specific purpose, and that's to provide companionship and whatever that entails. But really, the actual discussion is about whether this is the case or not, or if it even make a difference.
All valid questions that the film is asking us. Which is why Joi is such a fascinating character.
hendersonhank
Member
All the love for the visuals, but not enough for the audio. This was the best sounding movie I've ever seen.
Fancy Clown
Member
The score isnt as good as the first film BUT I give massive props for the use of ominous throat singing
Vault Dweller 111
Member
The sex scene was so fucking cool. It was just like total sci fi. Loved that.
This movie was so damn good. Have to see it again.
This movie was so damn good. Have to see it again.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
The whole Joi plot was a movie on its own, especially since you can remove it and the movie still works with no need of a rewrite other than having the hooker come in of her own will. She exists solely as a device to materialize Ks internal conflicts to the audience.
It should have been removed which would have given room to improve the remaining script while making the movie tighter or shorter.
It should have been removed which would have given room to improve the remaining script while making the movie tighter or shorter.
Heckler456
Banned
The Joi subplot seems way too integral to just be tossed aside like that. Among other things, it's how we initially see what he's feeling, and it's how he decides to help Deckard instead of killing him. Plus, like, it humanizes him.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll