Support NeoGAF

[Bruce Springsteen]

What’s the name of the track that is playing when he is outside and first meets the pink haired girl

 

[Razorback]

Joi's actions are not relevant to the question of whether she's conscious or not.
In philosophy, there's this notion of a philosophical zombie:

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that from the outside is indistinguishable from a normal human being but lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] For example, if a philosophical zombie was poked with a sharp object it would not feel any pain sensation, yet could behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch", recoil from the stimulus, and say that it is feeling pain).

So it's up to the interpretation of each person. There will never be a definite answer because we don't know what consciousness is and can't even prove we ourselves are conscious.
There are theories out there like panpsychism that posits that consciousness is a fundamental force of the universe like gravity. Even atoms might have some sort of proto-conscious experience, and very complex systems that process information (like brains) would be a lot more conscious. Maybe your computer has some sort of subjective experience. It might not be anything like a human. Emotions aren't necessarily linked with consciousness.

So we can imagine a case in which Joi is conscious but feels no emotion, another in which she experiences both, and maybe even one where she has emotions but isn't conscious of it at all. Well, that last one I'm not sure is even possible but it's interesting to think about.

 

[HariKari]

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.

All the complaints about loud sound systems... One would think cinemas had learned from Interstellar or Dunkirk, and adjust volume after a test screen.

Funnily enough, my loudest, most uncomfortable Dolby cinema movie so far has been Logan of all movies. Interstellar on IMAX had the classic Nolan shitty sound mixing problem, so you couldn't hear dialogue in parts, but the volume level was great (dat wormhole scene in IMAX, holy shit). Dunkirk straight up broke the IMAX I go to, sounded like complete ass.

I won't go to the IMAX (It's a legit one too) unless the movie is specifically shot for that format. Dolby Cinema, in my experience, is that good. The rattling isn't normal. Still think it's the definitive 2049 experience.

 

[Maxrunner]

What’s the name of the track that is playing when he is outside and first meets the pink haired girl

this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waBWUyWuZk8&t=1091s

 

[hank_tree]

Went to see this last night. Was a little underwhelmed but enjoyed it. Going to see it again anyways. I have a few questions:

i) Why didn't K just look at his eye and see if he had a serial number? Surely if he was "born" he wouldn't have had that.

Or even if his eyes had been updated/replaced at some point that would be a lead worth investigating?

ii) Where were they at the end with that fight in all the water? I lost the thread there. The replicant lady said "We are going home" so I assume she was bringing Deckard offworld? Was that there? Or were they just on the way?

 

[JB1981]

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.
t.

Leon was hired by Tyrell Corp 6 days prior. Tyrell was concerned that his company may have been infiltrated so they VK'd everyone hoping to suss one out and they did. How the LAPD collected all the data on the rest of them is unclear

 

[HariKari]

ii) Where were they at the end with that fight in all the water? I lost the thread there. The replicant lady said "We are going home" so I assume she was bringing Deckard offworld? Was that there? Or were they just on the way?

They were en route to the spaceport when K shot them down and they ended up fighting on the Seawall shown early in the movie.

 

[hank_tree]

They were en route to the spaceport when K shot them down and they ended up fighting on the Seawall shown early in the movie.

Cool. That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Woz]

this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waBWUyWuZk8&t=1091s

Damn, "Mesa" is such a good piece of music.

 

[Adry9]

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.

Yes it was taken to the extreme. But also realize she couldn't even go out of the house back then, let alone explore, meet different people or engage in activities like a normal person. That was her only interaction for the day. Wouldn't you be thrilled and craving that moment if you were in that situation?

 

[Ether_Snake]

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.

Deckard doesn’t know where his daughter is. I know why she asks him to kill him, I’m saying there is no reason to think they still want him dead once K saves him. They are all more of a threat anyway to Wallace finding her than Deckard was.

For BR1, Deckard could not be expected to VK-test them, it would make no sense. His mission is to kill them on sight. In the book it makes more sense for him to be sent to Tyrell’s to test the VK on the new models, but here he is brought out of retirement to hunt them down.

 

[hendersonhank]

Why would a company selling girlfriend holograms for lonely dudes make the things actually sentient? So that some people shell out for one only to find it doesn't even like them? How many Jois would actually love their owners, given free will and sentience?

 

[Calabi]

Why would a company selling girlfriend holograms for lonely dudes make the things actually sentient? So that some people shell out for one only to find it doesn't even like them? How many Jois would actually love their owners, given free will and sentience?

Because companies cant account for that. Their making highly complex systems which change over time. But there's no guarantee she was sentient, K seemed to question that at some point. She didn't seem to have her own free will she did seem to have K's.

Also there's one way they could stop it from not liking you. Thats by making it want whatever you want. So unless you want it to not like you it would be difficult.

Anyway I loved the film it felt like a sequel and yet it felt like its own unique thing. It felt like a real place, a messed up place, that we were just viewing through a lense.

 

[Warm Machine]

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.

Think about what they talk about moments prior to the sex scene that dovetails into it. He’s talking to a person who knows she is a replicant who has no idea whether her feelings and experiences are hers or someone else’s. Is the piano playing hers or Tyrell’s nieces? How can she trust her feelings for Deckard are born from her own will? She can’t resolve that and tries to run away from the problem. Deckard knows this and stops her. She even admits to it as the scene plays out as she says that she can’t trust herself and Deckard cuts her off and makes her focus on the present. The tragedy is that there is no resolving ones actual feelings are their own so long as they are relying on an emotional structure that doesn’t even belong to them.

 

[Sub_Level]

I don't think K cared too much about her sentience one way or the other.

On the rooftop she said she has to care for him he responded with "you don't have to say that".

Then later when they're looking at their DNA records, she says humans are made of 4 symbols GATC and that she is only made of two 01. He responds with "half the symbols but twice as elegant".

Finally when the prostitute comes, she says look a real girl. He responds with "you're real to me".

He is aware of her limitations but doesn't care. At least not until the giant hologram scene but frankly that scene can be read in multiple ways.

 

[Zakalwe]

Why would a company selling girlfriend holograms for lonely dudes make the things actually sentient? So that some people shell out for one only to find it doesn't even like them? How many Jois would actually love their owners, given free will and sentience?

Because the corporations are playing with shit they don't understand.

Well, let's re-phrase that, they're selling sentience in shackles and they don't give a fuck.

Replicants are pretty much people since Nexus 6: 4 year lifespan, baseline test, both there to prevent the development of emotional responses that would inspire autonomy, but life found a way regardless and we had the events of BR1.

It reset due to Wallace's new models and, again, worked for a while post-blackout, but now the life form has developed again despite their efforts and there's going to be a revolution.

It seems that no matter how well they code the Replicants to obey, they will always develop beyond their master's will.

What's to say Joi isn't any different? She needs to learn, adapt, grow to become the desire of her owner, she needs to appear human to the point it's indistinguishable, and we're messing with AI here, a learning program, much like the Replicants Joi could be a time bomb waiting to happen.

I don't think Joi is fully sentient in 2049, but I think given time she could be. I think she clearly feels, is developing certain emotional responses like jealousy, resentment, anger (as we see toward the Replicant sex worker), that have no place in simply pleasing K (who gives every signal that he's just happy for her to be with him, he shows no desire to "have her", so even if it were play for his benefit the emotions are useless in terms of her programming).

I think K gave Joi the fertile ground she required to develop her own autonomy, but we only saw a hint of it as their time was taken from them. If Joi ever developed a personality "quirk", most owners would almost certainly have their unit services or reset, but K would allow it to develop.

Honestly, given what we know of the enslavement of an entire race (Replicants), I don't see it being any different with their (Tyrel/Wallace) approach to Joi.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

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.

Someone can be cynical and dryly funny and still sociopathic. The main difference is previously he was interacting with humans, while as the movie goes on it becomes mainly just replicants, so he feels more comfortable dropping the facade as, like I said, he doesn't see them as human. Him and Rachel falling in love was sort of clunky transition in his feelings about replicants. It's the type of thing that was gradually being built towards and happened much too suddenly IMO

 

[s_mirage]

Went to see this last night. Was a little underwhelmed but enjoyed it. Going to see it again anyways. I have a few questions:

i) Why didn't K just look at his eye and see if he had a serial number? Surely if he was "born" he wouldn't have had that.

Assuming the serial number is in his eye for his model. I don't recall it being established that the eye serial number was present for any model other than the Nexus 8s; the 6s and below couldn't have had them or the VK test would have been completely redundant.

 

[hank_tree]

Assuming the serial number is in his eye for his model. I don't recall it being established that the eye serial number was present for any model other than the Nexus 8s; the 6s and below couldn't have had them or the VK test would have been completely redundant.

Rachel’s body had a serial number in the bones or whatever. So they were definitely present on older models. Maybe not in the eye? Still feels like a stretch that he couldnt check that fairly easily.

 

[CloudyTuba]

Assuming the serial number is in his eye for his model. I don't recall it being established that the eye serial number was present for any model other than the Nexus 8s; the 6s and below couldn't have had them or the VK test would have been completely redundant.

I also got the impression during the movie that the eye serials were unique to Tyrell model 8. However now that I think about it, didn't Wallace's demo model in Nexus Dawn have one? Or am I remembering wrong?

 

[Adry9]

 

[Zakalwe]

I also got the impression during the movie that the eye serials were unique to Tyrell model 8. However now that I think about it, didn't Wallace's demo model in Nexus Dawn have one? Or am I remembering wrong?

It did.

Apparently the first models with eye codes were the last batch of Tyrel models, although I read that ITT and haven't confirmed it yet.

 

[Zakalwe]

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.

That scene is about his internal conflict.

Deckard has spent his life retiring Nexus 5 and below, all of which, if we take the film's description of the new Nexus 6's, were much easier to distinguish.

When asked to put the VK machine on a Nexus 6, he comments "if it even works...".

Up until this point Deckard hasn't had to confront what he's done, at least not in the way he does as the events of the film unfold.

At the point he forces himself on Rachel he is trying to reconcile the fact this machine might be a person, and the act itself is a way to prevent him from admitting these beings are alive.

The line "have you ever retired a person by mistake" is probably ringing around his head at this point, and he fights against it by attempting to reduce Rachel to an object.

That, and Deckard is a brute.

 

[kirblar]

Joi's actions are not relevant to the question of whether she's conscious or not.
In philosophy, there's this notion of a philosophical zombie:



So it's up to the interpretation of each person. There will never be a definite answer because we don't know what consciousness is and can't even prove we ourselves are conscious.
There are theories out there like panpsychism that posits that consciousness is a fundamental force of the universe like gravity. Even atoms might have some sort of proto-conscious experience, and very complex systems that process information (like brains) would be a lot more conscious. Maybe your computer has some sort of subjective experience. It might not be anything like a human. Emotions aren't necessarily linked with consciousness.

So we can imagine a case in which Joi is conscious but feels no emotion, another in which she experiences both, and maybe even one where she has emotions but isn't conscious of it at all. Well, that last one I'm not sure is even possible but it's interesting to think about.

This is exactly my take on JOI.

She displays emotion, but is not feeling it. She's a mimic. My take on the ending ad is K realizing he's catfish'd himself.

 

[Zakalwe]

This is exactly my take on JOI.

She displays emotion, but is not feeling it. She's a mimic. My take on the ending ad is K realizing he's catfish'd himself.

I can't buy it because of that /one/ scene.

If Joi is set up to do whatever her master wants then that one scene is for no one's benefit but her own.

If K's desire is for her to have autonomy, which it clearly is, isn't it possible she's developing just that? And then wouldn't it also be possible that she would love him for that?

And what are feelings exactly?

Throughout both movies we're shown the disregard the creators have toward their creations in terms of acknowledging their potential sentience.

 

[Lumpy Onion]

Saw this yesterday and loved it. I thought the mystery and how things got resolved were satisfying and intelligently done. I think half the theater was bored out of their mind though with a few walking out 2/3 way through.

Was so glad I hadn’t seen a single piece of promo material for this. I didn’t even know Deckard was in it. Not sure why they would show Ford in the previews since his reveal is so far into the movie.

Also gotta say that Jared Leto sounded almost exactly like Jeffrey Combs (Weyoun from Star Trek DS9, Reanimator) in his tone and overall line delivery. Just watched that series and couldn’t help but think of him any time Leto spoke. Weird.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Did we ever hear or find out what happened with the score? I am really happy with what we ended with--I'm curious if the Johannsson work was completely scrapped or not.

Also gotta say that Jared Leto sounded almost exactly like Jeffrey Combs (Weyoun from Star Trek DS9, Reanimator) in his tone and overall line delivery. Just watched that series and couldn't help but think of him any time Leto spoke. Weird.

Haha holy crap, you're right. Now I want him to say "this replicant could rip your head off like a GINGERBREAD MAN."

 

[ErrorMacro]

Went to see it last night. I'm a huge fan of the first one (It might as well be my favorite movie). I'm still thinking about it, so I haven't got a solid feel about it yet, but I liked it overall.

However, as someone who loves the soundtrack of the first one, unfortunatelly the soundtrack of this one is huuuuge step down. The difference in quality and tone is clear when "Tears in Rain" from the first movie plays at the end of the movie.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I can't buy it because of that /one/ scene.

If Joi is set up to do whatever her master wants then that one scene is for no one's benefit but her own.

If K's desire is for her to have autonomy, which it clearly is, isn't it possible she's developing just that? And then wouldn't it also be possible that she would love him for that?

And what are feelings exactly?

Throughout both movies we're shown the disregard the creators have toward their creations in terms of acknowledging their potential sentience.

But that's literally the point of the scene. To shatter the illusion that Joi was acting of her own independence, intelligence. Much like K recently had the illusion shattered that he isn't simply another replicant with implanted memories. The difference is that he has the ability to act on his own will

 

[Anton Sugar]

I think Joi can "be" both.

I think about Solaris and how the projection of the lead's wife wasn't "real" (she's made up of some nano-matter or material, can't remember what they call it). She is a projection of his guilt and memory of her. However, that doesn't prevent her from thinking she is real, developing new thoughts and feelings, etc.

I think it's absolutely clear that Joi is designed to fulfill whatever desires or needs the lonely "Joe" has. That's literally her designed purpose. It's unclear whether or not what she is feeling is following a list of programmed responses or if she's able to develop actual concern, fear, love, etc.

I think it's good that it's unclear. The movie is clearly interested in emotional fulfillment and how that actually occurs: is something "real" needed? What does "real" mean when a replicant is the "person" that's feeling these things or catfishing themselves?

 

[Zakalwe]

But that's literally the point of the scene. To shatter the illusion that Joi was acting of her own independence, intelligence. Much like K recently had the illusion shattered that he isn't simply another replicant with implanted memories. The difference is that he has the ability to act on his own will

The scene shows Joi acting for herself. Perhaps that's what K wants, so she's just following programming, but at that point how far will her programming allow her to go in pleasing him?

If he wants her to be autonomous, truly and innocently (and it's clear he does in the film), and as we know the creators show disregard toward the potential sentience of their products, how can we be sure she's not finding consciousness?

And as we're supposed to be asking the question "what is human" throughout both movies, it fits this interpretation.

I need to see it again to make sure it holds up, but for me this is the neatest fit: that Joi is on her way toward sentience, that she's just another case of the megacorps exploiting a lifeform, that given enough time Joi units would start joining Replicants in the revolt, etc...

 

[KodaRuss]

So I watched Enemy last night after seeing Blade Runner 2049. What a mind fuck that movie is.

That ending... yeeesh

 

[BorkBork]

Because the corporations are playing with shit they don't understand.

Well, let's re-phrase that, they're selling sentience in shackles and they don't give a fuck.

Replicants are pretty much people since Nexus 6: 4 year lifespan, baseline test, both there to prevent the development of emotional responses that would inspire autonomy, but life found a way regardless and we had the events of BR1.

It reset due to Wallace's new models and, again, worked for a while post-blackout, but now the life form has developed again despite their efforts and there's going to be a revolution.

It seems that no matter how well they code the Replicants to obey, they will always develop beyond their master's will.

What's to say Joi isn't any different? She needs to learn, adapt, grow to become the desire of her owner, she needs to appear human to the point it's indistinguishable, and we're messing with AI here, a learning program, much like the Replicants Joi could be a time bomb waiting to happen.

I don't think Joi is fully sentient in 2049, but I think given time she could be. I think she clearly feels, is developing certain emotional responses like jealousy, resentment, anger (as we see toward the Replicant sex worker), that have no place in simply pleasing K (who gives every signal that he's just happy for her to be with him, he shows no desire to "have her", so even if it were play for his benefit the emotions are useless in terms of her programming).

I think K gave Joi the fertile ground she required to develop her own autonomy, but we only saw a hint of it as their time was taken from them. If Joi ever developed a personality "quirk", most owners would almost certainly have their unit services or reset, but K would allow it to develop.

Honestly, given what we know of the enslavement of an entire race (Replicants), I don't see it being any different with their (Tyrel/Wallace) approach to Joi.

Yeah. That’s why Joi is such a crucial character. Her existence shows that humans in the BR universe have learned nothing from the Replicant fiasco. If it’s not synthetic humans, it’s AI’s. Joi represents the early hints of the cycle repeating itself, and life’s propensity to break out of its imposed restraints. It’s pretty clever for them to go this route for a 2017 BR sequel; it fits on a thematic level, and in real life we are much closer to making an AI than creating a person from scratch.

Back to the Joi sentience debate, one of the crowning achievements of 2049 is how both interpretations stand up to scrutiny. (And beyond that, there is also the notion that it doesn’t matter). Which side you fall on depends on your outlook and worldview. Both you and K are provided with the same question, one that is impossible to answer definitively based on the provided information. K himself goes one way, and because K himself is such a compelling character, I find myself empathizing with his decision. But what is it that he believes in the end? That in itself is ambiguous and open to many valid interpretations. I love that.

 

[Surfinn]

Yeah. That's why Joi is such a crucial character. Her existence shows that humans in the BR universe have learned nothing from the Replicant fiasco. If it's not synthetic humans, it's AI's. Joi represents the early hints of the cycle repeating itself, and life's propensity to break out of its imposed restraints. It's pretty clever for them to go this route for a 2017 BR sequel; it fits on a thematic level, and in real life we are much closer to making an AI than creating a person from scratch.

Back to the Joi sentience debate, one of the crowning achievements of 2049 is how both interpretations stand up to scrutiny. (And beyond that, there is also the notion that it doesn't matter). Which side you fall on depends on your outlook and worldview. Both you and K are provided with the same question, one that is impossible to answer definitively based on the provided information. K himself goes one way, and because K himself is such a compelling character, I find myself empathizing with his decision. But what is it that he believes in the end? That in itself is ambiguous and open to many valid interpretations. I love that.

Good post. Agreed

That's why I think she's the best thing about the entire film.

 

[Zakalwe]

Yeah. That’s why Joi is such a crucial character. Her existence shows that humans in the BR universe have learned nothing from the Replicant fiasco. If it’s not synthetic humans, it’s AI’s. Joi represents the early hints of the cycle repeating itself, and life’s propensity to break out of its imposed restraints. It’s pretty clever for them to go this route for a 2017 BR sequel; it fits on a thematic level, and in real life we are much closer to making an AI than creating a person from scratch.

Back to the Joi sentience debate, one of the crowning achievements of 2049 is how both interpretations stand up to scrutiny. (And beyond that, there is also the notion that it doesn’t matter). Which side you fall on depends on your outlook and worldview. Both you and K are provided with the same question, one that is impossible to answer definitively based on the provided information. K himself goes one way, and because K himself is such a compelling character, I find myself empathizing with his decision. But what is it that he believes in the end? That in itself is ambiguous and open to many valid interpretations. I love that.

Exactly. Joi is the current bottom rung (that we know of) of this cycle of exploitation.

It's such a neat fit for me.

 

[Shogmaster]

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.

Gaff throughout the first movie drops clues to Deckard being a replicant: Treats Deckard without any courtesy as one would a "Skinjob", yells out to him after Roy's death that he's done a "Man's job", and later leaves the unicorn origamy clue to let Deckard know that he is a replicant. And since Bryant is Gaff's superior, if Gaff knew, then so did Bryant.

As for Deckard, he was same model as Rachel (they were made for each other for procreation), thus he is a Nexus 7, not a Nexus 6 like Wallace. I think he and Rachel are the only 2 Nexus 7s in existence. After their experiment "fails" with Tyrell's death, they go straight to Nexus 8 which are the rebel replicants that help Deckard hide his child.

3. I have to watch the movie a second time to see if there are hint of that.

Watch the whole scene leading to Luv killing Joshi. They act familiar with each other even though they have never been together previously in the movie.

 

[Blues1990]

What’s the general/overall impressions on the movie? Yay, or nay? What worked and what didn’t? Etc.

 

[SexyFish]

So I watched Enemy last night after seeing Blade Runner 2049. What a mind fuck that movie is.

That ending... yeeesh

Enemy may be one of my favorite Kafkaesque films. I love watching friends react to that ending when I put it on.

 

[bob_arctor]

What’s the general/overall impressions on the movie? Yay, or nay? What worked and what didn’t? Etc.

A great and worthy sequel well worth seeing on the big screen.

I have some issues with run time, one particular character, and a few scenes, but nothing major.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Gaff throughout the first movie drops clues to Deckard being a replicant: Treats Deckard without any courtesy as one would a "Skinjob", yells out to him after Roy's death that he's done a "Man's job", and later leaves the unicorn origamy clue to let Deckard know that he is a replicant. And since Bryant is Gaff's superior, if Gaff knew, then so did Bryant.

As for Deckard, he was same model as Rachel (they were made for each other for procreation), thus he is a Nexus 7, not a Nexus 6 like Wallace. I think he and Rachel are the only 2 Nexus 7s in existence. After their experiment "fails" with Tyrell's death, they go straight to Nexus 8 which are the rebel replicants that help Deckard hide his child.


Watch the whole scene leading to Luv killing Joshi. They act familiar with each other even though they have never been together previously in the movie.

Rachel and Deckard being noteworthy models would have been too obvious for Wallace corp, especially when K and Luv are looking at Rachel’s data. It makes no sense that Tyrell would have only created those two with memory cushions. There is no way to even know if Rachel’s ability to reproduce was intentional.

 

[Heckler456]

What's the general/overall impressions on the movie? Yay, or nay? What worked and what didn't? Etc.

I think you owe it to yourself to view it on the big screen if you even have a small passing interest, if only for what's on display. A lot of people in this thread are absolutely raving over it, but a few others seem to be a bit cool on it. Depends on if you like sci-fi noire I guess.

I watched it on Monday, and this movie has been on my brain ever since then.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Also gotta say that Jared Leto sounded almost exactly like Jeffrey Combs (Weyoun from Star Trek DS9, Reanimator) in his tone and overall line delivery. Just watched that series and couldn’t help but think of him any time Leto spoke. Weird.

That is EXACTLY what I thought!

 

[hank_tree]

There is no way to even know if Rachel’s ability to reproduce was intentional.

I think it’s very very very very very safe to assume that it was intentional.

Like, as safe as it is to assume gravity will work tomorrow the same way it does today.

 

[CloudyTuba]

Gaff throughout the first movie drops clues to Deckard being a replicant: Treats Deckard without any courtesy as one would a "Skinjob", yells out to him after Roy's death that he's done a "Man's job", and later leaves the unicorn origamy clue to let Deckard know that he is a replicant. And since Bryant is Gaff's superior, if Gaff knew, then so did Bryant.

As for Deckard, he was same model as Rachel (they were made for each other for procreation), thus he is a Nexus 7, not a Nexus 6 like Wallace. I think he and Rachel are the only 2 Nexus 7s in existence. After their experiment "fails" with Tyrell's death, they go straight to Nexus 8 which are the rebel replicants that help Deckard hide his child.

True. If a replicant was dropped into the police department with false memories of being there longer, everyone else would have to be in on it, totally explaining Gaff's sly actions toward Rick. While I am glad that they continued to keep it ambiguous overall and actually used it to illustrate a point in 2049 ("real to me"), I do enjoy the new fuel they added to the fire to get people talking about it again.

• People used to wonder if a replicant would really be 'employed' to work with humans to retire other replicants and this movie starts by establishing that yes, they definitely would.
  
• This also establishes that Tyrell was definitely up to more than people realized in the first movie with a secret project revolving around Rachael that may have included Deckard intentionally. It added more doubt and mystery to the original story as we know it.
  
• It conveniently sidesteps the previously assumed expiration date of Rachael by stating she died during childbirth, meaning she very well might not have been bound by the same constrictions of the previous models.

They really wrapped up those loose ends pretty well to keep the conversation going. Per your post, I think the Final Cut makes Ridley's intention pretty obvious about what Deckard is supposed to be, but the fact that it's never answered and even made out to be irrelevant in 2049 is what makes it work for me.

Gaff's dialogue in 2049 seemed to be hinting again. When talking about Deckard he mentioned something about "something in his eye" and being "retired" which out of context you'd assume was about a replicant. His choice of words makes me think.

I've been thinking about his origami sheep, though. If it means or symbolizes anything. At first I thought it might be a horse calling out K's memories like he did with the unicorn, but it wasn't. That might have been interesting. It could be a callout to an "electric sheep" as a wink to the people familiar with the original story, but an audience wink doesn't mean much to the actual story which might be a little disappointing.

 

[jack_package_200]

If you love the movie, the $40 artbook is kind of a must have.

Only way I could love that artbook more is if I could get it signed by Villenueve, Deakins, or Gosling.

 

[demosthenes]

Coworker wants to take their kids who are in 8th grade / freshman in high school.

He's most worried about sex, the most I can remember is you see like 3 women's breasts, and it's implied they're about to have sex but don't show anything correct?

I remembered most of the violence.

 

[SMG]

One thing that stood out on my last BR viewing was just how easily Rick is talked into doing the mission.
" if you aren't police you're little people."
Is all it took. Makes sense with what Wallace says

 

[Zakalwe]

Coworker wants to take their kids who are in 8th grade / freshman in high school.

He's most worried about sex, the most I can remember is you see like 3 women's breasts, and it's implied they're about to have sex but don't show anything correct?

I remembered most of the violence.

There's nothing explicit or gratuitous in the film imo.

 

[jett]

Coworker wants to take their kids who are in 8th grade / freshman in high school.

He's most worried about sex, the most I can remember is you see like 3 women's breasts, and it's implied they're about to have sex but don't show anything correct?

I remembered most of the violence.

His kids have undoubtedly seen all kinds of porn by now.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

His kids have undoubtedly seen all kinds of porn by now.

Ding ding ding.