-
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
and we Will never get the sequelExactly. I mean, it could be, and I'll need to watch the film again to be certain of my own interpretation, but those scenes feel utterly pointless if they're not supposed to allude to this.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
I'm not arguing that it is definitively her programming. But it is open ended. K asking Deckard if his dog is real is a direct analog to the relationship with him and JOI. Deckard responds with "I don't know, why don't you ask him?" That reflects Deckard's views on humanity and "real" and "fake" feelings. He doesn't give a shit because it doesn't matter. The dog gives him companionship so does it matter if the dog is programmed to do that or not? Definitively saying that her emotions are stirred from a newly found soul she has evolved through her interactions with K also kills a lot of discussion around her character.
Warm Machine
Member
The black eyes in the hologram are the visual clue to the humanity that JOI has been given via her relationship with K. The whole show, like Blade Runner before it, uses eyes as a metaphor.
Slackbladder
Member
Interesting. I'm sure there are other little nods and winks to other things too.
I liked this film a lot. Saw it at an IMAX (in 3D which was okay though I'm no fan of 3D) and it was incredible looking and sounding. I didn't feel like I was being treated like an idiot. At no point did I think 'What's the fuck is this shit?' or 'Oh come on'. That said there are flaws but they're mainly due to reliance on fairly standard movie tropes - not entirely happy with Luv walkng into an LAPD precinct, murdering a Police Officer and (presumably) walking out. Fighting her way out, sure. However I guess she has a lot of leverage with being Wallace's right hand. K is beaten in Las Vegas but left alive for some reason. And Luv could have actually killed K but instead gloats and walks off (typical bad guy/girl hubris) allowing K to surprise her and leading to a mildly unsatisfying denouement.
But generally I was very engrossed and loved every minute of it. it is nice to watch a film that doesn't insult your intelligence and assumes the audience aren't morons.
Didn't feel long at all and I appreciated the more languid pace compared to most modern films with edit after edit every five seconds. It's one of the few films I've seen recently where I want to watch it again. Bravo Denis Villeneuve.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
In BR1, why is Holden doing a VK test on Leon? Either he already knows he's on the run since they got their files, in which case he could just shoot him, or they don't know yet they're on the run and he's just investigating.
The later case is more likely; the replicants could have escaped to anywhere on Earth, and whoever had custody of them might not want to tell anyone. The LAPD pieces what happened as a result of Holden getting shot. Fine.
But then why is Deckard asked to check if the VK works on Nexus 6 models by visiting Tyrell corp? Leon just shot Holden, do they really expect Deckard will sit down and VK-test them? And clearly, he doesn't need to, he never uses the VK again, and they already know who each of them are. Deckard shoots them on sight. No idea what the heck he was trying to do with Zhora, but it sure didn't sound like he was going to VK-test her.
I bet that's why they added Wallace's comment about "maybe it was ordained for you to meet Rachel", an attempt to retroactively justify why Deckard would go to Tyrell corp, while at the same time trying to explain why would Tyrell give Rachel the ability to give birth if he's not going to have someone impregnate her and just leave it up to chance.
Also, people keep saying K rejected the rebels' orders to kill Deckard. But they sure didn't look interested in killing him before he got captured, they had years to look for him, knew him, interacted with him, but it's only once he's captured that they ask K to kill him, because he could end up leading Wallace to his daughter. But it doesn't make sense since he has no idea where she is. If the rebels thought he did know where she was, then they would have thought the same before he was captured, and would have been a threat for years already.
Also, clearly some of the rebels know where she is, at least the one-eye lady, but most likely others too, yet they're not a problem, presumably because they haven't been captured. So Deckard has to be killed only because he has been captured, and only because the rebels think he knows where she is, so when K actually manages to save Deckard, he's no longer captured, in fact he's presumed dead, so there's no reason for the rebels to still want him dead if they didn't want him or anyone else who wasn't captured before dead. Plus he met his daughter, would they really still want K to kill him?
There's really no indication he isn't helping Deckard "for the rebels", since it makes no sense for them to still want him dead, and we hear the one-eye lady's "Dying for a cause is the most human thing one can do." in his head at the end. K has effectively joined the rebellion, died for their cause, he just went the extra mile and saved Deckard instead of taking the easier route of just blowing up the craft that had him and Luv in it.
The later case is more likely; the replicants could have escaped to anywhere on Earth, and whoever had custody of them might not want to tell anyone. The LAPD pieces what happened as a result of Holden getting shot. Fine.
But then why is Deckard asked to check if the VK works on Nexus 6 models by visiting Tyrell corp? Leon just shot Holden, do they really expect Deckard will sit down and VK-test them? And clearly, he doesn't need to, he never uses the VK again, and they already know who each of them are. Deckard shoots them on sight. No idea what the heck he was trying to do with Zhora, but it sure didn't sound like he was going to VK-test her.
I bet that's why they added Wallace's comment about "maybe it was ordained for you to meet Rachel", an attempt to retroactively justify why Deckard would go to Tyrell corp, while at the same time trying to explain why would Tyrell give Rachel the ability to give birth if he's not going to have someone impregnate her and just leave it up to chance.
Also, people keep saying K rejected the rebels' orders to kill Deckard. But they sure didn't look interested in killing him before he got captured, they had years to look for him, knew him, interacted with him, but it's only once he's captured that they ask K to kill him, because he could end up leading Wallace to his daughter. But it doesn't make sense since he has no idea where she is. If the rebels thought he did know where she was, then they would have thought the same before he was captured, and would have been a threat for years already.
Also, clearly some of the rebels know where she is, at least the one-eye lady, but most likely others too, yet they're not a problem, presumably because they haven't been captured. So Deckard has to be killed only because he has been captured, and only because the rebels think he knows where she is, so when K actually manages to save Deckard, he's no longer captured, in fact he's presumed dead, so there's no reason for the rebels to still want him dead if they didn't want him or anyone else who wasn't captured before dead. Plus he met his daughter, would they really still want K to kill him?
There's really no indication he isn't helping Deckard "for the rebels", since it makes no sense for them to still want him dead, and we hear the one-eye lady's "Dying for a cause is the most human thing one can do." in his head at the end. K has effectively joined the rebellion, died for their cause, he just went the extra mile and saved Deckard instead of taking the easier route of just blowing up the craft that had him and Luv in it.
Just saw it and will need to see it a second time to decide whether I liked it or not. My main issue with it is how quite a few scenes were really drawn out. There was also some serious overindulgence in pacing for dramatic/visual effect that I felt hurt the movie. And thats coming from someone who thought it was gorgeous. At this point I think the movie would be much better if they cut about 30 minutes from it.
UnemployedVillain
Member
And he's pretty much the same character throughout
Slackbladder
Member
I wasn't really happy with that though. Luv was designed to kill so why doesn't she kill when it's really important to do so? You can gloat THEN kill someone. It just struck me as a fairly typical 'oh the good guy is losing...oh, no they've won' which we've seen many, many times before in films. I would have preferred a more original take myself.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
I feel like the movie is saying that the "soul" is an arbitrary made up line drawn by humans to put themselves above replicants who are stronger and faster than they are. It doesn't matter that replicants are better versions of humans. We have souls, therefore we have the right to enslave replicants who don't have souls. This "Soul" concept is nothing more than manifest destiny. We shouldn't be rooting for K or JOI to obtain or grow a "soul" in them to validate the legitimacy of their relationship and feelings about themselves and each other. To do so is to play into this idea that there is this ambiguous and ill-defined line that puts humans above replicants.
Heckler456
Banned
Another cool little tidbit I just learned: K's name is probably a reference to Kafka's "The Trial". In it, the protagonist is always referred to as K as well, while is full name is Josef K. The book's K thinks he's the protagonist of his story, while in actual fact, he's only a bit-player in a much larger story. Much like the K in Blade Runner.
Warm Machine
Member
K Dick is where the name comes from.
Source? Is Dick a reference/parallel to Deckard's first name?
Atraveller
Banned
I see your point of view, "realness" is overrated. Distinguishing the indistinguishable is pointless. You were right, there was no definitive answer, but here's why I prefer Zakalwe's interpretation: In my opinion, there's an element that sets 2049 apart from the original, free will. And it was interesting to see what characters did with their predetermined parameters, K, Joi, and even Luv.
Warm Machine
Member
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
I loved how joi was portrayed in the first rooftop scene in the rain. And even before then when she emulated interacting with physical things like the book.
They way Gosling was touching her projection and it was kinda working like 80%. Her emulating the rain drops. Might be my favorite part of the film.
They way Gosling was touching her projection and it was kinda working like 80%. Her emulating the rain drops. Might be my favorite part of the film.
Honestly, their interactions were the best part. When Joi gets the hooker and they do that weird body mimic thing, that was really cool and something that seemed plausible. It reminded me of the movie Her, but I thought the execution was way better in this.
And their interactions give the best evidence of the replicants humanity. It was great.
2nd to that, I really enjoyed Luv. She had a certain cold menace, but it also seemed like she was fighting between her humanity and her programming. She was fun to watch.
I really liked Leto too, he was great. I wish he had more screen time.
It is a slow burn, but I think it is the perfect sequel to Bladerunner, which itself was a fairly slow burn. The atmosphere was spot on, the tone, the themes. I don't think you could make a better sequel considering just what the expectations were. Villeneuve the god, he does it again.
disappeared
Banned
Just saw it.
Unreal. Just a fucking fantastic movie. I honestly wish it was actually longer. I could have watched it for like four or five hours.
Unreal. Just a fucking fantastic movie. I honestly wish it was actually longer. I could have watched it for like four or five hours.
Freewheelin'
Member
It's certainly what it feels like.
Either Deckard is a replicant and it comes across as his own clumsy attempt at love (and I don't think the rest of the film supports him being a replicant besides that; it takes 2049 to suggest a reason for it to make sense to me), or he's a human and it absolutely feels like rape.
The way he pushes her against the wall, tells her what to say... it really feels like he's almost talking to a child/teen not well versed in sexual experiences.
same
What an amazing film. When it finished, it felt like some sort of big event. Seeing it on the big screen is a must. Beautifully shot to say the least.
The film relied a lot on dialogue, which I really enjoyed. One of my favorite scenes was when K visited the Wallace Headquarters and was talking to the analyzer/receptionist. The lighting during that part, like the rest of the film, created such an atmosphere. The world of Blade Runner is very bleak and isolated, so having those two characters in a gigantic room conversing had that same effect.
The world the movie created was superbly done. The sound, score, and CGI were top notch. I loved the pacing, though I can certainly see why people would think some parts lingered on too much.
I think the story fell short in some areas, but was solid enough to carry the film. I wasn't too sold on the Replicant uprising, but aside from a few tropes here and there, it was well executed. Great characters combined with great performances. K's arc was satisfying, and I like how some things were left up to interpretation.
I'll be buying it when it comes out. I'll have to pick a few scene I like because I want to print them out and frame them
The film relied a lot on dialogue, which I really enjoyed. One of my favorite scenes was when K visited the Wallace Headquarters and was talking to the analyzer/receptionist. The lighting during that part, like the rest of the film, created such an atmosphere. The world of Blade Runner is very bleak and isolated, so having those two characters in a gigantic room conversing had that same effect.
The world the movie created was superbly done. The sound, score, and CGI were top notch. I loved the pacing, though I can certainly see why people would think some parts lingered on too much.
I think the story fell short in some areas, but was solid enough to carry the film. I wasn't too sold on the Replicant uprising, but aside from a few tropes here and there, it was well executed. Great characters combined with great performances. K's arc was satisfying, and I like how some things were left up to interpretation.
I'll be buying it when it comes out. I'll have to pick a few scene I like because I want to print them out and frame them
UnemployedVillain
Member
Or he's a human and he sees her as nothing, but an object, considering his primary interactions with her had him saying "it" and doesn't think he's doing anything wrong in particular. Deckard is meant to be a sociopath. The entire point of the movie is contrasting his behavior, despite being human, to the replicants, who seem to show a range of human emotions
vasametropolis
Member
My only nitpick is that the movie felt like it ended suddenly.. yet it was 2h43m :/
Maybe it doesn't feel like that after another viewing.
There was something about the bait and switch with K so close to the end that felt like the movie could have become another hour long and I would have kept watching.
It's minor for me and I like how it ended it just seemed like it would have gone on for longer. It seemed like there were additional threads still open.
Maybe it doesn't feel like that after another viewing.
There was something about the bait and switch with K so close to the end that felt like the movie could have become another hour long and I would have kept watching.
It's minor for me and I like how it ended it just seemed like it would have gone on for longer. It seemed like there were additional threads still open.
I'm over here waiting for the blu-ray 4 hour director's cut
Saw it again and my god the fight between K and Luv at the end was just as intense. I'd go as far to say it's one of my favourite ending fight scenes for Hoek's performance alone. The underwater CU on her face where she's gritting her teeth and giving K a death stare is just incredible.
I also realised that JOI lit K's cigarette at the start, completely forgot about that until I saw it today.
edit: Sea Wall's intro isn't particularly remarkable but the harmonies that make up the rest of the track are gorgeous. If there's one thing I'll commend the score for it's giving water real character. I wish Wallace's theme had more comprehensible singing though, or at least more melodic.
I also realised that JOI lit K's cigarette at the start, completely forgot about that until I saw it today.
edit: Sea Wall's intro isn't particularly remarkable but the harmonies that make up the rest of the track are gorgeous. If there's one thing I'll commend the score for it's giving water real character. I wish Wallace's theme had more comprehensible singing though, or at least more melodic.
This is where I'm at too. Seeing it again just reaffirmed how I already felt the first time. I understand the wider thematic purpose and the intent behind their design, it just didn't come across in a compelling way the rest of the film managed to do.
Kadayi
Banned
Neat. I hadn't really clicked with the JOI observation, but it's a good one.
I don't think she was specifically designed to kill, she was just prepared to, to get the job done. When we first meet her she's in the middle of a sales meeting after all. She's just Wallaces right hand.
Freewheelin'
Member
But then his behaviour in that scene feels entirely at odds with the first half of the film. He's cynical and dryly funny early on and then when he kills Zhora seems totally despondent (and then you know, you start to ask 'if he's killing something that bleeds and looks like him and fears for his life, is he human after all' etc etc).
And then he goes home and forces himself on Rachael and then they're in love. It's out of character with how Deckard is portrayed before that; this sociopathic argument only seems to come after the fact.
I think if there was more of a bridge between them having sex and running away together in love I'd buy it a tad more; like I said, BR2049 recontexualises that scene for me in a way that makes sense.
Shogmaster
Member
On second viewing, I'm convinced of the following:
1. Deckard is a replicant. And both Bryant and Gaff knew this. Deckard has been aware of his nature since 2019 incident.
2. Wallace is a replicant. Probably a Class A Nexus 6 who figured out how to extend his life, which had a side effect of physical deterioration.
3. Lieutenant Joshi and Luv have known each other for a long time. Luv has some age on her (meaning she's been in services since before 2036). And her age and unrestricted access to her emotions (unlike K who has to regularly submit to test that keeps him at his emotional baseline) has led to her psychosis.
1. Deckard is a replicant. And both Bryant and Gaff knew this. Deckard has been aware of his nature since 2019 incident.
2. Wallace is a replicant. Probably a Class A Nexus 6 who figured out how to extend his life, which had a side effect of physical deterioration.
3. Lieutenant Joshi and Luv have known each other for a long time. Luv has some age on her (meaning she's been in services since before 2036). And her age and unrestricted access to her emotions (unlike K who has to regularly submit to test that keeps him at his emotional baseline) has led to her psychosis.
But she feels nothing. She mimics humanity, but she is not human.
That's why the "Joe" line at the end is devastating. All that time pumped into a relationship that only existed to stroke his own ego, instead of one with a willing partner.
This is probably the one aspect of the film that has me feeling torn the most. My second viewing definitely favoured the more depressing take of things, but I still can't shake the notion that K still valued the time he spent. "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger".
In any case, this scene is easily my favourite LA-city moment not only for its role in the wider narrative. I think it's because the use of rain and lighting evoked the original the most.
Curious Puppy
Banned
Dolby Cinema is too fucking loud. When the speakers are rattling anyone should realize the levels are fucked.
ResidentDante
Member
Just saw it yesterday, what a beautiful movie. Those hours just blew past. The visual imagery was just outstanding!
In a previous comment, I posted a still of the beehive scene where you can see the feeders.
Deckard was tacking care of the bees.
Then why does she act jealous towards the prostitute when K doesn't even see her at the moment?
Shogmaster
Member
Or sacrifice herself to save K? If she didn't materialize when she did, Luv wouldn't be reminded of her being there to crush the emitnater.
Is it impossible to mimic jealousy? I don't think people are saying Joi is putting on a performance for K but that her very being is meant to fulfill a specific objective and everything we see her do is in someway in fulfillment of that. That doesn't give her the same agency as a human. I think Joi swapping between different outfits in her introductory scene in an attempt to gauge and appeal to K's mood and desire is very telling.
I wonder what people here make of David from AI.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
I like the Kafka reference (Joe K). Put a smile on my wizened face.
While I think thats a perfectly valid response, I dont think its quite as cut and dry as that.
Isnt the point of her character - most of the characters, in fact - to question what it means to be human? While Jerk-Off Instructions limitations are constantly tested (freezing in the rain, the holy fuck did I take mushrooms sex scene, the hologram at the end questioning the programming, etc.), they share arguably the most meaningful and fulfilling relationship in the film.
Can you be sure she feels any less than, say, Wallace? If so, what does that say about humanity as a whole? Trite as it is to point out, were all programmed to respond to stimulus too.
While I think thats a perfectly valid response, I dont think its quite as cut and dry as that.
Isnt the point of her character - most of the characters, in fact - to question what it means to be human? While Jerk-Off Instructions limitations are constantly tested (freezing in the rain, the holy fuck did I take mushrooms sex scene, the hologram at the end questioning the programming, etc.), they share arguably the most meaningful and fulfilling relationship in the film.
Can you be sure she feels any less than, say, Wallace? If so, what does that say about humanity as a whole? Trite as it is to point out, were all programmed to respond to stimulus too.
Mine was perfect, but it's a newer AMC branded Dolby Cinema. The seats shaking any time you were in a spinner were fantastic. It made the ending action sequence one of the most exhilarating I've experienced in a theater.
Adry9
Member
Because trying to appeal to you partner is such an inhuman thing, right?
I think it's clear she was fully conscious and going through the same range of emotions any human in love would go through. Question is whether they were genuine from her own AI development or just planted.
Curious Puppy
Banned
The ending sequence was phenomenal in my theater too but for certain music tracks like the opening, the speakers just rattled like crazy and ruined actually being able to hear it.
But yeah the ending with all of the water and the incredible music is definitely my favorite part of the movie after seeing it twice. Just overwhelming and mesmerizing all at once.
You think her behavior in that scene was in line with how people behave when their partner arrives back from home work? Did you not think there was an element of artifice to the whole scene? In many ways, it was evoking the 1950's era with the music, Joi's initial banter and outfit.
I think her emotions were born from her own AI development but were also planted. The two are not mutually exclusive.
tonysidaway
Member
The hijacked shuttle was found abandoned off the coast, and Dave Holden decided to test the recent intake of employees at Tyrell on the assumption that the decision of the androids to risk the return to earth had something to do with Tyrell. This is explained in the dialogue.
It's supposed to be an information gathering visit on the new Nexus-6 model, though it turns out differently because of Rachael.
The test is slow and doesn't really work as a plot device as well in film as it does in the novel. Fancher in his screenplay instead has Rick throw Zhora off-guard by posing as a sex pest just wanting to get into her dressing room. At this point he has no idea where Leon, Pris and Roy are so he's still trying to gather information. He kills her when she displays superhuman strength and combat training and runs. Leon attacks Rick and is killed by Rachael. Pris attacks Rick when cornered in the Bradbury Building, and is shot by Rick. Roy plays cat and mouse with Rick and, after delivering his speech on the roof, allows himself to die.
Freysa (with one eye) tells Joe he must kill Rick so Wallace can't get to him and thence to Freysa.
Atraveller
Banned
All the complaints about loud sound systems... One would think cinemas had learned from Interstellar or Dunkirk, and adjust volume after a test screen.
Annoying Old Party Man
Member
This relationship was the most interesting for me in the movie as well. A) Because now I'm really in love with Ana de Armas and I want to marry her and B) Because it felt like these two A.I.'s, one physical and one non-physical, shared the most potent relationship in the movie.
And it made you think - at such a high level of intelligence, where does the line blur.
hendersonhank
Member
Why not? She's not programmed with self-preservation. She's programmed to play the perfect girlfriend.
1 & 2 : Why do you say that Bryant and Gaff knew? How is he a replicant ? I mean if he is, he is Nexus 6, but he doesn't have the physical deterioration of what Wallace have? You contradict yourself.
3. I have to watch the movie a second time to see if there are hint of that.
I dont remember what exactly Gaff said to K, but I do remember noticing that Gaff has several lines of dialogue that could be read as him hinting that Deckard is a replicant. If I recall correctly there were three lines specifically, but I dont remember what the first one was about. The second line, I think, was a remark, relating to the first line, that there was something about/in Deckards eyes. This could be seen as a reference to how replicant eyes seem to reflect light in the way that they do in the first Blade Runner. The third line was about Deckard being retired, with retired being a word that is specifically used for replicants who have been killed. Of course, this could also be intentional misdirection on Gaffs part. Ill have to pay attention next time Im seeing this to make sure Im not just imagining things.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll