Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a writer, you can choose to convey character and plot points in many different ways. You don’t have to use things that are considered “hip” at the time of writing. It seems to me that Johnson’s foremost concern was having all those elements in the film, after which he reverse engineered some of the character and plot points you’re talking about.
You don't have to have anything in a movie. The question isn't "why include hip things", the question is "were those hip things just tacked in". They weren't. They served a purpose. You could replace them with some generic thing, I suppose. But how would that make the movie better? Meanwhile, if you eliminate them, the story gets worse. Unlike most product placements, which are at best removable background and at wor…
If you showed the NYC skyline in 2003, you’d have to go out of your way to show the Twin Towers. Edward Norton saying how “pando” changed things, on the other hand, is going out of your way in the opposite direction.
I feel like the early-00s equivalent of this movie would be the CGI dancing baby on Ally McBeal (“justified” by the character’s ticking biological clock), except almost every scene would have one such meme or topical reference.