hendersonhank
Member
She's programmed to do everything for her owner, why should that action indicate anything otherwise?
I think we don't know if she was anything but what she was programmed to be, and that's intentional.
-
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
She's programmed to do everything for her owner, why should that action indicate anything otherwise?
I think we don't know if she was anything but what she was programmed to be, and that's intentional.
tonysidaway
Member
On Las Vegas:
I think it would probably have attracted scavengers, though unlike San Diego it couldn't have become a subsistence-level economy, because new stuff isn't being dumped there. Rick has been lucky to be the only guy to brave the place for long, and his needs are few. In the film he's shown to have an early warning system. Perhaps he's just moved from casino to casino, keeping his head down to avoid detection, and relied on any scavengers loading up and moving on.
I've heard Americans talking as if Las Vegas were some kind of heaven on earth. It's really not. Take away the economy and it would be a ghost town in the desert. Juke boxes, holograms, empty rooms and an ocean of booze seems about right.
The android revolutionaries might well find the future of Wallace's vision attractive in principle, but he would have no place for them. He's not trying to upgrade them, but to supplant them and the natural humans and to become the progenitor god of a new star-dwelling species.
I think it would probably have attracted scavengers, though unlike San Diego it couldn't have become a subsistence-level economy, because new stuff isn't being dumped there. Rick has been lucky to be the only guy to brave the place for long, and his needs are few. In the film he's shown to have an early warning system. Perhaps he's just moved from casino to casino, keeping his head down to avoid detection, and relied on any scavengers loading up and moving on.
I've heard Americans talking as if Las Vegas were some kind of heaven on earth. It's really not. Take away the economy and it would be a ghost town in the desert. Juke boxes, holograms, empty rooms and an ocean of booze seems about right.
The android revolutionaries might well find the future of Wallace's vision attractive in principle, but he would have no place for them. He's not trying to upgrade them, but to supplant them and the natural humans and to become the progenitor god of a new star-dwelling species.
Guys, the bees aren't artificial:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/...uve-interview-blade-runner-2049.html?referer=
Villeneuve said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/...uve-interview-blade-runner-2049.html?referer=
gamer_povro
Neo Member
I'm wondering: does Wallace want to give all replicants (male/female) the ability to reproduce or just the female ones?
I'm asking this because we learn Rachael was fertile + she had a daughter + we see the new model is female and Wallace talks about how it's barren touching and slaying its womb.
The film never talks about male fertility.
I think it's interesting because in this vision of things men aren't so necessary, the only thing needed would be their semen. Maybe injected in factory.
Finally this would imply the whole born generation would be hybrid human+replicant.
Ok, it's a bit of a stretch and english is not my native language, I hope I made my thought clear.
I'm asking this because we learn Rachael was fertile + she had a daughter + we see the new model is female and Wallace talks about how it's barren touching and slaying its womb.
The film never talks about male fertility.
I think it's interesting because in this vision of things men aren't so necessary, the only thing needed would be their semen. Maybe injected in factory.
Finally this would imply the whole born generation would be hybrid human+replicant.
Ok, it's a bit of a stretch and english is not my native language, I hope I made my thought clear.
Seems like too much reading into it is required for this to be true to the intentions of the writers. It could be that, but it's a much neater assumption to consider her emotions there as her own feelings.
No indication of this intruder mode is shown, merely Joi expressing feelings that were not essential to making K happy and outside of this knowledge.
We could read into what ifs and make any scene fit any narrative.
These are the questions the film asks us, it's up to you to decide.
We get hints, like the scene I mention above. There's absolutely no neat way to explain it that doesn't end with Joi experiencing emotions uncessary to her programming without a bunch of "what if..."s.
What we're shown is Joi struggling with jealousy, anger, resentment.
She clearly feels, but does she actually have agency? And if she feels, isn't that enough if many humans are just as shackled to their experiences and nurture?
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
So she's programmed to love someone. Kind of like we're hardwired to love someone.
Eh.
There's a duality to her character that mirrors K, and mirrors the central questions of the film itself.
But.
She's a supporting character and ultimately a (well done) plot device to move K toward his goal, since he's the point of view / story. The ambiguity is there because we don't get enough information or time, but that's also deliberate since they play with both points of view. We never see her break her code like K, but they do allude to her acting outside her design several times.
Yeah. and I'll be damned if the giant Joi hologram towards the end wasn't an Evangelion homage. Villeneuve is obviously an anime fan considering he commissioned the anime prequel shorts, so I think it's safe to say thats a medium from which he's taking inspiration.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
The only narrative Im pushing for is one of ambiguity. I dont think its really definitive either way. There arent any specific rules Joi has to follow so we never really see her break protocol for Ks sake. She insists to go with K in the emanator. We could see that as an act of love or as a way to preserve a confidentiality agreement. And if the emanator breaks and she dies, well he can just buy another one and thats one more sale for Wallace Megacorp. Im not saying that is definitely what is happening, but a possibility. We should be questioning her genuine emotions as much as K did after seeing her giant advertisement.
Is her relationship with K more real than any other Jois relationship with some other poor sap? Or are they all legitimate and real relationships? What makes something a fake emotion and a real one? Does a soul exist or are emotions and relationships just triggering the right chemical reactions with the right words? Im not saying her emotions are fake. Im more arguing that the movie is stating that real human emotions and connections can be engineered to the point where it doesnt matter if they were engineered or formed naturally. That this concept of a soul that separates the real and the fake doesnt exist.
broncobuster
Banned
Denis was asked about Luv saying "I'm the best one" after fighting K.
Denis' response,
Denis' response,
tonysidaway
Member
The second time I saw the bees (which I've always assumed are natural) I wondered for a bit how bees could survive in what is depicted as an extremely hostile environment. Bees can't fly very far and they can't live without forage, a source of nectar and pollen. But Rick could perhaps supply forage of his own, and the desert might be more alive than appears to be the case at first sight.
Anyway it's obviously a metaphor.
This is what makes her character so interesting. She's not there for us to question if she feels, she clearly does. We're supposed to question what those feelings mean, does her lack of agency beyond her feelings make her any less human than us?
The film explicitly shows her experiencing emotions in a setting that has no relevance to K, outside of his vision, and everything about this film seems to be carefully considered.
Of course, you can read that scene as her responding to the intruder, and find enough to support that conclusion, but for me you can't without going outside of what we actually know and it feels like we have to invent things to make it fit.
The safest conclusion here is also the one that elevates Joi and makes her fascinating.
Anything is possible, but you're going out of bounds of the film and inventing scenarios. Stick to what the film shows us, if you feel there's enough evidence within then your idea is supported.
I think her emotions are clearly shown, no need to question. What the film asks us is to question what those emotions mean.
Indeed.
We were arguing about the bees mostly because someone claimed they were included for the sake of it, or without thematic consideration.
Cool to get a confirmation, they fit either way.
Heckler456
Banned
How old is Luv?
I wonder if this implies that replicants follow the same emotional development than human, except they're far more capable early on. It kind of puts the 4 year cutoff of the first movie in a slightly different light.
Right, it was clear throughout that she was trying her best to impress Wallace and be the special one in his eyes.
It's sad to see people write her off as a shallow character.
Nice confirmation but I think almost everyone understood that, I hope...
I love you, man
two of my favorite filmmakers in one picture
Dark_3nergy
Member
Oooo, I didn't think about that Hologram in that sense. Good catch.
Speaking of Big O and anime, gonna watch Blackout tonight and I have Big O on blu-ray coming.
I don't understand why everyone says that with 100% certainty that the only possible is that it must be programming. As if in 2049, they had the capability to program realistic behaviour for the permutation of every possible situation as opposed to creating a framework that leads to emergent behaviour.
And even if it was programmed, does it matter?
Yeah, love as an act can be transformative. It can expand our sphere of being beyond the self. It can give us strength to endure a cold and uncaring world. It can give us a reason to go on, as Viktor Frankl writes, "those who have a ‘why' to live, can bear with almost any ‘how'". By holding true to his feelings towards Joi and accepting that her feelings are genuine in return, K gains the strength to go on this journey to become more than society allows him to be. Because we all need a little help sometimes, even if they come in the form of sweet little lies. (I'm feeling cynical today.)
As an aside, someone on reddit noticed this detail:
broncobuster
Banned
From reading this thread and impressions elsewhere, I got the sense others were confused.
UnemployedVillain
Member
I think she did show some signs of emergent behavior that was probably against her intended behavioral programming. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but things like her telling him to destroy the antenna or the final plea seemed like instances of that.
But, I think those are just that, emergent behavior, not nearly indistinguishable sentience and true independent thought like replicants. The baseline tests K has to undergo regularly show that even though replicants are suppose to be 100% compliant, they can develop these emergent behaviors or feedback loops of independent thought, that might result in them becoming "rogue".
It's what makes her such an interesting character, and it fits the themes of the movie
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Just got back from watching it. Very impressed.
hendersonhank
Member
I don't think she "clearly" feels anything. Everything she does is explained equally well by her being a hologram + voice programmed to act like a woman in love with her owner. Her actions when he is not around or is unconscious don't contradict this at all. Why should the program drop the act when the owner is not around? Do the numbers on your clock stop changing when you aren't watching it?
I don't think anyone said "the only possible is that it must be programming", but we do know for certainty that she WAS programmed to act like a woman completely in love with her owner.
I guess that's a question the movie wants you to think about.
Freewheelin'
Member
Ridley Scotts Blade Runner is a triumph of ideas and conceptual ambition that doesnt quite live up to its potential. Its visuals and score are majestic, its promise unfulfilled. Long after I stopped quibbling about the uneven tone, the rushed second hour, the charisma-free lead performance and the perfunctory romance, I still couldnt get that universe out of my head. What else could you do with a vision like that nightmarish 2019 Los Angeles, or the idea of blade runners and replicants, and its suggestion of theme, both implicit and explicit. Its the quintessential Ridley Scott film in my eyes, that midway point between the perfection of Alien and the waste of Prometheus.
Denis Villenueves sequel gets an incredible amount of things right. Its a better made film than its predecessor. It has better performances, some even from the same actors. It has better control of tone, pacing and scope. It has a story that offers more on a grandiose scale while staying true to the quiet introspection that Scotts film did exceptionally well in its first half. It evokes the likes of There Will Be Blood in its ability to present itself as an epic work, and out-Nolans Nolan to be the pinnacle of what a blockbuster can be (and speaking as a Nolan film, he wishes he had the level of authority over his filmmaking that Villenueve does). It is, in terms of its craft, a truly exceptional movie.
But theres something niggling away at me, something missing; I think its that promise. That seems unfair to say, but this film gets so much right that it didnt leave me wanting more. I felt so satisfied with Blade Runner 2049 that I didnt leave asking what else could be done in that universe, with those concepts, with these characters. And Im not sure if thats a flaw or not.
Lets start with the good, of which there is much of. Villenueve is a master craftsman. Watch that scene in Arrival where they build up to encountering the heptapods for the first time, or the much-heralded Juárez bridge scene; the tension, the dread, the suspense he creates there is remarkably precise. Every single scene has that same level of careful pacing and plotting. Despite the amount of times we see the back of Ryan Goslings head, not one moment feels extraneous or wasted. He is a director fully in control of everything that you see on screen, and thats pretty brilliant for someone making movies at the scale he now is.
Gosling is an excellent lead; despite my favourite performance of his (The Nice Guys) being the complete opposite of what Im about to say, he always manages to do so much with so little. Hes the perfect choice to play a replicant - and specifically this replicant - because the little internal battles you can just about detect going on behind those eyes (and I think Ive noticed for the first time in this film because of the amount of time you spend looking at those blank unblinking eyes that theyre not aligned whatsoever!) are always so wonderfully captured by him. Hes an extremely adept physical performer and a brave selector of roles, willing to challenge himself.
The female supporting cast are also extremely strong presences in the film; Wright, de Armas and Hoeks all make their characters feel real and lived in, despite two of them not even being that. De Armas in particular is an engaging actor who does a very good job with a difficult role that could have just been a facsimile of the phone in Her, and thats not to mention her part to play in the films most inventive scene (of which Mackenzie Davis also does well in); its a truly beautiful scene that evokes the best of the original film; doing something entirely new while being just about familiar enough in concept to make it relatable.
That brings us to Harrison Ford, who I really enjoyed here by being engaged, cranky, sardonic, funny in fact, like a Harrison Ford character. Which Deckard was not. One of my biggest issues with Blade Runner is how, after a brilliant opening few scenes, after the death of Zhora Deckard becomes a completely different character, borderline raping Rachael and becoming basically a mute for the latter half of the film. Fords completely outshone by Hauer and that detracts from my enjoyment of the film itself; he (and Scott) dont sell his affection for Rachael, he doesnt sell his shift from cocksure, world-weary blade runner to the stoic character he becomes. In 2049 however, hes a delight, and one that makes me wish he was a similar character in the first film (props to Fancher and Green too for offering the one theory regarding Deckard being a replicant that recontextualises Scotts decision to push so heavily for it in an interesting way: that of him being engineered to fall in love with Rachael as an experiment. Its the only way I can buy into a) Deckard being a replicant and b) Deckard loving Rachael, so kudos).
On a production level, its astonishingly good. Deakins does wonders with his colour palette, turning his characters so often into silhouettes the line between man and machine becomes ever more blurred and unclear. The ruined Las Vegas setting is the most evocative Ozymandias-esque landscape I can think of, with its shattered visages and hellish colours contrasting so harshly with the LA of the film that it strengthens both looks monumentally. As mentioned before, the editing and pacing is so measured, so controlled and composed that the running time feels simultaneously as long as it is and yet not a moment too long. The score is a tad disappointing; its derivative of the original without ever really coming close to its majesty, but it still manages to capture mood and atmosphere effectively enough.
That brings us to its story and themes. As a detective story, Blade Runner 2049 is neatly wound, tightly and logically constructed and resolved satisfyingly. As a sci-fi story, it deals with interesting concepts beautifully well and simplistically effective. What it doesnt do however, is suggest with anywhere near the power of the first. The script is fairly on the nose (scenes involving the resistance group that pop up three-quarters in are particularly blunt) and everything it does leaves me with no wriggle room. Im not left dreaming of the potential of the story to go here or there, in this direction or that, whether the ideas visualised by Villenueve can be pushed further or explored in other avenues. It feels whole and complete.
That is an astounding credit; that they can make a sequel to a truly beloved and inspiration film so long after the fact and make it seem so cohesive. But for all the wonderful things about this sequel, it doesnt necessarily do what its predecessor does best. And while thats surprising, its also not really disappointing. Just different. Its the best blockbuster since Mad Max: Fury Road and probably my favourite film of the year so far. I just somewhat wish it had wasted its potential a little more. That sounds so fucking dumb.
4/5
Denis Villenueves sequel gets an incredible amount of things right. Its a better made film than its predecessor. It has better performances, some even from the same actors. It has better control of tone, pacing and scope. It has a story that offers more on a grandiose scale while staying true to the quiet introspection that Scotts film did exceptionally well in its first half. It evokes the likes of There Will Be Blood in its ability to present itself as an epic work, and out-Nolans Nolan to be the pinnacle of what a blockbuster can be (and speaking as a Nolan film, he wishes he had the level of authority over his filmmaking that Villenueve does). It is, in terms of its craft, a truly exceptional movie.
But theres something niggling away at me, something missing; I think its that promise. That seems unfair to say, but this film gets so much right that it didnt leave me wanting more. I felt so satisfied with Blade Runner 2049 that I didnt leave asking what else could be done in that universe, with those concepts, with these characters. And Im not sure if thats a flaw or not.
Lets start with the good, of which there is much of. Villenueve is a master craftsman. Watch that scene in Arrival where they build up to encountering the heptapods for the first time, or the much-heralded Juárez bridge scene; the tension, the dread, the suspense he creates there is remarkably precise. Every single scene has that same level of careful pacing and plotting. Despite the amount of times we see the back of Ryan Goslings head, not one moment feels extraneous or wasted. He is a director fully in control of everything that you see on screen, and thats pretty brilliant for someone making movies at the scale he now is.
Gosling is an excellent lead; despite my favourite performance of his (The Nice Guys) being the complete opposite of what Im about to say, he always manages to do so much with so little. Hes the perfect choice to play a replicant - and specifically this replicant - because the little internal battles you can just about detect going on behind those eyes (and I think Ive noticed for the first time in this film because of the amount of time you spend looking at those blank unblinking eyes that theyre not aligned whatsoever!) are always so wonderfully captured by him. Hes an extremely adept physical performer and a brave selector of roles, willing to challenge himself.
The female supporting cast are also extremely strong presences in the film; Wright, de Armas and Hoeks all make their characters feel real and lived in, despite two of them not even being that. De Armas in particular is an engaging actor who does a very good job with a difficult role that could have just been a facsimile of the phone in Her, and thats not to mention her part to play in the films most inventive scene (of which Mackenzie Davis also does well in); its a truly beautiful scene that evokes the best of the original film; doing something entirely new while being just about familiar enough in concept to make it relatable.
That brings us to Harrison Ford, who I really enjoyed here by being engaged, cranky, sardonic, funny in fact, like a Harrison Ford character. Which Deckard was not. One of my biggest issues with Blade Runner is how, after a brilliant opening few scenes, after the death of Zhora Deckard becomes a completely different character, borderline raping Rachael and becoming basically a mute for the latter half of the film. Fords completely outshone by Hauer and that detracts from my enjoyment of the film itself; he (and Scott) dont sell his affection for Rachael, he doesnt sell his shift from cocksure, world-weary blade runner to the stoic character he becomes. In 2049 however, hes a delight, and one that makes me wish he was a similar character in the first film (props to Fancher and Green too for offering the one theory regarding Deckard being a replicant that recontextualises Scotts decision to push so heavily for it in an interesting way: that of him being engineered to fall in love with Rachael as an experiment. Its the only way I can buy into a) Deckard being a replicant and b) Deckard loving Rachael, so kudos).
On a production level, its astonishingly good. Deakins does wonders with his colour palette, turning his characters so often into silhouettes the line between man and machine becomes ever more blurred and unclear. The ruined Las Vegas setting is the most evocative Ozymandias-esque landscape I can think of, with its shattered visages and hellish colours contrasting so harshly with the LA of the film that it strengthens both looks monumentally. As mentioned before, the editing and pacing is so measured, so controlled and composed that the running time feels simultaneously as long as it is and yet not a moment too long. The score is a tad disappointing; its derivative of the original without ever really coming close to its majesty, but it still manages to capture mood and atmosphere effectively enough.
That brings us to its story and themes. As a detective story, Blade Runner 2049 is neatly wound, tightly and logically constructed and resolved satisfyingly. As a sci-fi story, it deals with interesting concepts beautifully well and simplistically effective. What it doesnt do however, is suggest with anywhere near the power of the first. The script is fairly on the nose (scenes involving the resistance group that pop up three-quarters in are particularly blunt) and everything it does leaves me with no wriggle room. Im not left dreaming of the potential of the story to go here or there, in this direction or that, whether the ideas visualised by Villenueve can be pushed further or explored in other avenues. It feels whole and complete.
That is an astounding credit; that they can make a sequel to a truly beloved and inspiration film so long after the fact and make it seem so cohesive. But for all the wonderful things about this sequel, it doesnt necessarily do what its predecessor does best. And while thats surprising, its also not really disappointing. Just different. Its the best blockbuster since Mad Max: Fury Road and probably my favourite film of the year so far. I just somewhat wish it had wasted its potential a little more. That sounds so fucking dumb.
4/5
Kadayi
Banned
Makes a lot of sense. Luv knows that to Wallace failure is not an option and forgiveness is never on the cards. To her he is everything, but to him, she knows she is just a tool that is only useful whilst she is able to deliver. That's what I read into her tears.
I kind of dug the tenacity of the character and her single-mindedness, but it's easy to see how her pride got the better of her, firstly leaving K in Vegas versus killing him and secondly assuming he was done at the seawall. The one thing that was made abundantly clear about K with his fight with Sapper, was that he can take a beating and then some (presumably a specific requirement of his model given the work he does).
BannedAtTheTroxy
Neo Member
Saw it on IMAX and I loved it!
But I am curious- did anyone watch it in 4DX? I need to know if I should bring a raincoat and galoshes if I end up going to my CGV theater this weekend to re-watch.
But I am curious- did anyone watch it in 4DX? I need to know if I should bring a raincoat and galoshes if I end up going to my CGV theater this weekend to re-watch.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Amazing movie
SuperStiltzkin
Member
I'm not really inventing anything outside of what the film wants us to. The final scene we see of JOI is a giant advertisement of her with the words "Telling you everything you want to hear." Over and over, highlighted and shown word by word. Yes the movie shows that she has what appear to be obviously emotional reactions and a genuine bond for K. But that giant hologram scene is very much the movie challenging the viewer to second guess every genuine moment between her and K and watch those scenes with the context that she is just acting according to her programming. It's asking us to speculate artificial possibilities and reasons for why she would act a certain way. It's not definitively saying anything either way. And maybe it wants us to reach the conclusion that it doesn't matter.
Was JOI acting according to programming? Was Rachel? It doesn't matter. Those relationships happened and ended and if you found meaning in it, then it doesn't matter if it was according to programming or not. Again, it's all biology and brain chemistry. Aren't we all kind of acting according to programming?
If JOI had her own self interests and desires that were unrelated to helping K, I could see that as a more definitive evidence for her evolved sentience. But the movie wants to keep it ambiguous because it challenges us to consider what the line is between "real" and "fake" feelings. When you argue that she really is feeling, what do you mean by that? Are there other JOIs that don't really feel? The movie goes out of its way to not show us any other JOIs aside from advertisements. So we do not have a baseline to compare. Whereas there is a baseline test to measure K's "humanness", we don't have that for JOI because she is designed to emulate human interaction to a realistic, if not dream fulfilling, degree.
Just came back. They only brought IMAX back here recently so I can't compare it to that many movies, but this was definitely the best IMAX experience I've had yet. It was a visual and aural spectacle, but more importantly it was also a great movie and a worthy followup to BR. I rewatched the original hours before 2049 and I'm glad I did, because there are way more references and nods than I expected. Still this movie is very much its own thing and I applaud it for that.
At one point there's a shot where we see LA 2049 from way up high and that felt like a nice visual metaphor for the movie: it's Blade Runner, but zoomed out and with a much bigger scope, or at least felt like it. Seeing all the different locations really added to the worldbuilding and made it seem like BR was just the start. I also loved the new tech and gadgets on display, they nailed that.
This is definitely a 9/10 for me. Maybe the only minor complaint is that Joe dying on the steps was a bit too obvious as a Roy Batty reference.
Went with two friends and we were all floored. Also surprising: week after release but the theatre was packed. It's the only place in the country where you can see movies in IMAX, but still.
Visually, I'd say this movie has no equal if you consider sf from the last few years. I knew Villeneuve would bring it, but he easily outclassed his other work here. He was a perfect fit for this movie.
Also: I love Priscilla Page's tweets about this movie
At one point there's a shot where we see LA 2049 from way up high and that felt like a nice visual metaphor for the movie: it's Blade Runner, but zoomed out and with a much bigger scope, or at least felt like it. Seeing all the different locations really added to the worldbuilding and made it seem like BR was just the start. I also loved the new tech and gadgets on display, they nailed that.
This is definitely a 9/10 for me. Maybe the only minor complaint is that Joe dying on the steps was a bit too obvious as a Roy Batty reference.
Went with two friends and we were all floored. Also surprising: week after release but the theatre was packed. It's the only place in the country where you can see movies in IMAX, but still.
Visually, I'd say this movie has no equal if you consider sf from the last few years. I knew Villeneuve would bring it, but he easily outclassed his other work here. He was a perfect fit for this movie.
Also: I love Priscilla Page's tweets about this movie
More_Badass
Member
Was saying in that other thread that one of the common criticisms seems to be that some of the sets, particularly Ks apartment and the LAPD building, are quite bland compared to other areas. People keep mentioning that like it was a mistake, like the rest of the film looks so beautiful but those locations are so generic.
Given how visually distinct and noticeable the contrast is and how considered Denis is in his construction of scenes and framing and sets, I think we can say that it was a very intentional design choice to have the LAPD and Ks apartment look muted and sterile and stripped down, compared to the vividly bleak neon-tinged outside or Wallaces shadowy cavernous HQ or Vegas hellish orange wastes
Just look at the contrast in the lighting and atmosphere between Ks apartment interior and the rooftop exterior when he goes out into the rain with Joi. Or the oppressively sterile atmosphere of the LAPDs baseline test room
Given how visually distinct and noticeable the contrast is and how considered Denis is in his construction of scenes and framing and sets, I think we can say that it was a very intentional design choice to have the LAPD and Ks apartment look muted and sterile and stripped down, compared to the vividly bleak neon-tinged outside or Wallaces shadowy cavernous HQ or Vegas hellish orange wastes
Just look at the contrast in the lighting and atmosphere between Ks apartment interior and the rooftop exterior when he goes out into the rain with Joi. Or the oppressively sterile atmosphere of the LAPDs baseline test room
Yes, of course, 100%. Most of the criticisms I have seen are pure nonsense. Many times purposeful design element, themes, choices are not understood. People have left that film with no freaking clue what just happened. It does require a bit of attention, but it also rewards the viewer for it, its very satisfying.
I thought that was apparent when K walked past all those people lined up in hallways outside his apartment. Theres a super sharp contrast being made in a very small timeframe. His home was supposed to be a safe zone for both the character and audience. Also its sparseness represents Ks internal state.
What does that even mean? If something isn't super elaborate and instead has a utilitarian design by choice it's terrible?
K's apartment really reminded me of Edward Nortons Ikea furnished apt in Fight Club. And, similarly, as his world begins to change, so does his surroundings. Its a reflection of K's self- moderate, somewhat clinical and cold.
So when you can't appreciate his apartment, maybe you can appreciate what it reveals to us about the character.
Yes, and its also a reflection of the human condition in the city. Cramped, poor, hungry demented, old frail, useless... etc
Imagine a world where the rich have left. And have left the poor with nothing, as they have taken the wealth with them.
So when you can't appreciate his apartment, maybe you can appreciate what it reveals to us about the character.
Yes, and its also a reflection of the human condition in the city. Cramped, poor, hungry demented, old frail, useless... etc
Imagine a world where the rich have left. And have left the poor with nothing, as they have taken the wealth with them.
I didn't say that at all?
I'm fine with super clean, minimalist and utilitarian looks but I thought some of these just looked cold, generic and clean to a fault, especially with the lighting in these scenes.
jack_package_200
Banned
The artbook was just delivered to my house. ITS FUCKING HUGE
AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa its soooo fucking cool.
AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa its soooo fucking cool.
You said they look "incredibly generic and bland."
More impressions! I did not realize this was a thing and I want to buy it now
jack_package_200
Banned
It was out of stock Amazon so I bought mine on Barnes and Noble
Its a little over 200 pages according to the table of contents. The pictures which include some story board stuff, set design, and other great shit from the movie.
Atraveller
Banned
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I find the idea of explaining Joi's every action and reaction, in and out of K's presence, with her programming giving a performance to K, is too cynical. To the point of there's no point at all to discuss and explore her character. Whatever message the director and writer wanted to convey, I can not believe it was just...that.
Thanks for your well-written and detailed thoughts. It's an interesting thing you hit upon, that sense of completion so effectively conveyed at the end of the movie as it encapsulates the BR universe. I take that more as a positive than a negative as I'm not generally a huge cyberpunk fan and am not overly invested in this world, so the satisfaction I received at the conclusion of 2049 far outweighs any disappointment I felt from potentially never revisiting this universe (judging by the BO take, I don't think we'll get a sequel.) I'm OK with it. I still get to ruminate on the mood of the film, still get to turn over all the lingering and unanswerable questions the franchise has always asked. This will last me a long time.
I had a very similar feeling recently, and that was at the end of Twin Peaks: The Return. It's funny how both franchises managed to returne after decades-long absences to refashion their original stories for modern times, how they are both situated in bleak worlds where the small kind acts remain the only things that keep the darkness at bay, and how they both conclude in open-ended fashion while feeling so final on a narrative level. I am very content right now.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
Here's what I thought the movie was gonna be about based solely on the trailers. JOI was a mass produced model of replicant for prostitution/stripping/ sex work. Gosling sees holograms of her everywhere and one day one of the JOIs escapes Wallace's factory/HQ and Gosling is tasked with protecting her because she is a special new model that can breed. I thought JOI was gonna be the mcguffin that Gosling was tasked with protecting and escorting and he'd fall in love with a replicant and it'd be Deckard/Rachel all over again. JOI would struggle with her existence and be traumatized with the idea of there being identical versions of her all around the world. I'm so glad that was not the case.
Atraveller
Banned
Deckard was a piece of shit. But I think that was the point. He was a emotionally stunted man with a drinking problem, and he served as a contrast to the replicants. In his hunt he started see through replicants' perspectives and learned what life is.
I thought he would be Deckard's son and knock up Joi.
Interesting little things I've read about this movie:
Joe / K = Josef K from Kafka's The Trial
Joi = Jerk Off Instructions AKA JOI, a porn genre about non-contact dirty talking
"Cells, interlinked" and other lines from the baseline test = Lines from Pale Fire, which K reads and which is about layers of unreliable narrators
Joe / K = Josef K from Kafka's The Trial
Joi = Jerk Off Instructions AKA JOI, a porn genre about non-contact dirty talking
"Cells, interlinked" and other lines from the baseline test = Lines from Pale Fire, which K reads and which is about layers of unreliable narrators
Zombie James
Banned
Edit: Wrong thread!
Warm Machine
Member
That isn't what that scene is about.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll