Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 199

Thread: Blade Runner 2049 Discussion (SPOILERS!!!)

  1. #151
    Estimated Prophet notallwhowander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Coastal California
    Posts
    798
    I saw it in matinee today. A few things:

    - The stylistic continuity really impressed me. They did a great job continuing the cyberpunk-noir feel of the world, the story pacing, the stylized composition and visuals, etc.

    - I thought the Joi subplot was pretty self-evident, not a lot of questions about it. I never thought she was "real" nor even thought I was supposed to think she was "real" in any way. In fact, I felt that the relationship between Joi and K carried the largest portion of thematic weight when it came to uncanny artificiality.

    - It seems to me that the "compromised immune response" thing is likely untrue, a lie told Dr. Ana to keep her under wraps until the resistance activates her. There is nothing much to back up this impression, except that so much of the film is lie and illusion, including not knowing who or what onself is.

    - After being thoroughly creeped-out by CGI Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing, it was nice to see a film that harnessed the actual creepiness I felt in service of the plot. That's good film making.

    - I felt the misogyny undercut the impact of the film as a whole. The cutting of the "womb" of the new model, the prostitutes, the "threesome," the unnecessary murder of Madam, the porn statutes and adverts, the weird ocean choke-out scene, when added together reveal a constant current of misogyny on the part of the film makers. The story could have been effectively told without these elements, but it is clear that the film makers wanted a world where women are relegated, with one or possibly two exceptions, to objects of lust or violence. In fact, the exceptions throw the broader misogyny into bold relief.
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

  2. #152
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Re: misogyny -- you're undoubtedly right. I don't see prostitution going out of fashion anytime soon, but there could've been a few more females in positions of power.

  3. #153
    Member Sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South Hadley, MA
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    I thought the Joi subplot was pretty self-evident, not a lot of questions about it. I never thought she was "real" nor even thought I was supposed to think she was "real" in any way. In fact, I felt that the relationship between Joi and K carried the largest portion of thematic weight when it came to uncanny artificiality.
    Interesting. I don't think it was every a question of Joi being "real," but rather a question of whether her type of artificial programming might achieve some level or "genuine" emotions. I think they did a pretty good job in the film leading you to believe, or at least question, whether her feelings for K and the actions she took had some genuine qualities. Yeah, there were breadcrumbs through the film that if you looked close you might be skeptical, and the meeting with the giant hologram pretty much sealed the issue. But still, who wasn't sad when Joi got squished? And not sad like, "oooh, I just dropped my iBlah and broke it," but sad because Joi, as a personality was lost forever.

    The other issue raised by this is what about K's emotions for Joi? Were they "real?" If so, what does it say about the replicants that K was only able to achieve genuine happiness with something totally artificial? What about our emotional response as viewers? She was just a piece of technology, nothing more than an iBlah, but aren't we a little sad anyway? So I think there are interesting layers to Joi and her presence in the movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    I felt the misogyny undercut the impact of the film as a whole. The cutting of the "womb" of the new model, the prostitutes, the "threesome," the unnecessary murder of Madam, the porn statutes and adverts, the weird ocean choke-out scene, when added together reveal a constant current of misogyny on the part of the film makers. The story could have been effectively told without these elements, but it is clear that the film makers wanted a world where women are relegated, with one or possibly two exceptions, to objects of lust or violence. In fact, the exceptions throw the broader misogyny into bold relief.
    I agree with you about the choke scene, that seemed gratuitous. I'm not sure what the big stare-down was supposed to be communicating. Nothing, is my guess. It was supposed to be dramatic, but felt forced to me. I agree to some extent that misogyny was present, but I'm not sure I agree that it undercut the film. I think the film could have done without some of it (Wallace cutting the womb was also pretty pointless, other than Luv's reaction), but I don't think having the prostitutes was a particular problem, especially when Mariette emerges as a much more interesting and multi-dimensional character later.

    I think the world the movie is portraying was not unbelievable, and it's not unbelievable that women would largely be objectified in such a world... in a sense it's only an extension of our current world of advertising and general portrayal of women. It doesn't sit well, but I don't think it's supposed to well to see 80 story tall nude holograms with empty eyes. It's a reflection of an empty society, which is exactly the point. If that's what it takes to get you off, then you're missing the whole point of life. Applies as much to today as 2049 in the movie.

    So to me, disturbing, and sometimes unnecessary, but hardly undercutting the basic themes in the film.

    Bill

  4. #154
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Joi’s journey was meant to parallel K’s I think, one of the reasons for her inclusion in the film was to drive the level of artificiality down one more level and see if “real” emotions were still possible. Replicants are given false memories so they can develop real emotions on their own. Holograms are programmed to simulate emotions, developed and changing based on their situation. So is simulated love any less real than real love? (Ask a prostitute, maybe.)

    Freysa tells K that dying for a cause, dying for something greater than yourself “is the most human thing you can do.” So when Joi begs K to break the chip inside the emanator, severing her connection to the console and making it possible for her to “die” if the emanator is destroyed (as it is later by Luv) Joi is in effect sacrificing herself for something larger (in this case, freeing K from being monitored by Wallace Corp, though it’s not clear that either of them realizes that at the time).
    Last edited by rcarlberg; 10-22-2017 at 02:29 PM.

  5. #155
    Member Sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South Hadley, MA
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Joi’s journey was meant to parallel K’s I think, one of the reasons for her inclusion in the film was to drive the level of artificiality down one more level and see if “real” emotions were still possible. Replicants are given false memories so they can develop real emotions on their own. Holograms are programmed to simulate emotions, developed and changing based on their situation. So is simulated love any less real than real love? (Ask a prostitute, maybe.)

    Freysa tells K that dying for a cause, dying for something greater than yourself “is the most human thing you can do.” So when Joi begs K to break the chip inside the emanator, severing her connection to the console and making it possible for her to “die” if the emanator is destroyed (as it is later by Luv) Joi is in effect sacrificing herself for something larger (in this case, freeing K from being monitored by Wallace Corp, though it’s not clear that either of them realizes that at the time).
    Exactly, I think this is totally correct.

    Bill

  6. #156
    Estimated Prophet notallwhowander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Coastal California
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    Interesting. I don't think it was every a question of Joi being "real," but rather a question of whether her type of artificial programming might achieve some level or "genuine" emotions. I think they did a pretty good job in the film leading you to believe, or at least question, whether her feelings for K and the actions she took had some genuine qualities. Yeah, there were breadcrumbs through the film that if you looked close you might be skeptical, and the meeting with the giant hologram pretty much sealed the issue. But still, who wasn't sad when Joi got squished? And not sad like, "oooh, I just dropped my iBlah and broke it," but sad because Joi, as a personality was lost forever.

    The other issue raised by this is what about K's emotions for Joi? Were they "real?" If so, what does it say about the replicants that K was only able to achieve genuine happiness with something totally artificial? What about our emotional response as viewers? She was just a piece of technology, nothing more than an iBlah, but aren't we a little sad anyway? So I think there are interesting layers to Joi and her presence in the movie.
    I think K's emotions for Joi is are the interesting bit. With Joi, all the things she said to K were, at some level, trite and expected. (The actress did a really good job with this by the way.) It reflects a kind of mass-market "Everything you want to hear/Everything you want to see" which is at the root of the character. When K thought he was a simulant, he knew that he was artificial, she was artificial, their relationship was artificial - and the message to the audience is that K's whole existence was artificial. When he begins to question whether or not he was born, who really knows? He went off baseline. So it is a fair read to think he began to believe his own emotions were "real." So were they really "real" at that point? Was it just an indulgent fantasy, or reaching beyond artificial constraints placed on his "humanity?"

    The film makers never let the audience question Joi's artifice like they do K's. She flickers and shimmers, passes through solid objects, and gets interrupted by phone messages. The fact that she was played by a pretty and capable actress, I believe, was the film makers trying to disturb the audience by showing us just how easily manipulable we are when someone smiles and is kind, is acting like a person who cares and takes an interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    I agree with you about the choke scene, that seemed gratuitous. I'm not sure what the big stare-down was supposed to be communicating. Nothing, is my guess. It was supposed to be dramatic, but felt forced to me. I agree to some extent that misogyny was present, but I'm not sure I agree that it undercut the film. I think the film could have done without some of it (Wallace cutting the womb was also pretty pointless, other than Luv's reaction), but I don't think having the prostitutes was a particular problem, especially when Mariette emerges as a much more interesting and multi-dimensional character later.

    I think the world the movie is portraying was not unbelievable, and it's not unbelievable that women would largely be objectified in such a world... in a sense it's only an extension of our current world of advertising and general portrayal of women. It doesn't sit well, but I don't think it's supposed to well to see 80 story tall nude holograms with empty eyes. It's a reflection of an empty society, which is exactly the point. If that's what it takes to get you off, then you're missing the whole point of life. Applies as much to today as 2049 in the movie.

    So to me, disturbing, and sometimes unnecessary, but hardly undercutting the basic themes in the film.

    Bill
    I realize that at its root Blade Runner is film noir, a genre with misogyny baked into its basic tropes. So, just like when you spin a blues album you're going to hear a singer slag off an unfaithful lover, in film noir you're going to get a "femme fatal" who winds up being a lot worse than her morally ambiguous introduction leads you to believe, and you'll be guided through an underworld of gangsters, prostitutes, and corrupt politicians. However, you don't need much critical distance to see that most of the images of women in this film were gratuitous. It portrays a dark future that is darker still for women, and we, as the audience, are expected to enjoy it. The gratuitous misogyny was crafted for our consumption and enjoyment. This is what undercuts the film for me, that I was party to this kind of bullshit, again.

    I realize at this point it becomes more of a social critique, than a purely cinematic one. Still, I could have enjoyed the film more if I didn't have to witness fetishistic sexual subjection of women and gratuitous violence done against them repeated again, and again, and again.
    Last edited by notallwhowander; 10-22-2017 at 03:00 PM.
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

  7. #157
    Member Sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South Hadley, MA
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    I think K's emotions for Joi is are the interesting bit. With Joi, all the things she said to K were, at some level, trite and expected. (The actress did a really good job with this by the way.) It reflects a kind of mass-market "Everything you want to hear/Everything you want to see" which is at the root of the character. When K thought he was a simulant, he knew that he was artificial, she was artificial, their relationship was artificial - and the message to the audience is that K's whole existence was artificial. When he begins to question whether or not he was born, who really knows? He went off baseline. So it is a fair read to think he began to believe his own emotions were "real." So were they really "real" at that point? Was it just an indulgent fantasy, or reaching beyond artificial constraints placed on his "humanity?"

    The film makers never let the audience question Joi's artifice like they do K's. She flickers and shimmers, passes through solid objects, and gets interrupted by phone messages. The fact that she was played by a pretty and capable actress, I believe, was the film makers trying to disturb the audience by showing us just how easily manipulable we are when someone smiles and is kind, is acting like a person who cares and takes an interest.
    I largely agree with this, nobody thinks that Joi is real in the way K is, that is perfectly clear. I think the real question of genuineness comes in her decision to risk herself to accompany K, and prevent Wallace from using her console to get to K. I think at the time it happens, it's an open question about the motive, and that as much as we learn later it was all artifice, it still pulls at our heartstrings a bit, and makes us wonder or hope that it might be otherwise, despite the evidence to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    It portrays a dark future that is darker still for women, and we, as the audience, are expected to enjoy it. The gratuitous misogyny was crafted for our consumption and enjoyment.
    Yeah, this is where I'm not so sure. If an audeint is not creeped out but that 80 story hologram, then I think they're missing the point. Yes, the movie is entertainment, but I'm not sure that scene, or several others were put there as "titilation." They are portraying the grotesqueness of the exploitation that exists today magnified to its absurd and all too possibly logical conclusion. That is baked into the world that Blade Runner is portraying just as much as the film noir tropes, perhaps more-so. I think the message of this is, "if you don't want 80 story exploitative holograms of women in the future, then think about how you're behaving today that is leading to just that future." I think it's perfectly valid to send that message in a film, particularly one that is using the future as a mirror for reflection on the present. And while the image may have its seductive qualities, I think you're supposed to recoil from the manipulation that it represents. So in the context of an entertaining film, we have something to ponder, and don't see it as further exploitation at all.

    Bill

  8. #158
    Member rapidfirerob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    near Berkeley, Ca.
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    I largely agree with this, nobody thinks that Joi is real in the way K is, that is perfectly clear. I think the real question of genuineness comes in her decision to risk herself to accompany K, and prevent Wallace from using her console to get to K. I think at the time it happens, it's an open question about the motive, and that as much as we learn later it was all artifice, it still pulls at our heartstrings a bit, and makes us wonder or hope that it might be otherwise, despite the evidence to the contrary.

    Yeah, this is where I'm not so sure. If an audeint is not creeped out but that 80 story hologram, then I think they're missing the point. Yes, the movie is entertainment, but I'm not sure that scene, or several others were put there as "titilation." They are portraying the grotesqueness of the exploitation that exists today magnified to its absurd and all too possibly logical conclusion. That is baked into the world that Blade Runner is portraying just as much as the film noir tropes, perhaps more-so. I think the message of this is, "if you don't want 80 story exploitative holograms of women in the future, then think about how you're behaving today that is leading to just that future." I think it's perfectly valid to send that message in a film, particularly one that is using the future as a mirror for reflection on the present. And while the image may have its seductive qualities, I think you're supposed to recoil from the manipulation that it represents. So in the context of an entertaining film, we have something to ponder, and don't see it as further exploitation at all.

    Bill
    I agree with both points. I wanted to believe Joi had actual feelings for K and really sacrificed for him, even if not true. Again, no one knows what is real in many aspects of this film, which is a good thing.
    The film portrayed a very dark world indeed, and treating women as objects is certainly a big part of it. Exploitation and harassment of women is unfortunately still a big part of current society, especially by men with great power. 2049 is not encouraging this horrific behavior, but making us think long and hard about it.

  9. #159
    Tonight I watched Blade Runner and I'm disappointed. But I don't like this type of movie :/

  10. #160
    Member rapidfirerob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    near Berkeley, Ca.
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Gail View Post
    Tonight I watched Blade Runner and I'm disappointed. But I don't like this type of movie :/
    The original or BR 2049? Why did you go if this genre is not for you?

  11. #161
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Gail View Post
    Tonight I watched Blade Runner and I'm disappointed. But I don't like this type of movie :/
    At the risk of pointing out the obvious, with a name like Gail you might be female. If so, you're not in the film's prime demographic

  12. #162
    Estimated Prophet notallwhowander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Coastal California
    Posts
    798
    [QUOTE=Sputnik;744978]I largely agree with this, nobody thinks that Joi is real in the way K is, that is perfectly clear. I think the real question of genuineness comes in her decision to risk herself to accompany K, and prevent Wallace from using her console to get to K. I think at the time it happens, it's an open question about the motive, and that as much as we learn later it was all artifice, it still pulls at our heartstrings a bit, and makes us wonder or hope that it might be otherwise, despite the evidence to the contrary.[quote]

    So here's the problem: either Joi is an object, a machine, and any "love" is a canny ruse perpetuated by designers, and ultimately a self-deceit on the part of the consumer, or Joi is some kind of person, and thereby a slave. Love of a slave for her or his master is one of the most silly and naive fantasies of a owner class, again a canny ruse perpetuated by the servant class for the benefits it can often bring, and ultimately a self-deceit on the part of the owner/consumer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    Yeah, this is where I'm not so sure. If an audeint is not creeped out but that 80 story hologram, then I think they're missing the point. Yes, the movie is entertainment, but I'm not sure that scene, or several others were put there as "titilation." They are portraying the grotesqueness of the exploitation that exists today magnified to its absurd and all too possibly logical conclusion. That is baked into the world that Blade Runner is portraying just as much as the film noir tropes, perhaps more-so. I think the message of this is, "if you don't want 80 story exploitative holograms of women in the future, then think about how you're behaving today that is leading to just that future." I think it's perfectly valid to send that message in a film, particularly one that is using the future as a mirror for reflection on the present. And while the image may have its seductive qualities, I think you're supposed to recoil from the manipulation that it represents. So in the context of an entertaining film, we have something to ponder, and don't see it as further exploitation at all.
    Well I think this line of thought does two things. One, I think it adds in more of a moral than the film delivers. The thematic throughline isn't a resistance to, or a subversion of misogyny or patriarchy. (Mad Max: Fury Road actually had this as a thematic throughline, for example.) Yes, you can take this as a kind of warning, but you have to bring the moral yourself. The film doesn't provide it. Two, I think this is a kind of rhetorical dodge used by pop culture creators, and one that I have grown increasingly incredulous of. The fetishistic images of female sexual subjugation and violent victimization will turn many off, but they are also there to turn many on. They play both sides at the same time, and use one interpretation as plausible deniability for the other. Somewhere in the production of this movie, women were paid to take their clothes off in order to sexually gratify men. Period. The film is itself is evidence of this. So there is no way for me to escape the fact that this is an exploitative film, one that was a result, at least in part, of misogynistic attitudes and patriarchal biases, albeit a particularly well crafted and intelligent one.
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

  13. #163
    Member Sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South Hadley, MA
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    So here's the problem: either Joi is an object, a machine, and any "love" is a canny ruse perpetuated by designers, and ultimately a self-deceit on the part of the consumer, or Joi is some kind of person, and thereby a slave. Love of a slave for her or his master is one of the most silly and naive fantasies of a owner class, again a canny ruse perpetuated by the servant class for the benefits it can often bring, and ultimately a self-deceit on the part of the owner/consumer.
    I think what viewers were supposed to contemplate and hope for is whether Joi exceeded or evolved beyond the parameters of her programming, and thus became something other than either of those options. In the end, it's made pretty apparent that Joi was nothing more than a machine and that K was a victim of self-deceit. The real questions revolve around K's feelings, why and how he so easily and so fully fell for the ruse. It may be a comment on the replicants capacity for humanity, similar to scenes in the original novel that point to the replicants lacking, or having a "childlike" understanding of empathy.

    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    Well I think this line of thought does two things. One, I think it adds in more of a moral than the film delivers. The thematic throughline isn't a resistance to, or a subversion of misogyny or patriarchy. (Mad Max: Fury Road actually had this as a thematic throughline, for example.) Yes, you can take this as a kind of warning, but you have to bring the moral yourself. The film doesn't provide it.
    You think not? You don't think the whole devastated, joyless world created in BR and carried forward in BR49 doesn't carry an implicit moral message? You think people are suppose to say, "cool, electric owls and snakes," instead of, "wow, all the genuine owls and snakes are gone, and these replicants are all we have left"? I think that's at the heart of what the film is about, how do we sustain our genuine humanity in an artificial and inhuman world?

    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    Two, I think this is a kind of rhetorical dodge used by pop culture creators, and one that I have grown increasingly incredulous of. The fetishistic images of female sexual subjugation and violent victimization will turn many off, but they are also there to turn many on. They play both sides at the same time, and use one interpretation as plausible deniability for the other. Somewhere in the production of this movie, women were paid to take their clothes off in order to sexually gratify men. Period. The film is itself is evidence of this. So there is no way for me to escape the fact that this is an exploitative film, one that was a result, at least in part, of misogynistic attitudes and patriarchal biases, albeit a particularly well crafted and intelligent one.
    Well, I agree that the images play at both sides at the same time. I think that's artistic fair game. I think there were gratuitous and unnecessary scenes, but I think some of the images were extremely effective because of their hyper-exaggeration of trends that exist in our own culture. That's what sci-fi is about, and since exploitation and using sex to sell products exist in our culture, it's not a shocker to see it magnified to its absurd proportions in a film about a dystopian future.

    What the production team's motivations were, or what was going on behind the scenes, I'm not going to speculate on. In a sense, if we're having this conversation, the film did its job of raising these issues in a way that provokes consideration and discussion. I don't think the film has to have resistance to misogyny as a specific sub-plot in order to shed light on these kinds of issues, and I think playing with that uncomfortable line between what we find attractive and what we ought to find repulsive is artistic fair game.

    Bill

  14. #164
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    I think that's at the heart of what the film is about, how do we sustain our genuine humanity in an artificial and inhuman world?
    And do we really want to go down this road of using nonrenewable resources until the planet is all used up?

  15. #165
    Estimated Prophet notallwhowander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Coastal California
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    I think that's at the heart of what the film is about, how do we sustain our genuine humanity in an artificial and inhuman world?
    I think this is a very clear, and very succinct formulation of the main theme. My point was the main theme wasn't really about misogyny, it doesn't draw it to a point like it does with humanity and artificiality.

    I wholly agree with you that this film, like its predecessor, was made to be argued about, which I totally appreciate. I went to see it, in no small part, so I could talk about it here. Really, artists tread whatever territory pleases them. I just find the justifications of perpetuating misogyny, such as it was in this film, threadbare. Even if it cut it back a few notches, I would have had a better time at the show.
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

  16. #166
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    1,111
    Oh, c'mon! Would the drowning scene have been OK if it had been a man? She was the evil villian and her denouement was a part of the climax of the film. This is a common device used in a lot of movies. Die Hard and its ilk come to mind.

  17. #167
    Estimated Prophet notallwhowander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Coastal California
    Posts
    798
    It was the culmination of a number of things, not the choke-out scene alone. There are plenty of ways to kill a villain, they had to choose to film it that way. They way they filmed it, if the villain were a man, it would have been disturbingly homoerotic, rather than disturbingly misogynistic.
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

  18. #168
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Okay, so replicants are designed and built for hazardous off-world duty, right? So why give the males sex organs at all, or a sex drive? Females, “basic pleasure models” sure, for the human off-world workers. But male replicants? Why does K frequent prostitutes? He can’t reproduce so why give him the urge?

  19. #169
    Member wideopenears's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    976
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    And do we really want to go down this road of using nonrenewable resources until the planet is all used up?
    Well.....with the population of the planet, it is inevitable. Even if no one creates replicants.

    Re Sputnik's point about "how do we sustain our genuine humanity in an artificial and inhuman world?" I think the question is even more basic, though that is a subsequent question to the main question: "What indeed is a "genuine human being?"
    "And this is the chorus.....or perhaps it's a bridge...."

  20. #170
    Member Sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South Hadley, MA
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Okay, so replicants are designed and built for hazardous off-world duty, right? So why give the males sex organs at all, or a sex drive? Females, “basic pleasure models” sure, for the human off-world workers. But male replicants? Why does K frequent prostitutes? He can’t reproduce so why give him the urge?
    It's been a while since I watched the original move or read the book. I don't even recall the circumstances whereby replicants were given memories. My sense is that the early generations like Pris and Batty did not have memory implants. Basically, their desire to live on was an unanticipated consequence of their largely biological makeup. Did batty have sex organs? One senses he did but it's not explored.

    Rachel had memory implants, in fact it's in doubt that she knows she's a replicant. Why was Rachel given memories? I don't recall. Why was she given the ability to reproduce? Obviously this was never introduced int he original film, and it's not clearly explained in the second film. So, I don't know. maybe Tyrell had the same idea as Wallace, but it isn't clear.

    So now you get to K's generation. K obviously has implanted memories, and he knows they're not real until he begins to think one might be real. Why does he have implanted memories? What purpose do they serve? Whatever the rationale I'd guess would also explain the presence of male sex organs.

    All this really muddies the waters from the original premise that you have these biological entities who are clearly not human who have suddenly developed a consciousness and sense of self, who want to live. The more human the replicants become biologically, the more moot the question of where machine stops and human starts becomes, which is why Joi is such an interesting part of the new film.

    Quote Originally Posted by wideopenears View Post
    Re Sputnik's point about "how do we sustain our genuine humanity in an artificial and inhuman world?" I think the question is even more basic, though that is a subsequent question to the main question: "What indeed is a "genuine human being?"
    Totally true, and this is a very fundamental PhilDickian question, often explored not using human beings at all (for example the jewelry in Man in the High Castle). "Genuineness" is a question Dick explores in many of his works. Total Recall is the same, and in fact is actually a better exploration of genuineness than Blade Runner, imo. Though on balance Blade Runner is probably the better film.

    Bill

  21. #171
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Kalamazoo Michigan
    Posts
    9,574
    I have been avoiding this thread until I saw the film which I finally did this afternoon. This has been very interesting reading tonight.

  22. #172
    Estimated Prophet notallwhowander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Coastal California
    Posts
    798
    Didn't the memory maker say that memories were given to replicants so they can have appropriate emotional responses and empathy? Something like that, anyway.

    Pure speculation here: perhaps things like a sex drive are somewhat epiphenomenal, they arise as a result of complex human mimicry. In order to be "human enough" there is no way to avoid an emergent sexuality, etc.
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

  23. #173
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    In order to be "human enough" there is no way to avoid an emergent sexuality, etc.
    That doesn't explain my wife.

    Badda-bing!

  24. #174
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    16,529
    Blu-Ray coming this month, and Best Buy has some unique edition with some different format (and different packaging). Take a look - what do you think?

  25. #175
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    $35??? Yikes. At Amazon the DVD is $20 and the BRD is $25. Best Buy's website doesn't explain why theirs is worth an extra ten dollars.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •