ITT: Genuinely Kafkaesque movies

...

...

ITT: Never read Kafka

I found it more Lovecraftian tbqh

...

I'm preaty sure it's very Nabokovsky
>I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
By feigned remoteness in the windowpane.
I had a brain, five senses (one unique),
But otherwise I was a cloutish freak.
In sleeping dreams I played with other chaps
But really envied nothing--save perhaps
The miracle of a lemniscate left
Upon wet sand by nonchalantly deft
Bicycle tires.

>Kafka
literally who

...

god, you're dumb

Nabakov's Pale fire was the cells interlinked line and was Goslings idea. They even show the book in his apartment

why?

because the baseline test is pretty much an extract from nabokovsky pale fire and it's not news.
I don't remember if the book Joi wants to read is Pale Fire also.

I assume you've not read it?
the link between Pale fire and BD2049 is so flimsy it makes no sense whatsoever
my guess somebody in the production or something read the book recently and wanted to include those lines simply to make the film look deeper than what it is
not that Pale fire is -that- deep, but including anything po-mo in your film makes it immediately 100% cooler
When I saw that scene, having read the book, I immediately though 'wow, this is out of place'

not the same user, but yeah no relation that particular scene, it's only similar on the subject of the character believing what he wants to believe and looking for meaning on shit that's circunstantial or coincidence at best.

that happens in the book, not in the movie
K finds out pretty quickly he's not the 'chosen one'
There's no conspiracy theories or maniacal search of meaning in the film.

The connection is as flimsy as say K is named after Kafka's Trial.

Well... that was kinda a joke, in Lovecraftian/Kafkaesque thread to mention author whose name and work were mentioned in the movie
>I assume you've not read it?
you didn't read it

again, similar or flimsy as you say, nothing else.

I have.

Now prove you have.
The answer is novaya zemlya, what's the question?

Literally cited from it in the first post, guess to hard to remember 30 pages poem

lmao because I asked something specifically from the book that you couldn't google
if you read the book you would easily know what I'm referring to since it's the main red herring
pathetic

>it's flimsy that Joe (K) who lives in an oppressive shithole where he can be arbitrarily executed at any time is named after Josef K.

how do we stop nu/tv/?

Stop spamming this shit you fucktard.

Did Joi actually love him, or was it all fake?

Another one showing the reddit sensibility infecting our better days

>our
>our
>our
go back

>you couldn't google
Cтapaйcя лyчшe, пpeтeнциoзный фaггoт

Was Joi real, or was she a simulation?

When simulations do real things, they are no longer simulations.

-the whole premise of both movies hinges on this question

-expecting a definitive answer

that's ok, you didn't reply to my question so no point in pretending further

>нe yзнaл cтpoки, из пoэмы, пoтoмy-чтo нe читaл в opигинaлe
>пoпытaлcя бэйтить тpaнcлитoм, пpeдпoлoжив чтo я пиндoc и нe пoймy
>oбocpaлcя
pathetic

what the fuck are you talking about you subhuman
Pale fire is written in English you mongrel

>Pale fire is written in English
that exactly what I pointed out

...THEN WHY ARE YOU WRITING IN A RETARD LANGUAGE ON AN ENGLISH IMAGEBOARD, YOU PIECE OF SHIT...YOU STILL HAVEN'T REPLIED, FUCKING DIEEEEE, AAAAAAAGHHHH

Brazil maybe? I don't know.

Blade Runner 1 was way more philosophically ambivalent. The replicants condition was treated more like a microcosm of the human condition. Everybody besides Tyrell is a slave in the original movie, whereas the second movie has a #replicantlivesmatter theme.

This.
Kafkaesque has to do with overwhelming malevolent bureaucracy.

why would I respond to bait, based on the assumption that I don't understand the words

watch a real Kafkaesque movie then

because it would literally take you less time to reply to my question and irredeemably prove me wrong by showing without a shadow of a doubt that you've read the book since my question is incredibly easy to answer if you've read it but impossible to reply to if you haven't if you've not read it thus proving all of my arguments wrong and irrevocably confirm yourself as the winner of this argument proving your superiority on an anime image board and why wouldn't anybody want to do that?

Let them go user. There is no cure for these shitheads. Either the reference is in their face, then they dismiss it snobbishly, or they don't get it so the movie has no meaning

It's as if to make a reference you are not forced to rub it in the face of the viewer

>ITT: people who've not read Pale Fire make assumptions based on thin air

Geez... it almost reminds me of how Ligotti all of a sudden became talked about after True Detective S1 yet nobody actually read him

fuck nu-Sup Forums

A week ago, I check Merriam-Webster and Kafkaesque was trending, so god job on that guys.

Who the fuck cares about those obscure authors? Got to /lit/ if you want to stroke dicks with other pseuds.

The Kafka allusion is pretty surface level, since he's referred to as "K" (or "Joe") and he's locked in a byzantine world of nightmarish, convoluted rules and by-laws. Plus the awkward sex stuff with Joi.

The Pale Fire stuff isn't referring to the actual novel, but the poem in the novel called "Pale Fire", where the fictional author of said poem believes he's found evidence of a fantastic truth that brings meaning to his life, only to later discover it was all based on a misunderstanding.

It's not that complicated, but also not worthless references just for the sake of throwing out references (Kafka isn't even mentioned in the film).

At this point you straight up lying to save your skin
>The answer is novaya zemlya, what's the question?
If I answer zembra=zemlya, I would end up wrong somehow, that the point?

>Nabokov
>obscure

this is why I hate you all. You have no clue of what you're talking about yet you still feel entitled to have an opinion.
For you it doesn't matter to actually have any knowledge on the subject matter, it's enough that your new flavour-of-the-month Reddit film has 'obscure' reference and that validates your mindless enjoyment of it. No real opinion, it makes me feel good, thus it's good, look at that reference, how can it not be good? No thinking or forming of an opinion required, just drop a reference. No inventiveness of true thought required, just regurgitate what somebody else has said and the masses will eat it up.
No true effort required... maybe that is the point of post-modernism, if only the film and you faggots were self-conscious enough I might even appreciate your puny effort! But this is just po-mo for seeming deep's sake, the absolute worst of po-mo, the thing that has ruined art.
If the film was a self-conscious reflection on sequels, and the meaninglessness to create anything new... than I would really appreciate for what it is.
But it is not. And you don't get it. And you don't know, but you still feel entitled to an opinion. So fuck you.

Zembra was just a different spelling of Zemlya if I remember correctly.
I told you it's the biggest red herring of the book, and that the answer to the question is Novaya Zemlya, and I can also tell you it has to do with the two thieves in the book. At this point you should know what I'm referring to...

no it doesnt, its not in the least focussed on replicant matters and deals entirely with Ks existentialist struggle.

>muh replicant revolution
>muh uprising of the oppressed

You kidding me dog?

are you fucking retarded? How much time did the movie spend on the replicant insurgents? 5 minutes? And when K encounters them he completely ignores them and instead finally breaks free from his delusions and saves Deckard instead of killing him.

So you are going to ignore the climactic plot developments because you don't like the idea that they leaned on a stale trope at the end of the movie? How does it being shoehorned in at the end mean that it *does not exist* in the movie?

you mean the climax that had NOTHING to do with the replicant revolution?

also you seem under this weird impression that the replicants were painted in a favorable, sympathetic light? I wonder where you get that impression from after they just save K so he can kill an innocent man to protect their leader.

>climax has nothing to do with the replicant revolution
>the final scene is directly precipitated by the replicant revolutionaries
>the final scene has absolutely not relevance to the climax of the movie

Handy commentary on the whole movie desu.


I liked 2049 overall but you are a fanboy if you don't recognize that the conclusion is a shoehorned forced resolution.

ok I fucking give up, point me on "obvious" thing that I missed

>the final scene is directly precipitated by the replicant revolutionaries

NO ITS NOT! Did you watch the movie?

Nigga they salvaged K and set him on his way to save Deckard.

They send him to KILL DECKARD! Jesus christ im getting angry.

I have to agree with other user, I don't think you saw the movie.

They sent him to kill Deckard, and they made that point very clear.

How mad do you think they'll be when they realize K duped them?

nah, it's definitely more of a lynchian flick

I don't get this meme

nice... I win! No amount of googling could save you there.
It's the crown jewels which are supposedly hidden in Novaya Zemlya. For the entire book Kinbote is obsessed with them and you can follow the annotations until they randomly redirect to the first annotation for Novaya Zemlya. Which is something you would have looked up if you were reading the book (or if you were reading it correctly to follow the madness trail he goes on), his biggest delusion is that he is the king of Zembla, and that finding the jewels is the solution to confirming his delusion.

pls

main character in Blade Runner is Joe K

Probably not very. They wanted him dead because they thought it a safer solution than letting him live, but the way it played out Decker wasn't a major security risk anymore.

They would definitely rather he be dead, but like the view of replicants, it's a matter of them just not ascribing value to his life, not active malice.

>no shot of her giant pink pussy

you know I know this was made in America and not Europe?

>пpeтeнциoзный фaггoт

this is some next level shitposting

>le I'm not baiting

Because it's actually a good movie?

Wallace is bound to find out Deckard is alive sooner or later. When he never finds Deckard's body... he'll know. He might even suspect something if Stelline disappears.

Can we just talk about how good the movie was?

I like when you get to see the odd movie nowadays that you can tell everyone working on it was both talented and gave a shit. It's just hilarious that this came out around the same time as Pacific Rim 2, which falls on the other side of the spectrum, being a huge, steaming pile of shit. It's like this is the halfway point between the garbage that started a decade ago with the first Transformers movie, and now we are moving to the other side where movies are good again, and not just maybe once a year or so.

Its good, but its not that good. Villenueve is the ultimate of mediocre directors. Virtually everything he has ever done rides exactly over the line of passable.

It is the best shit he has ever done though.

the one on the right isnt supposed to be funny

...

>Villenueve is the ultimate of mediocre directors. Virtually everything he has ever done rides exactly over the line of passable.
I feel like this describes Ron Howard

Agreed, except for OG arrested development.

no one cares, this is a stupid question

OK Sup Forums, why is this funny?

kek

but seriously, did they give her a model a vagina? it's cgi right?

She thought it was real, so did goose. Does it matter that she was programmed to love him?, does it matter that Goose bought her to feel loved?

Deckard would say no. Wallace would say yes, and that both of them are just following his design with no autonomy.

Are you a Deckard or a Wallace?

BR2049 might as well be cyberpunk version of The Trial.

PLEASE

The cinematography of this films is insanely good, most of the scenes were like paintings and were composed beautifully.

That remaining ambiguous is one of the points of the film.

references don't add meaning, its up to the writer themselves to give it meaning

Stop with this elitist attitude you don't know anything about storytelling and the way you parade story is toxic and close minded

>references don't add meaning, its up to the writer themselves to give it meaning
But there is a difference between just throwing a reference to show that the writer has read the book or tying the similar themes and characters together in a meaningful connection through references, and BR2049 is the latter.

Joi didn't have true desires or even a personality. She was just a projection (literally) of what K wanted, someone who loved him.
>"I love you"
>Everything you want to hear

yes there is a difference no one is questioning that, neither one still doesn't add meaning.

Star Wars doesn't have more meaning just because the plot is inspired by the heroe's journey archetype.

A reference just says "hey look this is like this". The thing already had meaning or it didn't and the reference doesn't affect that.

>Star Wars doesn't have more meaning just because the plot is inspired by the heroe's journey archetype.
What? Do you even know what a reference? An archetype or a trope is not and literally cannot be a reference.

>main character in br49 is called joseph K

I actually watched that movie (speaking Romanian myself). Never thought I'd see someone else mention it.

>f the book Joi wants to read is Pale Fire also.
It is

We need a better and complete version with sound. Ho my lord i can not wait

Gets mentioned on here a lot. You know where one could find a version with good English subs?