Generic Business Oriented Website

spacehamster wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:42 pm

Agree with most everything Spacehamster said apart from the bit about it doesn't do anything new storywise. The idea that replicants can suddenly have kids was great IMO and removes one more barrier between them and humans. Loved Joi (and how she insisted on calling K Joe) and how her relationship with K mirrored the relationship between humans and replicants. Was surprised how painful her "death" was.

Ross, your argument rests a little too much on brushing off that artifical memory thing. It's easy to just empathize with a character in a film because we see everything from his perspective and assign him a right to live; films form this empathic relationship between the viewers and its characters, but there's a history to replicants/ artifical humans and just like the apes in Planet we (humans) would very likely just kill them as we please. So what if they've learned another trick, like language etc.? They're just animals, they have no human rights. Even if you were convinced that a chatbot was a real human - after finding out about that it is indeed a chatbot, you wouldn't hesitate deleting its program if it gave you any trouble. In that way, Blade Runner was great, it showed us K's miserable life and how shitty everyone is to him.

Scene with the revolution army gives K a motivation to fight for the replicants and (shudder) sets up a sequel, but still felt stupid and I wished they'd handled it differently.

Comparing it to Ghost in the Shell though

Ghost in the Shell did basically everything better than BR2049.

riley noooooo

MORE BLADE RUNNER SPOILERS

THE KILL wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:49 amRoss, your argument rests a little too much on brushing off that artifical memory thing. It's easy to just empathize with a character in a film because we see everything from his perspective and assign him a right to live; films form this empathic relationship between the viewers and its characters, but there's a history to replicants/ artifical humans and just like the apes in Planet we (humans) would very likely just kill them as we please. So what if they've learned another trick, like language etc.? They're just animals, they have no human rights. Even if you were convinced that a chatbot was a real human - after finding out about that it is indeed a chatbot, you wouldn't hesitate deleting its program if it gave you any trouble. In that way, Blade Runner was great, it showed us K's miserable life and how shitty everyone is to him.

I don't know - I'm not swayed. we have massive empathy for/with pets, and they're clearly not human. replicants would easily surpass fido/mittens. the movie failed to establish an existential distinction between humans and replicants, which would be fine if the plot didn't hinge on such a distinction.

I've come around a bit about the things this movie does right. here's a recycled thing I wrote elsewhere:

To me, the human condition is characterized by things like (1) the struggle between what feels good and what is right/just, (2) finding meaning and purpose in life even with the certainty of death and the uncertainty of what lies beyond, (3) establishing identity in a largely chaotic world. Humans get to be agnostic about (3), ignoring the problem if they choose to; replicants don't have that luxury - their identity was decided by someone else, and it's nothing to feel good about. For (2), replicants face an uphill battle relative to humans, since they're handicapped by lifetimes that are routinely cut short, and they lack the ability to reproduce (an existential balm for impending death). Maybe it's on me for not working through these themes during/after the movie, but I still don't think it put any of these front & center. That might've ruined the tone, I admit. Anyway, with all this in mind, "more human than human" could mean overcoming those existential challenges even with the handicaps of being a replicant. By the end, we clearly see K doing (1): what is right, instead of what simply feels good.

so yeah, maybe I can watch the movie again with the above in mind, without succumbing to the idiotic distractions of the "replicating replicants" thing that is shoved in our faces a thousand times ... apparently just to distract me or to give dummies a transparent plot to latch onto. I'm still very frustrated with all that shit - the Niander monologues were so cringey and nonsensical...

but yeah, the "secret" plot of 2049 was masterfully done... Ghost in the Shell tried to make that sort of thing its main plot and it just fell on its face. and the "city/setting as its own character" thing worked way better in 2049, too. GitS was like - OK, you see an environment and think it's cool for a second. but 2049 makes you want to soak up each setting.

spacehamster wrote:K's "relationship" with the Joi app is the best idea in the whole movie for me. His pathetic obsession with this thing reminded me a lot of the way book Deckard takes his animal price guide everywhere, so I took that as another little nod to the source material. And the soul-crushing moment towards the end when he sees the holographic ad for it and realizes that the "relationship" he thought he'd built with the AI based on their shared memories was all bullshit was basically my favorite moment in the movie because it plays on the core theme of what identity is without explaining itself for a second. Really smart stuff.

I think there's a well-founded read on this subplot that's totally opposed to yours. if we can empathize with our "fake" protagonist, why not extend that to another layer of artifice? if the proof of the pudding is truly in the tasting (as I've argued in support of our empathy for replicant characters), then K's relationship with Joi is absolutely legitimate. how can an artificial person - a product - have snooty hipster opinions about the authenticity of the girlfriend he bought? I'd be much more open to this read if Joi had been anything other than an infinitely/stereotypically hot wish-fulfillment vessel, even though I realize the paradox of expecting depth, flaws, and nuance in a emotional fleshlight...

Doc on a guy who figured out the pattern on the old Press Your Luck game show and won over $100,000... 7\10

patton oswalt: annihilation - 9/10

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - 10
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 - 8
Suspiria - 9
Alien: Covenant - 5

I went to see Blade Runner again yesterday and I really have to say it's better the second time around. There are a lot of small details that you miss the first time, and the story holds up much better than I thought. The "underground replicant army" scene is still stupid, but more because of the way it's handled - the character who delivers the speech is dumb, and the moment when all the replicants are stepping out of the shadows is cringe-worthy. But it's actually the conclusion of a side plot that's been running all through the whole movie, so it doesn't come out of nowhere and it makes much more sense than I initially thought.

Also, re Deckard's lifespan, that's not a problem at all. The opening blurb states that Tyrell Corp was already producing replicants with extended lifespans, and Tyrell himself states that the purpose of the memory implants is to control the replicants' emotions, so they wouldn't need the shortened lifespan anymore. So if Deckard's a replicant specifically designed to breed with Rachael, it would stand to reason that he has an extended lifespan - and Rachael died in childbirth, so she might've lived a long life as well.

the big sick - 9/10

pretty satisfying to watch a performer acknowledge how much of their life was performative

GIRLS TRIP 7/10

I watched a bunch of movies on some transatlantic travel, some FFWing in there
passengers 5/10
king arthur by guy ritchie 1/4
rough night 4/10
silence .2/.5 only watched like 10 minutes but couldn't take it. it probably deserves a big screen so maybe I'll revisit
assassin's creed 3/10 (estimating based on what I could see on my girlfriend's nearby screen)

MIKE I sorta wanna watch 2049 again - probably will soon. Why did you call me out about my "easter egg" claim? You think that's ridiculous? I know it's an outlier take, but I've seen it elsewhere. There are dozens of us? I really feel like the Nexus 6 replicants being sympathetic in that movie says plenty about the humanity/existential stuff, and making the rapey Deckard into a skinjob adds very little.

Autumn Sonata - 8
Masters of the Universe - 3
Screwed (2000) - 6

Necrometer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:19 am MIKE I sorta wanna watch 2049 again - probably will soon. Why did you call me out about my "easter egg" claim? You think that's ridiculous?

The question whether Deckard's a replicant is absolutely core to my understanding of what the movie is really about, which isn't just what it means to be human, but also how we construct our identities. If you think of yourself as essentially the sum of your experiences, what does it mean if you can't trust your memories? Can anyone actually trust their memories? The idea of "memory implants" is just a sci-fi way to make that question explicit, which is what good sci-fi tends to do.

It's also core to the movie's noir character as a whole - Deckard is a detective on a regular case until he encounters a female character that triggers a major crisis and ultimately causes his life to fall apart. That's much more believable and meaningful if you don't just ignore the moment when Rachael asks him if he's ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself - it means he might only be capable of falling in love with a replicant because he is one himself, and it makes his confrontation with Roy Batty far more interesting.

Cf also the only two lines Gaff gets in 2049: "He wasn't long for his world" and "something in his eyes", clearly referring to the golden reflection in Deckard's eyes that only a replicant would have, and assuming (because Gaff doesn't have all the information) that he must be dead because of his shortened lifespan.

I'm not saying that's the only way to read the movie or that nothing else about it is interesting, but it seems really, really weird to me to just write that off as a minor "easter egg" that's just there for fun.

People (including Ridley) have clearly taken the premise and gone deep with it, but I feel like it's very hard to sort out headcanon from stuff that's in the movie deliberately. I don't sneer at anyone who, like you, ascribes a lot of meaning to that element, I'm just sharing my take on it. I've long been on record as a non-superfan of BR. but I've still made attempts to get really invested in the Deckard replicant (D=r) thread, and somehow it has never clicked. I think your argument might be the best I've seen, so that's something!

If you think of yourself as essentially the sum of your experiences, what does it mean if you can't trust your memories? Can anyone actually trust their memories? The idea of "memory implants" is just a sci-fi way to make that question explicit, which is what good sci-fi tends to do.

I don't think that's remotely specific to D=r, and we don't we really see him being a product of his memories. we get almost zero info on his backstory, right?

That's much more believable and meaningful if you don't just ignore the moment when Rachael asks him if he's ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself

That moment is great no matter Deckard's status! It subtly reinforces the core idea of the movie.

it makes his confrontation with Roy Batty far more interesting

I think that confrontation is great either way. D=r you get an ironic and complex showdown (not in a bad way), D=human and it's a battle between the authentic, somewhat feeble human and the superior impostor

he might only be capable of falling in love with a replicant because he is one himself

this is an interesting angle - why wouldn't a human be able to fall in love with a replicant (whether or not they knew their status)?

Necrometer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:54 pm People (including Ridley) have clearly taken the premise and gone deep with it, but I feel like it's very hard to sort out headcanon from stuff that's in the movie deliberately.

I'm only basing this on what's actually in the movie, and the whole point is that it's vague. One of the things I love so much about 2049 is how it clearly addresses it and still manages to keep it vague. It's also something that comes up in the novel much more explicitly, by the way, so it's hardly some crazy internetter idea that was read into the movie after the fact and took on a life of its own.

we don't we really see him being a product of his memories. we get almost zero info on his backstory, right?

We know basically nothing about his backstory at all. I don't see how that's relevant. He thinks he's been around for 40 years, but there's no evidence that that's the case other than the fact that he thinks so and Bryant and Gaff make vague references to him being a retired Blade Runner, i.e. having done the job before.

this is an interesting angle - why wouldn't a human be able to fall in love with a replicant (whether or not they knew their status)?

Because they don't have fully developed, relatable emotions. This is the case for every replicant in the movie - when they experience any sort of emotion, they're always confused by it. See Roy Batty's reaction when Pris is dead, or Leon's curious obsession with his photos. This is also why the Deckard/Rachael relationship plays out so oddly - it's as if they're just going through the motions, from Deckard dictating Rachael's words in the "rape" scene to the moment when, completely out of the blue, he's so in love with her that he's willing to throw his whole life away for her. it's not awkward because it's badly scripted, it's awkward on purpose - of course Deckard could also be a socially awkward fuckup because he's spent his whole life murdering replicants, but again, the point is that it's vague. I'm not saying I think Deckard's a replicant, I think the point is that there's no way to tell.

That's also the point of the novel, by the way, although it's done for entirely different reasons. Dick wanted a dystopian future where it doesn't matter if anything's alive or a machine and nobody is capable of real empathy anymore.

OK, I had misinterpreted and thought you were saying it's essential that D=r, but you're saying that it's essential to consider the possibility that D=r. That's much more reasonable - I dig it.

That's also the point of the novel, by the way, although it's done for entirely different reasons. Dick wanted a dystopian future where it doesn't matter if anything's alive or a machine and nobody is capable of real empathy anymore.

I only read the book once but the empathy machines (?) they use were such a great element, same goes for the meaning/power of animals.

I could totally fall in love with sean young, even if her emotional foundation was half-baked

When Silent Hill came out in 2006, everyone told me it was a very good movie. Like, I have distinct memories of several people being surprised and impressed by a high quality video game adaptation in theaters. They told me, "Silent Hill is a great movie!"

I got 40 minutes in and had to fucking bail. Unless that piece of shit becomes a completely different movie halfway through, I think I misunderstood the year 2006. Totally confused, I checked RT where it's riding at a sweet 30%. The fuck

Put on The Witch and just re-watched that instead.

9/10 maybe the best witch movie ever made, in 20 years people will either have forgotten about that flick or it will be retroactively included with the "best-of" list with The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, Night of the Living Dead, etc.

also from the night i watched the big sick for the first time, rewatched for what has to be the twentieth time:

blazing saddles - 10/10

there are still jokes that i forget about, and when i see them again, i shriek with laughter; i had to leave the room after "well, that's the end of this suit" and i was only kinda drunk

new blade runner - 9

it was good...touching, thoughtful, slow but amped. incredible shots...harrrison ford in his best scene since the 90s

worth 9 bucks

Dawson City: Frozen Time - 8
The Baby of Mâcon - 9
Hounds of Love - 5

Jerry Seinfeld: Before Seinfeld - 7
Amnesia (2015) - 6.5
Zodiac - 9
Event Horizon - 8

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles - 8.5
Friday the 13th pt VII - 6

Rosemary's Baby - 9
The Lady Vanishes - 9
The Gorgon - 6
The House That Dripped Blood - 7

Dark Tower - inconceivably horrible cuntslop / 10

so terrible that it legit gave me a panic attack.

i sincerely hope an intrepid entertainment reporter finds out that the head of Sony has boys locked in his basement so this outhouse of a studio can get scrubbed off the face of the earth.

The Ornithologist - 7
Churchill - 4

thor: ragnarok 7.5/10 this is pretty soulless but enjoyable - feels like what I wanted/expected from gotg2

Salem's Lot (1979) - 6