Support NeoGAF

[gustave154]

I like how they managed to fit in a tragic love story in the movie. Just makes the movie even more emotional

 

[kirblar]

Joi may be shackled by scripts, she may come prepped with canned responses, but as the film makes it very clear, these AI units are designed to react and adapt to /you/. "More human than Human" was Tyrell Corp's motto, and Wallace has taken that as his obsession.

If you and I are human despite the fact our experiences have shaped us uncontrollably in many ways, then who are we to claim that Joi is less than us?

Joi calling K Joe may be part of the base programming, I don't think the fact the advert calls him the same tells us Joi was nothing but a script. The advert looked past K with dead eyes, it acted far more sexually explicitly than Joi. It didn't speak to him with the same personality, not even close.

Every Joi starts from the same script, but every Joi has their own experiences and reactions and developments. I think to call her anything less than 'human' is to miss the point of both films entirely.

But JOI, to the end, never becomes her own person. All she does is in service of K's desires.

She calls the girl to their house that she notices K is interested in.
She offers to move to the device, putting herself at risk.
She backs off of things when K pushes back against them.

The whole point of JOI and the ad at the end is that K/JOI is not a real relationship, contrasted to Rachel/Deckard. Rachel/Deckard both sacrifice immensely, first to be together, and then to protect their child. In the K/JOI relationship, all of the sacrifice is on JOI's end. Because she has no desires of her own. And that ultimately makes it hollow, and is why K is willing to sacrifice himself to help Deckard meet his daughter. In a world full of fake, artificial things, he values the actual human connection.

 

[Aurongel]

My god, the opening hard cut from the title card to the eye opening in sync with the music gave me massive goosebumps. Even knowing that the film was most likely going to open with that shot (it was in the trailers), the execution of it and just how confident the photography was elevated the whole thing for me.

The final shot is a fantastically simple summation of every theme the film setup. Deckard's hand touching the glass and recognizing how meaningless their physical and philosophical walls are. It's a neat parallel that both him and K have essentially the same arc but with inverted starting points. Humans both organic and artificial come to recognize how little the divide between them actually matters. And now they have a human born from both biological and artificial components which further cements that the divide between the two is now null on even the physical level.

 

[Zakalwe]

But JOI, to the end, never becomes her own person. All she does is in service of K's desires.

She calls the girl to their house that she notices K is interested in.
She offers to move to the device, putting herself at risk.
She backs off of things when K pushes back against them.

The whole point of JOI and the ad at the end is that K/JOI is not a real relationship, contrasted to Rachel/Deckard. Rachel/Deckard both sacrifice immensely, first to be together, and then to protect their child. In the K/JOI relationship, all of the sacrifice is on JOI's end. Because she has no desires of her own. And that ultimately makes it hollow, and is why K is willing to sacrifice himself to help Deckard meet his daughter. In a world full of fake, artificial things, he values the actual human connection.

These things could equally be seen as self-sacrifice in the name of the person she loves. And, in fact, I think if we view Joi through the lens of BR's consistent themes of what it means to be human, Joi being 'real' is the only conclusion that makes sense.

K treats Joi with nothing but affection and respect, and she seems to be utterly in love with him. This is a very real human reaction, she may seem subservient, she may be shackled, but I think she's ultimately in love and happy just to be with K. I also think she's no different from many real people I know and have known in these ways.

I appreciate why you interpret it this way, and much like the debate surrounding Deckard's humanity I think the amount of ambiguity they treat it with is incredibly intelligent, but I also think if we view these things as a whole certain aspects become apparent.

To me, Joi is the center of this film. Not so much her character but what she represents, a facsimile of life that has been left to develop on its own accord. And as it can be argued many humans run on scripts in very similar ways (environmental pressure, external experiences being huge shaping factors that many of us will never escape), if we call Joi less than human then we're saying the same about ourselves.

 

[AuthenticM]

I'm seeing it again today.

 

[Zakalwe]

I'm seeing it again today.

Envy is real. This film is actually haunting me now.

 

[tonysidaway]

Here's a fairly comprehensive review in Vox by Alissa Wilkinson. She covers some of Niander Wallace's biblical imagery.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...2049-review-bible-gosling-villeneuve-spoilers

 

[shintoki]

I'm seeing it again today.

Going this weekend again. It has my sword.

 

[KOHIPEET]

Envy is real. This film is actually haunting me now.

Same here. Thankfuly I'm going to see it again this weekend with my gf.

 

[kirblar]

These things could equally be seen as self-sacrifice in the name of the person she loves. And, in fact, I think if we view Joi through the lens of BR's consistent themes of what it means to be human, Joi being 'real' is the only conclusion that makes sense.

K treats Joi with nothing but affection and respect, and she seems to be utterly in love with him. This is a very real human reaction, she may seem subservient, she may be shackled, but I think she's ultimately in love and happy just to be with K. I also think she's no different from many real people I know and have known in these ways.

I appreciate why you interpret it this way, and much like the debate surrounding Deckard's humanity I think the amount of ambiguity they treat it with is incredibly intelligent, but I also think if we view these things as a whole certain aspects become apparent.

To me, Joi is the center of this film. Not so much her character but what she represents, a facsimile of life that has been left to develop on its own accord. And as it can be argued many humans run on scripts in very similar ways (environmental pressure, external experiences being huge shaping factors that many of us will never escape), if we call Joi less than human then we're saying the same about ourselves.

JOI is an object. An app on your phone. She is literally interrupted by a phone call.

People sacrifice for partners and for their children. But at no point does K sacrifice for JOI. Yes, he does get things out of the relationship, but by the end of the movie, it's clear that they're hollow. JOI is an object, his property. Even if she was real, you cannot have a real relationship with someone in that position, any more than a slave their master, or a student their teacher.

 

[StoOgE]

This is expertly shot, well acted and a technical achivement.

I didn't like the movie very much. Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all time. I don't *hate* this movie. I just don't think this movie had any interesting things to say about anything and seemed far more concerned about plot and less about emotional response or having something to *say*.

It just sort of retreaded ground covered in the fist movie (what is love, what does it mean to be alive, what are emotions, etc) in less interesting ways and frankly the big arch plot point about a "birth" fell super flat with me and made the story to "big" instead of a smaller story that the first one had (there be baddies here, go get em).

Like I said, I don't hate it. I don't think it is a bad movie. I think from a technical standpoint everything is great. They get the feeling of the world perfect. I loved being in the world again. The acting was phenomenal all around.

I just don't think this is a movie that needed to happen or had much to say other than "Hey, remember the themes of the first movie. I'm going to hit you over the head with them now"

 

[tonysidaway]

The final shot is a fantastically simple summation of every theme the film setup. Deckard's hand touching the glass and recognizing how meaningless their physical and philosophical walls are. It's a neat parallel that both him and K have essentially the same arc but with inverted starting points. Humans both organic and artificial come to recognize how little the divide between them actually matters. And now they have a human born from both biological and artificial components which further cements that the divide between the two is now null on even the physical level.

Thank you. I hadn't really thought about the significance of the glass barrier at the end.

 

[Zakalwe]

JOI is an object. An app on your phone. She is literally interrupted by a phone call.

People sacrifice for partners and for their children. But at no point does K sacrifice for JOI. Yes, he does get things out of the relationship, but by the end of the movie, it's clear that they're hollow. JOI is an object, his property. Even if she was real, you cannot have a real relationship with someone in that position, any more than a slave their master, or a student their teacher.

And the very fact that she is shackled to these things de-humanise her, make it okay for the owners to use her as a product, as a replacement for real connection, but the fact that she develops life despite these things is very reminiscent of actual human interactions.

And I think she scarified a lot. She was very clearly upset after the sync'd sex, she threw the replicate out almost in disgust. She wanted to give K a physical connection and be a part of that, but experienced jealousy and self-loathing after.

She also very clearly sacrificed her safety (breaking the antenna) to be with K.

All the things you describe as points against her cement the idea that she's core to the film in a different way, that Joi more than anyone else makes us question what it means to be human.

I appreciate your interpretation, but for me it doesn't fit.

 

[JB1981]

My god, the opening hard cut from the title card to the eye opening in sync with the music gave me massive goosebumps. Even knowing that the film was most likely going to open with that shot (it was in the trailers), the execution of it and just how confident the photography was elevated the whole thing for me.

The final shot is a fantastically simple summation of every theme the film setup. Deckard's hand touching the glass and recognizing how meaningless their physical and philosophical walls are. It's a neat parallel that both him and K have essentially the same arc but with inverted starting points. Humans both organic and artificial come to recognize how little the divide between them actually matters. And now they have a human born from both biological and artificial components which further cements that the divide between the two is now null on even the physical level.

This is a fantastic post

 

[AuthenticM]

Envy is real. This film is actually haunting me now.

Going this weekend again. It has my sword.

Same here. Thankfuly I'm going to see it again this weekend with my gf.

There should be the poster of 2049 next to the definition of the portuguese word saudade.

 

[Zakalwe]

There should be the poster of 2049 next to the definition of the portuguese word saudade.

All the best stories leave a void behind.

 

[Heckler456]

By the way, just to make sure: Stelline doesn't actually have an auto-immune disease, right? That's all just a ruse so as to keep people from examining her?

 

[Razorback]

By the way, just to make sure: Stelline doesn't actually have an auto-immune disease, right? That's all just a ruse so as to keep people from examining her?

I don't think there's anything in the movie that could imply that is the case.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

By the way, just to make sure: Stelline doesn't actually have an auto-immune disease, right? That's all just a ruse so as to keep people from examining her?

That's left unclear. It could go either way: The first natural-born replicant being sickly would present an interesting twist to the whole "we are superior to humans"/chosen one narrative. But, the "her sickness was a ploy" thing works within the framework of the story, too.

 

[kirblar]

By the way, just to make sure: Stelline doesn't actually have an auto-immune disease, right? That's all just a ruse so as to keep people from examining her?

Both explanations are plausible. Which is great.

 

[Zakalwe]

I think the disease being real would be too convenient for the plot. I also think her being a working, healthy hybrid is why she's such a fire for the revolution. Holding up a diseased offspring wouldn't lend them nearly the same weight.

And as they state they're going to reveal her to spark the revolution, I think it's almost certain the disease was part of the ruse.

"Look at this healthy hybrid" has a much more appealing ring than "Replicants and Humans can have children, but our only example doesn't really make us want to try again...".

Of course, it can work the other way as the film always plays quite ambiguous with these things, but like Joi being real I think certain interpretations are simply neater.

 

[StoOgE]

Both explanations are plausible. Which is great.

Is it? Like, what does her being sick or not being sick actually say? This movie is obsessed with layers and layers of questions and motivations, but none of them seem to point to anything that has much to say.

The only really interesting questions are around choice and if it exists or if we are all programmed.. But the first movie already did that with the open-ended question of who deckard was and what Rachel's implanted memories meant to who she ultimately was as a being. Was she the bundle of memories or something more? Did Deckard hunt skin jobs because he was told to, and never question that he himself may be one? Or that they may be just as real as he is? This movie basically has Joi coming up with the name Joe going for it. And maybe some questions on if replicants were making choices or the implanted memories of the hybrid child were pushing them towards a revolution. But these are decidedly less interesting questions than the first movie asked.

The first movie left us with the following questions.

1) Is Deckard a Replicant. - This is interesting because it makes us question the nature of existence and question our own motivations in life. What would it mean if he was? Does it change anything? What does that say about blindly following orders if everything is a lie. He may have been killing his own kind the whole time because he never questioned it.

2) Is Rachel going to die? - We don't know if she is a special replicant or not. Deckard could be throwing everything away for a woman he loves who has days or months left to live. As Olmos character says - everything will eventually die. Which ties back into the themes from Roy and wanting longer life, but in the end coming to the realization that he had lived and that was enough.

This movie has nothing interesting to say other than to retread the themes of the first movie which are the nature of life, why (or if) we make choices at all, and what does our mortality mean?

On top of that, this movie seems to clod stomp all over the interesting questions left at the end of the first movie and answer them in unsatisfying ways so they can thread a narrative that much less subtly or interestingly asks the same questions as the first one.

 

[Zakalwe]

Is it? Like, what does her being sick or not being sick actually say?

The first movie left us with the following questions.

1) Is Deckard a Replicant. - This is interesting because it makes us question the nature of existence and question our own motivations in life. What would it mean if he was? Does it change anything? What does that say about blindly following orders if everything is a lie. He may have been killing his own kind the whole time because he never questioned it.

2) Is Rachel going to die? - We don't know if she is a special replicant or not. Deckard could be throwing everything away for a woman he loves who has days or months left to live. As Olmos character says - everything will eventually die. Which ties back into the themes from Roy and wanting longer life, but in the end coming to the realization that he had lived and that was enough.

This movie has nothing interesting to say other than to retread the themes of the first movie which are the nature of life, why (or if) we make choices at all, and what does our mortality mean?

On top of that, this movie seems to clod stomp all over the interesting questions left at the end of the first movie and answer them in unsatisfying ways so they can thread a narrative that much less subtly or interestingly asks the same questions as the first one.

It's a continuation of the conversation about what it means to be human. Not every single story needs to have something unique to say, it matters more /how/ the things are said.

2049 may not bring much new to the table thematically, but it expands upon these themes in an intelligent way. Just because they're familiar, doesn't mean the film isn't just as successful in exploring them in its own ways.

I'm pretty sure the film itself has more to it than that, though. At the moment I'm a little reeling and need to view it again to be certain. Time will tell.

 

[StoOgE]

It's a continuation of the conversation about what it means to be human. Not every single story needs to have something unique to say, it matters more /how/ the things are said.

2049 may not bring much new to the table thematically, but it expands upon these themes in an intelligent way. Just because they're familiar, doesn't mean the film isn't just as successful in exploring them in its own ways.

I'm pretty sure the film itself has more to it than that, though. At the moment I'm a little reeling and need to view it again to be certain. Time will tell.

But 2049 brings *nothing* new to the table and asks the same questions in worse ways. If you are going to endeavor to make a sequel to one of the best-regarded movies of all time, you should probably have something to say other than "ditto" or at least put a wrinkle on it.

It's a technical marvel, but for every question it asks it also bumbles through the interesting questions the first movie asks and resolves them horribly.

 

[Heckler456]

Is it? Like, what does her being sick or not being sick actually say? This movie is obsessed with layers and layers of questions and motivations, but none of them seem to point to anything that has much to say.

The only really interesting questions are around choice and if it exists or if we are all programmed.. But the first movie already did that with the open-ended question of who deckard was and what Rachel's implanted memories meant to who she ultimately was as a being. Was she the bundle of memories or something more? Did Deckard hunt skin jobs because he was told to, and never question that he himself may be one? Or that they may be just as real as he is? This movie basically has Joi coming up with the name Joe going for it. And maybe some questions on if replicants were making choices or the implanted memories of the hybrid child were pushing them towards a revolution. But these are decidedly less interesting questions than the first movie asked.

The first movie left us with the following questions.

1) Is Deckard a Replicant. - This is interesting because it makes us question the nature of existence and question our own motivations in life. What would it mean if he was? Does it change anything? What does that say about blindly following orders if everything is a lie. He may have been killing his own kind the whole time because he never questioned it.

2) Is Rachel going to die? - We don't know if she is a special replicant or not. Deckard could be throwing everything away for a woman he loves who has days or months left to live. As Olmos character says - everything will eventually die. Which ties back into the themes from Roy and wanting longer life, but in the end coming to the realization that he had lived and that was enough.

This movie has nothing interesting to say other than to retread the themes of the first movie which are the nature of life, why (or if) we make choices at all, and what does our mortality mean?

On top of that, this movie seems to clod stomp all over the interesting questions left at the end of the first movie and answer them in unsatisfying ways so they can thread a narrative that much less subtly or interestingly asks the same questions as the first one.

I disagree vehemently with what you're saying. The point at which we are left at the end of BR49 is far more interesting and compelling to me than the original.

And saying they're "retreading the themes of the first movie" might be the understatement of the year. At the very least, it does what the original did, but far, far better. Like, for example, the love story and everything surrounding it was far more intricate and believable than the Rachael/Deckard one in the original. Heck, I felt that the Deckard/Rachael relationship felt more believable in the new one when compared to the old one, thanks to the fact that it didn't have the terrible chemistry between both actors dragging everything down!

 

[StoOgE]

I disagree vehemently with what you're saying. The point at which we are left at the end of BR49 is far more interesting and compelling to me than the original.

And saying they're "retreading the themes of the first movie" might be the understatement of the year. At the very least, it does what the original did, but far, far better. Like, for example, the love story and everything surrounding it was far more intricate and believable than the Rachael/Deckard one in the original. Heck, I felt that the Deckard/Rachael relationship felt more believable in the new one when compared to the old one, thanks to the fact that it didn't have the terrible chemistry between both actors dragging everything down!

What new theme does this movie deal with then?

Like, you say it's more interesting and compelling but I'd like to know in what way? There is a replicant revolution coming? That seems far more rote and "hollywoody" than the struggle for individualism and meaning of existence that the first movie was dealing with. The first movie was a much smaller struggle. No one in it was "special" they were all individuals trying to make sense of their own lives and what it meant to be alive. And the ways in which they may have been "special" were largely inconsequential to the characters because they were far more concerned with their own individuality and existence than they were any greater meaning of the universe and how they fit into it.

This one is about a giant mcguffin plot point of a super special replicant baby that would change the world forever and lead to a slave revolt. The first movie managed to make you realize how incredibly fucked up the treatment of replicants was without having jared letto literally say "slaves made the world better but we lost our appetite for them"

I just found this movie to lack all of the subtelty of the original without trying to say anything new while wrapping it in a shell that was far more obsessed with plot progression than characters.

 

[Heckler456]

I fact, here's an interesting reddit post I read about the whole love-thing:

I've seen Blade Runner 2049 twice now and there's definitely a lot to unpack. I haven't been able to get it out of my head. These are my thoughts.

SPOILERS

To me, one of the most interesting themes explored in the film is the meaning of love. All the major characters view love differently and their perspectives are reflected by their actions.

For Ryan Gosling's character K, love means presence: K's relationship with Joi is one of the most emotionally potent parts of the film. He simply wants the company. And he wants it to be available whenever he wants it. He can turn Joi on and off as he chooses and never asks anything of her besides her presence. He knows that after a period of her being turned off, he can turn her back on and she'll be there for him, unconditionally. It's that unconditional love that he's looking for, something humans often (though not always, unfortunately) get from their spouses and parents. He has Joi as a "spouse", and much of his arc in the film is devoted to his search for his "parent." This desire to feel special, to be loved, gives him purpose.

For Joi, love means giving someone what they want: Joi's purpose is to indulge the desires of her companion. Her presence is meant to reinforce everything he wants to feel. She whispers into K's ears what he wants to believe. He wants to believe he's "real," that he has a purpose beyond being a tool, and so she tells him that. He wants to feel normal and wants to express his love normally, so she calls over a tangible woman so that he can, uh, make love to her. She pushes him further into his fantasies, helping him truly believe he's more than just a replicant, that he was born and not manufactured, even if that's probably not something a replicant should believe. She doesn't necessarily give him what's best for him, only what he's looking for at any given time.

For Deckard, love means giving someone what they need: Deckard plainly states that "sometimes to love someone, you've got to be a stranger." He doesn't allow himself to indulge his desire to see his child, because he knows that's not what's best for them. He has a pragmatic view of what love is, and he sets up a complex trail of misinformation and mystery to try and isolate his child's identity from the world, and to isolate himself. This is, of course, almost the polar opposite of K and Joi's ideal of love. Instead of trying to be there for his child at all times, he wants them isolated from him. It's his absence, and not his presence, that demonstrates his profound love for his child. (And, tragically, his child is literally isolated, all alone in a bubble.)

For Niander Wallace, love is a means to an end: Wallace's concept of love is also pretty plainly presented. Love is more important to him than anything else even though he's drained it of its emotional foundation. I mean, he literally names his #1 replicant Luv. For him, Luv is a resource that does whatever he asks her to do. He also wants to manufacture love, both in the form of Joi and in the form of replicants that are capable of reproducing. He uses it as a weapon in the literal sense, with Luv acting as his enforcer. And he also uses it as a weapon in the metaphorical sense by showing Deckard a copy of the woman he loved to manipulate Deckard into revealing information about his child. Furthering this idea is the fact that he wants to find the child, the product of Deckard and Rachel's love, in order to dissect it and understand how he can create replicants capable of "love" that can create exponentially more children. For Wallace, love is the key to everything, which sounds romantic, but it's demystified. It is only a way for him to push forward his vision. (Haha, dude's physically blind AND blind to the meaning of love.)
I guess to summarize: Love is purpose and a way to dodge loneliness for K, it's indulgence for Joi, sacrifice for Deckard, and a commodity for Wallace.

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that love is necessarily Blade Runner 2049's central theme, but it was the most interesting one to me because of how each character views it and how their views inform their actions in the film. It truly is a beautiful film and I think it's going to continue to stick in my mind.

What do you think about the themes of love in Blade Runner 2049?

I think you're vastly underselling how well BR49 digs into its themes, StoOgE.

 

[Zakalwe]

But 2049 brings *nothing* new to the table and asks the same questions in worse ways. If you are going to endeavor to make a sequel to one of the best-regarded movies of all time, you should probably have something to say other than "ditto" or at least put a wrinkle on it.

It's a technical marvel, but for every question it asks it also bumbles through the interesting questions the first movie asks and resolves them horribly.

I don't think the themes being unique are necessary. This is a character piece set in an established universe. The subject matter of the original film really did nothing new either, it just splashed a cyber-noir coat of paint on well trodden sci-fi talking points.

Both films are nothing new in terms of their themes, but both do a remarkable job of making the way they approach those themes compelling.

I fact, here's an interesting reddit post I read about the whole love-thing:

To me, K wasn't longing or looking for phsycial love. He turned down Joshi, he constantly tells Joi she doesn't have to do the things she does, he showed no interest in the replicant sex workers.

His relationship with Joi is purely about having a connection, something human and real.

Joi isn't giving K what she thinks he wants, she's giving him what she wants to give him (support, touch, comfort) because she loves him, scripted or not.

I think you're vastly underselling how well BR49 digs into its themes, StoOgE.

Same. But then I understand the want for something new in that regard, too.

 

[More_Badass]

This one is about a giant mcguffin plot point of a super special replicant baby that would change the world forever and lead to a slave revolt. The first movie managed to make you realize how incredibly fucked up the treatment of replicants was without having jared letto literally say "slaves made the world better but we lost our appetite for them"

I just found this movie to lack all of the subtelty of the original without trying to say anything new while wrapping it in a shell that was far more obsessed with plot progression than characters.

But the baby isn’t special. It isn’t a miracle. It’s just the byproduct of an anomalous Tyrell model upgrade, much like implanted memories were. Look how implanted memories were abused, from trying to give Replicants a grounded sense of self to being another form of control and division and dehumanization

 

[kirblar]

What new theme does this movie deal with then?

Like, you say it's more interesting and compelling but I'd like to know in what way? There is a replicant revolution coming? That seems far more rote and "hollywoody" than the struggle for individualism and meaning of existence that the first movie was dealing with. The first movie was a much smaller struggle. No one in it was "special" they were all individuals trying to make sense of their own lives and what it meant to be alive. And the ways in which they may have been "special" were largely inconsequential to the characters because they were far more concerned with their own individuality and existence than they were any greater meaning of the universe and how they fit into it.

This one is about a giant mcguffin plot point of a super special replicant baby that would change the world forever and lead to a slave revolt. The first movie managed to make you realize how incredibly fucked up the treatment of replicants was without having jared letto literally say "slaves made the world better but we lost our appetite for them"

I just found this movie to lack all of the subtelty of the original without trying to say anything new while wrapping it in a shell that was far more obsessed with plot progression than characters.

2049 revels in not giving a shit about the revolution, though. It drops this giant, blockbuster movie plot in K's lap and K ignores it. The movie is far more interested in K's relationships than it is with any actual grand plot.

 

[Heckler456]

What new theme does this movie deal with then?

Like, you say it's more interesting and compelling but I'd like to know in what way? There is a replicant revolution coming? That seems far more rote and "hollywoody" than the struggle for individualism and meaning of existence that the first movie was dealing with. The first movie was a much smaller struggle. No one in it was "special" they were all individuals trying to make sense of their own lives and what it meant to be alive. And the ways in which they may have been "special" were largely inconsequential to the characters because they were far more concerned with their own individuality and existence than they were any greater meaning of the universe and how they fit into it.

This one is about a giant mcguffin plot point of a super special replicant baby that would change the world forever and lead to a slave revolt. The first movie managed to make you realize how incredibly fucked up the treatment of replicants was without having jared letto literally say "slaves made the world better but we lost our appetite for them"

I just found this movie to lack all of the subtelty of the original without trying to say anything new while wrapping it in a shell that was far more obsessed with plot progression than characters.

Well, I'm not that great at movie criticism, so I'm not really the best person to be analyzing this sort of stuff, let alone trying to put it into words.

What I do know is that you need to judge a movie based on its own merits. There is nothing wrong with going over the same subject matter to begin with, let alone when there's a 30 year gap between movies.

Also, to say that the child is a "mcguffin" is such a blatant way to suck criticism out of your thumb, if I can be frank. The child is interwoven in many different parts of the story in so many interesting ways. It's not just an afterthought meant to drive the plot forward. I even think that the child means something different for almost every, if not every different subplot in the story. To say that the child is a mcguffin, when it's actually just what the story is about, is kinda bullshit.

I need to let this movie percolate a little more before I can say anything definitive about whether or not it brings up any new themes, or if it fails to address some themes better than the original though.

 

[Jarmel]

The first movie left us with the following questions.

1) Is Deckard a Replicant. - This is interesting because it makes us question the nature of existence and question our own motivations in life. What would it mean if he was? Does it change anything? What does that say about blindly following orders if everything is a lie. He may have been killing his own kind the whole time because he never questioned it.

2) Is Rachel going to die? - We don't know if she is a special replicant or not. Deckard could be throwing everything away for a woman he loves who has days or months left to live. As Olmos character says - everything will eventually die. Which ties back into the themes from Roy and wanting longer life, but in the end coming to the realization that he had lived and that was enough.

This movie has nothing interesting to say other than to retread the themes of the first movie which are the nature of life, why (or if) we make choices at all, and what does our mortality mean?

On top of that, this movie seems to clod stomp all over the interesting questions left at the end of the first movie and answer them in unsatisfying ways so they can thread a narrative that much less subtly or interestingly asks the same questions as the first one.

1) You can definitely tell the question of whether Deckard being a Replicant is pretty half-assed in the story in of itself as the film doesn't delve into that question in any significant way other than to throw that at the audience at the last minute. Honestly the story works a lot better with him just being a regular human.

2)Rachel dying or the question posed about Rachel dying doesn't matter. Who cares if she's a special replicant or not? Deckard and Rachel aren't shown to be particularly worried about it so why should the audience?

This film takes the initial stance that of course the replicants are human and pushes past it to delve into topics of slavery, discrimination, isolation, and consumerism. It seriously digs into the consequences of using artificial humans and how those artificial humans mentally compartmentalize their role in society. It even uses Joi as a replacement for the replicants in the sense of how human are they and push it to a more extreme case with her. The replicants are obviously human but how human is Joi herself?

 

[Zakalwe]

But the baby isn't special. It isn't a miracle. It's just the byproduct of an anomalous Tyrell model upgrade, much like implanted memories were. Look how implanted memories were abused, from trying to give Replicants a grounded sense of self to being another form of control and division and dehumanization

The baby is a miracle, though. Even if it's scripted/built by Tyrell, it was something unique that is very difficult to reproduce. Walace with his immense resources, and obsessive intelligence can't re-create it.

I mean, they call it the miracle of birth even though the majority of people are capable of it.

The fact we're all "designed" to have children doesn't take that miracle away, and indeed for anyone incapable of having children it would seem miraculous to suddenly be able to.

​

2049 revels in not giving a shit about the revolution, though. It drops this giant, blockbuster movie plot in K's lap and K ignores it. The movie is far more interested in K's relationships than it is with any actual grand plot.

Exactly. The revolution, the off-world colonies, the grand scope of this incredible universe is kept from us and is beside the point.

This is a story about the characters set against the backdrop of the universe. This ties in perfectly with the idea that K is the special one being torn from him.

 

[Heckler456]

Another cool little tidbit from reddit:

I would argue that one of the main themes of this movie is what it means to be alive, what is real, and if that even matters.

Now, in the closing scenes of the movie, we see something very interesting. The main argument of the movie, I would say: We see 'K' laying in the snow, perhaps dying, while his "sister" Ana is inside in her bubble, creating a virtual snowstorm. But notice how Ana here looks at her hand, seeing the 'snow' pass straight through her. And at the same time, K is watching the snow land and melt on his hand outside. 
I postulate that this is the movie telling us that even though Ana might be the naturally born Human; K is the one who is alive; the one who has lived a proper life. While Ana, safely tucked away in her bubble, has not.

Seen in this light, we see that throughout the movie the imagery of hands, and how they interact with the world, is used again and again as a way to show what is real and what is not.

For instance when Joi gets her upgrade, her first wish is to go outside, into the rain. Then we see them standing on the roof, and K is getting soaked. He looks down on his hands and sees them dripping wet. When Joi looks down, she sees the projection of her 'hands' and they're still dry; the rain falling right through them. Her simulation then updates, and they become 'wet'. A mimicry of reality. This, I believe, is where this image is first properly introduced.

We see it other places too; like when K arrives in Vegas and sees the bees. Why does he put his hand in the bee hive? Because he's not sure they're real, is Deckard for real? When he pulls his hand out, grotesquely covered in bees, he knows.
Hands, representing our ability to interact with the world around us, and the world represented by rain, snow, etc.
Thoughts?

It's from /r/truefilm by the way. There are a few other discussions going on that are rather interesting too.

Definitely gonna see this movie again on Sunday.

 

[demosthenes]

Another cool little tidbit from reddit:



It's from /r/truefilm by the way. There are a few other discussions going on that are rather interesting too.

Definitely gonna see this movie again on Sunday.

Makes sense for the bee scene, I wondered why he stuck his hand in.

 

[kopitarrulez_11]

My favorite scene still is K saving Deckard also my favorite song on the soundtrack too just done so goood

 

[Alastor3]

Both explanations are plausible. Which is great.

which is why the film is so great, lots of open questions that make your mind choose what reality he want it to be

 

[Schopenhauerian]

...And the very fact that [Joi] is shackled to these things de-humanise her, make it okay for the owners to use her as a product, as a replacement for real connection, but the fact that she develops life despite these things is very reminiscent of actual human interactions.

And I think she scarified a lot. She was very clearly upset after the sync'd sex, she threw the replicate out almost in disgust. She wanted to give K a physical connection and be a part of that, but experienced jealousy and self-loathing after.

She also very clearly sacrificed her safety (breaking the antenna) to be with K.

All the things you describe as points against her cement the idea that she's core to the film in a different way, that Joi more than anyone else makes us question what it means to be human...

Yeah, I noticed that as well:

That was an interesting exchange, between Joi and Mariette. There was arguably a hint of ‘hostility’/‘jealousy’ in the way Joi/Ana de Armas asked Mariette to leave, and given the caustic nature of Mariette’s response to Joi (“I’ve been inside you. There’s not as much there as you think...”), it is implied that Mariette does indeed perceive/feel as if she is the target of hostility/jealousy (from Joi).

In the exchange, it seems that Mariette attributes ‘genuine’ (romantic) ambition to Joi -- a ‘desire’ on the part of Joi to ‘think of herself’ as the equal of K -- as it is precisely this type of ‘ambitious’ self-perception that Mariette attempts to undermine, with that caustic/retaliatory remark (“...There’s not as much there as you think...”).

Definitely some interesting questions:

...These films are about consciousness in a universal sense: if we as muddles of electrical impulses and messy memories are human, then why is a copy of this not… If you and I are human despite the fact our experiences have shaped us uncontrollably in many ways, then who are we to claim that Joi is less than us? Joi calling K Joe may be part of the base programming, I don't think the fact the advert calls him the same tells us Joi was nothing but a script. The advert looked past K with dead eyes, it acted far more sexually explicitly than Joi. It didn't speak to him with the same personality, not even close. Every Joi starts from the same script, but every Joi has their own experiences and reactions and developments...

...When he's there in the rain, looking at the giant naked ad-Joi, what's he thinking? That his Joi was a fucking fraud, and he was duped into finding meaning in the meaningless? Or that that Joi isn't his Joi, despite whatever shared base they might both derive from? What do those answers mean for him as, y'know, someone who is designed and created to be replicated? Stemming from that answer, was his final run an act of suicidal nihilism, or him proving he could break the literal mold...

...Humans are also programmed to experience love. If it can be felt it's real. The question is, does [Joi] actually feel love, or anything else for that matter? Is she a conscious being, or just acts like it?

...Also beyond that, does it matter? I've been rereading Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot - one of the chapters is called the Great Demotions in which he talks about how humanity in its pursuit of self-knowledge, keeps discovering to our dismay that we are not special, that "we have not been given the lead in the cosmic drama", and that "if all the world's a stage", we might not even have a role at all. If the mystery which is love can be expressed by our creations and cannot be discerned from the "real" thing, whatever that is, that would account as one of the most devastating blow to our fragile egos.

 

[Ithil]

Is it? Like, what does her being sick or not being sick actually say? This movie is obsessed with layers and layers of questions and motivations, but none of them seem to point to anything that has much to say.

The only really interesting questions are around choice and if it exists or if we are all programmed.. But the first movie already did that with the open-ended question of who deckard was and what Rachel's implanted memories meant to who she ultimately was as a being. Was she the bundle of memories or something more? Did Deckard hunt skin jobs because he was told to, and never question that he himself may be one? Or that they may be just as real as he is? This movie basically has Joi coming up with the name Joe going for it. And maybe some questions on if replicants were making choices or the implanted memories of the hybrid child were pushing them towards a revolution. But these are decidedly less interesting questions than the first movie asked.

The first movie left us with the following questions.

1) Is Deckard a Replicant. - This is interesting because it makes us question the nature of existence and question our own motivations in life. What would it mean if he was? Does it change anything? What does that say about blindly following orders if everything is a lie. He may have been killing his own kind the whole time because he never questioned it.

2) Is Rachel going to die? - We don't know if she is a special replicant or not. Deckard could be throwing everything away for a woman he loves who has days or months left to live. As Olmos character says - everything will eventually die. Which ties back into the themes from Roy and wanting longer life, but in the end coming to the realization that he had lived and that was enough.

This movie has nothing interesting to say other than to retread the themes of the first movie which are the nature of life, why (or if) we make choices at all, and what does our mortality mean?

On top of that, this movie seems to clod stomp all over the interesting questions left at the end of the first movie and answer them in unsatisfying ways so they can thread a narrative that much less subtly or interestingly asks the same questions as the first one.

Did it? Ridley Scott is the only person involved with the first film who believes this. The screenwriters never brought up that question, Ford, Rutger Hauer, etc all don't believe it and in fact Ford has said it outright would hurt the film's themes if he was a replicant.

That whole question has been overblown thanks to Scott, and it's pretty tiresome to see talk of Blade Runner revolve only around that.
I don't see the other question either. It's pretty irrelevant if she has a four year lifespan or not, as Deckard is running away with her regardless. So she won't live for long, "Then again, who does?", remember.

 

[Zakalwe]

I would also like to say, that for me, a real test of a sequel is if it helps enrich the original.

Aliens, T2, etc... all the great examples do this, and I believe 2049 does so too.

I re-watched the original the day after seeing 2049 and it just felt so much more tragic, and real, and full. I know this won't be the same for everyone, but for me it cements 2049 as a "perfect" sequel.

 

[Grenchel]

I really love the scene where Gosling is finds the place from his "memories"

Just how the music and everything come together. It might be one of the most intense scenes I have seen at the theater.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I saw it last night and absolutely loved it. I need to see it a few more times. I would be thinking on something I had just seen, only for it to roll over to a new scene that got me thinking hard on something again. This movie is dense with imagery and nuance. For people who say it moves too slow, they're not picking up on all visual and audio implications scattered about every scene.

Your brain never has a moment to rest or shut off (aside from maybe when they spell out who the daughter is with a heavy hand). I need to get back and see it again and see if I can connect a few more dots.

I avoided just about everything about this leading up to it aside from the original trailer. I need to go back now and see how Harrison Ford felt about coming back to this after so many years and what it was like stepping back into Deckard's character.

 

[Adry9]

JOI is an object. An app on your phone. She is literally interrupted by a phone call.

People sacrifice for partners and for their children. But at no point does K sacrifice for JOI. Yes, he does get things out of the relationship, but by the end of the movie, it's clear that they're hollow. JOI is an object, his property. Even if she was real, you cannot have a real relationship with someone in that position, any more than a slave their master, or a student their teacher.

I think that's a bit opportunistic. What situations did they encounter through the movie where K should've sacrificed himself for her? I think if there were any he would've done it, he was clearly in love with her.

 

[Skeletron]

So I saw it in IMAX on Sunday. Did someone say Deakins preferred standard definition over IMAX? Was there a source on that? I want to see it again sometime.

This film was a feast for the eyes and ears. A stunning audio visual experience. The sets, costumes, cinematography, vfx, all that shit is mindblowing. I absolutely love the world that this film inhabits but I didn't leave the theater feeling that I was in love with the film. Absolutely worth seeing multiple times. However, here are a few thoughts and quibbles in random order.

1. Harrison Ford's manboobs. Despite some incredible costume design, Ford's t-shirt was a disappointment. Deckard was the snazziest motherfucker back in LA with his multicolored checkered button-ups. I don't buy it.
2. The editing in the climactic battle between K and Luv was weird. It went on too long and felt like a professional wrestling match with Luv's "I am the best!" I didn't understand her motivation.
3. The fight between K and Deckard seemed pointless and had no weight to it. Like, obviously the dude thinks you're here to kill him. Maybe just give him a little bit more than "I'd like to ask you some questions" to defuse the situation?
4. The frequent flashbacks to earlier scenes felt unnecessary like they weren't confident the audience could follow the story, much like the voiceover in the original.
5. The way K's memory was filmed was far too grounded and tangible. The only other time we've seen inside a replicant's mind was Deckard's unicorn dream in the Final Cut, which felt appropriately like something from another world. Here, we see everything in the factory in great detail, exactly as it appears when K visits later. We even see the child's face, iirc. This contradicts how the memory-maker describes what a "real" memory should be like, foggy and indistinct. This feels like an inconsistency, but perhaps it isn't since it actually was an implanted memory...
6. Need more Dave Bautista! Man, I wish his character played a larger role.

 

[jasminlovesyoux]

I have two questions, what was the significance to the "happy birthday" scene where Wallace slices open the new born replicant?

And, who is the one eyed rebellion leader? Was she a character from the first film?

 

[Heckler456]

I have two questions, what was the significance to the "happy birthday" scene where Wallace slices open the new born replicant?

And, who is the one eyed rebellion leader? Was she a character from the first film?

She was one of the Nexus 8's? Just like Sapper Morton. You see her mentioned at the start of the movie, when they're going through those files showing the still at-large Nexus 8's.

 

[StoOgE]

Did it? Ridley Scott is the only person involved with the first film who believes this. The screenwriters never brought up that question, Ford, Rutger Hauer, etc all don't believe it and in fact Ford has said it outright would hurt the film's themes if he was a replicant.

That whole question has been overblown thanks to Scott, and it's pretty tiresome to see talk of Blade Runner revolve only around that.
I don't see the other question either. It's pretty irrelevant if she has a four year lifespan or not, as Deckard is running away with her regardless. So she won't live for long, "Then again, who does?", remember.

That last bit is the point of the movie. It's asking us to look our own mortality in the face and shrug. It was Roy's pre-occupation. Meeting his maker and trying to live forever. Don't take it literally, it is mankinds obsession with death and an afterlife and being so afraid of our own death that is pre-occupies our time.

Deckard and Rachel not giving a shit is the existentialist answer to the question. Then again, who does is the critical line of the entire movie. We're all going to die and we don't know when and we can't let that interfere with the decisions we make.

I also disagree about Deckard being a replicant. It similarly to Rachel's lifespan doesn't matter by the end of the movie. Early on the audience is asked to view replicant's as dangerous machines in need of retirement. By the end of the movie the line between Deckard and Roy and Tyrell is meaningless. Whether or not Deckard is a replicant no longer matters but the fact works because at the end of it all, the distinction is largely irrelevant.

 

[jasminlovesyoux]

She was one of the Nexus 8's? Just like Sapper Morton. You see her mentioned at the start of the movie, when they're going through those files showing the still at-large Nexus 8's.

Ah OK. I thought the movie kept trying to elude to her being someone important and someone the viewer should recognize. I didn't remember what she looked like from those earlier images. So I guess her and Sapper were the caretakers of the hybrid for a bit.

 

[StoOgE]

I have two questions, what was the significance to the "happy birthday" scene where Wallace slices open the new born replicant?

I believe he is iterating trying to create a replicant who can give birth, like Rachel.

When it fails, he disposes of the replicant because she has no meaning or value to him.

 

[JesseZao]

I have two questions, what was the significance to the "happy birthday" scene where Wallace slices open the new born replicant

He was trying to produce a replicant with a fertile womb. Somehow he knew she didn't have one is what I got from that. His quote of "Emptiness" between two stars[/ovaries] while placing his hand on her lower abdomen.