Vault Dweller 111
Member
Wtf. No way.
-
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
Adry9
Member
No she doesn't. Read this thread and watch the movie again, that subplot is as Blade Runner as it gets.
Gosh, you can tell people have put their soul into this movie and it amazes me how some of you are so quick to dismiss or throw some elements of it to the trash without giving it a second though.
I saw the movie for the second time last night. Still amazing from start to finish. The movie didnt feel as long as it did the first time either. Its the exact same experience I had with the original. I want to go see it again already because like the original, I like being in that world. The films really immerse you in them. They are dripping with atmosphere. This may be blasphemy to some people, but I think 2049 is the better movie.
I thought it was blatantly obvious that the film wasn't endorsing JOI and K's relationship at all. Her being dressed as a 1960s housewife serving him a holographic dinner on top of a giant bowl of an unappealing "real" looking dinner the first time we see the two together was a dead giveaway to me. A giant holographic naked ad JOI with soulless black eyes basically calling him a NEET further drove that point home with a sledgehammer but maybe that's just how I interpreted it.
Heckler456
Banned
Anyone here who has experience with ATMOS and IMAX: Is the sound quality in ATMOS significantly better than in IMAX? I bought tickets for a 2D IMAX viewing after seeing it in 3D yesterday, but if ATMOS is actually appreciably better, I might go for a third viewing.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
It's like the most perfect sequel ever. The fact that it was done by another director decades later and still nails the same tone while telling a new but connected story. Damn...
I'm really sorry that this isn't doing great at the box office but Villenuve should be super proud of this movie, especially with him being such a big fan of the original.
I'm really sorry that this isn't doing great at the box office but Villenuve should be super proud of this movie, especially with him being such a big fan of the original.
radios shipping overview
Member
I don't think it's useful to focus exclusively on surface-level representations of women and to disregard context and internal commentary. Yes, Joi's very existence and the role Wallace intended her for are problematic. Yes, it's problematic that the Joi we see in the film is essentially allowed to grow because she has a benevolent slaveowner. Yes, Wallace is a monster. Yes, it's fucked that he uses Luv as an agent of his cruelty. It's fucked up and that's the point.
Is this type of commentary not valuable? Should we attempt to comment on these types of situations without dramatizing them? Should scifi focus exclusively on optimistic portrayals of society?
Is this type of commentary not valuable? Should we attempt to comment on these types of situations without dramatizing them? Should scifi focus exclusively on optimistic portrayals of society?
Heckler456
Banned
Think you hit the nail on the head here. I'd like to add that it seems to me that some people want to argue the director's right to portray characters this way versus arguing the actual content within its proper context.
YES! The music there was incredible as well. Another scene is where he's getting his memory analyzed by Ana. When he realized the memory is actually real...whew.
Only if Paul W.S. Anderson is still available
Damn good.
Liked everything except the overwhelming soundtrack and the inserts. I also kinda wish it would integrate better with the first one visually, but the cinematography makes up for that.
Some really cool ideas in there.
Crazy goosebumps from that scene.
Liked everything except the overwhelming soundtrack and the inserts. I also kinda wish it would integrate better with the first one visually, but the cinematography makes up for that.
Some really cool ideas in there.
Crazy goosebumps from that scene.
I saw it in both. I think the sound was better in Atmos but be prepared for your seats to rumble like crazy during certain scenes, like when the Spinner's are flying
Also the movie will be presented in its proper aspect ratio in an Atmos theater. It looks great in IMAX but that is not how the movie was shot or framed
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
It's exactly what I said, she is there to verbalize K's internal conflict, his feelings.
Why would K NOT help Deckard instead of killing him? He spent the whole movie thinking he had a mother and a father, that he was born, that the memories he had were real, that he had been used. He is already becoming "human" through what he experiences as a result of those beliefs, clearly expressed more than once, especially when he finds out the memories he has are not fabricated.
By the time he finds out that he isn't the child, why would he get angry at Deckard? And why would he be motivated to help the rebels? It's not Deckard's fault that he's not his child, but in a way, for a moment, he was that child, he knows how it felt, and he knows who the child is. Him choosing to help Deckard meet her is in no way in need of being explained by the Joi plot, it is the human, empathetic thing to do.
Joi is exactly what a Hollywood executive would have asked to be added to the movie after watching a version without her: add sex appeal, add a love interest, verbalize the character's arc which is otherwise mainly internal and expressed through ambiguous feelings, left to interpretation, which is in reality not a flaw at all but one of the strongest points of the original movie aside from the visuals.
Joi is the equivalent of a reshoot, with no actual impact on practically any scenes that exists in the final movie when it's not her explaining why K feels a certain way.
Every single motivation K has can be justified without her, but it wouldn't be verbalized, and that would have elevated the movie instead of doing the opposite.
Yeah to me the movie started great, but is weakened every time it goes too close to the original's characters or plot. Would have preferred a more detached plot from the original. The farm sequence is probably my favorite. Some good investigation-related mysteries, character development, action, all in that first part. Then it starts to become a bit typical Hollywood plot-wise, but elevated significantly by the great cinematography. Still enjoyed it enough to want more, since we don't get much good sci-fi, especially not cyber punk.
Joi is the only thing in the entire movie which represented a personal decision on K's part. That is why she is important. He chose to buy her, he chose to upgrade her to bring her with him. Everything else is thrust upon him. His job, his purpose, his mission, everything. His connection to Deckard is through a false memory implanted into him. His connection to the rebels is through a case assigned to him. His job and existence is something he was created for. Joi is all he has to anchor him to a sense of a self-determination. It is also what ultimately drives him to believe that what he does at the end is a consequence of his own decisions rather than another part of a fate he has no control over.
Hierophant
Banned
anyone else feel real lonely after watching this?
at least that seemed like the vibe i got from the entire film
at least that seemed like the vibe i got from the entire film
Yes and that is Blade Runner in a nutshell. Malaise. Beautiful melancholy. Struggle with identity.
Same
and to me the joi subplot is really important in this film. Gives it an emotional core that I felt was missing in the first blade runner. How can you not feeling something for someone who needs that companionship.
Hierophant
Banned
my thoughts:
as cyberpunk as a genre is inherently anti-capitalistic, this movie just shows the absolute end of late stage capitalism. the oceans are toxic, the world is dying, the widespread alienation and loneliness in society has gotten so bad that holographic companions are the norm
its movies like this that remind me that cyberpunk is more than just the aesthetic but rather, the nightmare surrounding it
as cyberpunk as a genre is inherently anti-capitalistic, this movie just shows the absolute end of late stage capitalism. the oceans are toxic, the world is dying, the widespread alienation and loneliness in society has gotten so bad that holographic companions are the norm
its movies like this that remind me that cyberpunk is more than just the aesthetic but rather, the nightmare surrounding it
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I suppose that's true isn't it? An idealistic hopeful cyberpunk would, by definition, not be cyberpunk. There has to be something inherently disturbing about the oppressive cityscape.
I actually felt the the whole uprising sub plot was the really under cooked one. It was just kind of there to reveal that K isn't Deckard's child and to set him on his way to the final showdown. Even the girl that fuses with Joi didn't really amount to much. Wasn't bad but felt like a scene or two got edited out revolving around that.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
3 and a half hour directors cut incoming
Yes. And I can't stop thinking about the feeling of it.
More_Badass
Member
Don't forget that the rich and powerful get to move off-world while the poor and sick get to be left behind to die and fight for scraps
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
You can't justify her being needed for the plot by referring to things K did for her solely so as to support her presence in the plot so that she can carry her task of adding sex appeal, being a love interest, and verbalizing K's own feelings. If she is not there, the remaining plot still fills all of character development arc.
So? Rachel had implanted memories, and Deckard may have had fake ones too, we don't know, that didn't prevent Deckard from protecting her, in fact he developed empathy for her as a result of it all. His own connection to her or in the end to Batty was also merely through the case assigned to him. It's what he experienced that changed him, not figuring out what was real or not, or who told him to do what.
Everything you can try to use to justify K needing Joi, Deckard experienced as well through his emotional connection to characters that are actually in the plot for actual reasons in BR1. Plus he may be a Replicant too, or not, it doesn't matter, the result is the same.
Like Deckard, like Batty, like Rachel, the memories being fake or not are irrelevant, it's what he has seen, experienced, that makes him who he is, not someone telling him (or us really) what he is or what he is feeling or should feel.
All of this applies to K without Joi's presence, who actually contributes nothing to any of the above that the rest of the plot doesn't already. The difference is she is there to explain this transformation. Something unnecessary, just as it was not needed in the first movie. The interactions between the characters that were actually relevant to the plot were enough to accomplish all of this.
You can say the same without having Joi-Spell-Things-Out in there.
"His job and existence is something he was created for. What he experienced, false or otherwise, is all he has to anchor him to a sense of a self-determination. It is also what ultimately drives him to believe that what he does at the end is a consequence of his own decisions rather than another part of a fate he has no control over since even if he knows it was false."
Joi is not needed to justify any of this. Note how in BR1 Rachel never forces Deckard to explain how he feels. It was not needed here either. Yet the arcs are highly similar. Same with Batty.
Hierophant
Banned
this movie will no doubt be co-opted by techbros who only see the "cyber" part and rave about how cool the world looks but the "punk" part is there, K's whole character arc and his final smile is a testament to that
cyberpunk is my favourite genre because it is simultaneously a concrete hellscape but also a lone flower growing up from one of the cracks, the interactions of people in a world thats slowly dying
we'll see how ready player one handles it but i'm not very optimistic because it looks like a funko pop made flesh to me
cyberpunk is my favourite genre because it is simultaneously a concrete hellscape but also a lone flower growing up from one of the cracks, the interactions of people in a world thats slowly dying
we'll see how ready player one handles it but i'm not very optimistic because it looks like a funko pop made flesh to me
I've been trying to figure out how to say this without sounding pretentious but I can't so I'll just say it:
Blade Runner 2049 is an art movie. I don't mean that it is 'art' and other movies aren't - all movies are of course art - but in film theory terms, this is an art film.
In my first ever film class the professor explained something about art films, which is basically that you do yourself a disservice when you dismiss aspects of them for being 'weird' or 'dumb' or 'incomplete.'
Certain movies are made to play with and/or frustrate your expectations. That doesn't make them 'bad,' it just means that they are asking more from the viewer than other kinds of movies. My professor's main point was that when a movie does something that seems like it doesn't make sense, before you pass judgement you should ask yourself if you are seeing a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmaker and what the reasons for that choice might be. So if you are watching this movie and thinking "there aren't very many fight scenes and there are so many quiet scenes inside of apartments" or whatever, and you're thinking that this movie does not have the same pacing and tone as other films you've seen, try to determine whether there is some overarching project that the director is working on and whether these weird-seeming choices are in support of that project.
Blade Runner 2049 is an art movie. I don't mean that it is 'art' and other movies aren't - all movies are of course art - but in film theory terms, this is an art film.
In my first ever film class the professor explained something about art films, which is basically that you do yourself a disservice when you dismiss aspects of them for being 'weird' or 'dumb' or 'incomplete.'
Certain movies are made to play with and/or frustrate your expectations. That doesn't make them 'bad,' it just means that they are asking more from the viewer than other kinds of movies. My professor's main point was that when a movie does something that seems like it doesn't make sense, before you pass judgement you should ask yourself if you are seeing a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmaker and what the reasons for that choice might be. So if you are watching this movie and thinking "there aren't very many fight scenes and there are so many quiet scenes inside of apartments" or whatever, and you're thinking that this movie does not have the same pacing and tone as other films you've seen, try to determine whether there is some overarching project that the director is working on and whether these weird-seeming choices are in support of that project.
It wouldn't be Blade Runner without 5 more revisions. Personally I'm waiting for the Ridley Scott cut
More_Badass
Member
K is not Deckard, and Deckard isn't a replicant without a sense of self or identity owned by a company that wants him to be as emotionless and inhuman as possible
The arcs are similar but also very different
Brian_FETO
Banned
I thought Joi was fascinating and added nice flavor of "what is real", while adding to the tragedy of K
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
The point being that Deckard didn't have to explain why he went from kill-replicants to save-replicant. Nor did K have to explain why he went from kill-replicant to help/save-human/replicant.
Being able to read, interpret, FEEL what they felt, was sufficient, it was exactly the point in the original. Feelings are ambiguous, difficult to explain, but relatable. Our protagonist went through an emotional transformation and we accompanied him along. No spell-things-out character needed, it defeats the purpose. Everything is already there to carry us through what the character felt, and if some ambiguity remains then it's entirely fine, it's needed and was a major strength of the first one.
Joi was a sexier more appealing way of using those dumb voice overs.
If you think that was all there was to her you've really missed a big chunk of what they were doing w/ her.
Yeah the film did a good job of stirring those emotions likes the original which is why I think it's a worthy follow up.
partially true, cyberpunk refers to the technology more than anything. ghost in the shell is not set in a dystopia, but it does ask the consequences of a society entrenched in cybernetic technology.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Man I wish Villeneuve would have done GitS. Bet he likes at least the original movie.
Cyber PUNK kind of tells it involves at least revolt against the system, or an oppressive system which favors revolts. It's a technologically advanced world, leading to anarchism. Can't be rosy, and can't just be dystopian.
More_Badass
Member
Maybe in the sense of Neuromancer's influence, but I think that in general, the expectations of the genre (at least in literature and movies, games tend to stick to adapting the visuals and tech) has become synonymous with its exploration of anti-capitalism social commentary, more than any portrayal of tech. Megacorps, the grimy urban slums juxtaposed against the richer high-tech areas, escapism with VR and other tech, and so on
tonysidaway
Member
You got it.
If it rivets me to the screen for three blissful hours, and I know I want to see it again because I'll see more next time, it's art. If I can't stop thinking about it, can't stop talking about it, don't want to either because I'm so excited about what it says about being human, it's art.
See your problem is that you think of the film as something that exists because of the plot. I don't. I don't care about any of the "plot" in the film. That's all window dressing. The movie is a character study of K. It's a mood piece.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Maybe it's Joi's study of K.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
You know I was just listening to Slate's spoiler podcast for this movie and it shocks me how people who get paid to watch movies can get so many plot threads wrong
Hierophant
Banned
What did they get wrong? Haven't listened to them
tonysidaway
Member
Thank you. I think she is the outer boundary of how one could manifest humanity, as conceived in the film. Joi's behaviour in the film is conceptually within our grasp, and could become concrete within a reasonable timeline. I'm referring to machine learning systems that could adapt themselves through a human-friendly interface. I don't think most of us would normally perceive a person in such a machine. It's the way in which Joi (the technological artefact) and Joe interact that creates Joi as an apparently independent being.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Would make a good videogame probably.
As long as they ignore the Prometheus/Covenant stuff.
tonysidaway
Member
Yay! She is by far the most fascinating character in the film, which I somehow missed on my first viewing. At the same time, I think the film is deserving of flak incoming because it's bizarrely sexist, as just about any film we make has to be.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll