Support NeoGAF

[Bornstellar]

That doesnt sound like a convincing explanation to me. Its not something Wallace would allow to happen, ie my Replicants are obedient until they start thinking they are special... there is no fail safe in that and whoever approved the production of new replicants because of this would be naive to say the least.

The power of belief in the mind is remarkable.

 

[BocoDragon]

That doesnt sound like a convincing explanation to me. Its not something Wallace would allow to happen, ie my Replicants are obedient until they start thinking they are special... there is no fail safe in that and whoever approved the production of new replicants because of this would be naive to say the least.

This sounds a bit to me like "how could John Hammond allow the creation of dinosaurs that could escape and reproduce in Jurassic Park?"

 

[valkyre]

This sounds a bit to me like "how could John Hammond allow the creation of dinosaurs that could escape and reproduce in Jurassic Park?"

I do not consider Jurassic Park on the same intellectual ball park with Blade Runner...

Look in case it is not evident... I fucking love this movie... its my favorite movie this year and I hold it in high regard. It is just that this thing is bugging me and I was asking around to see if I missed something.

Its not like this is going to break the movie with me but it is a tiny plothole and I wanted to see if there is an answer.

 

[Get'sMad]

so after marinating on this one some more and seeing it twice now I think its a really great film and one of the best sci fi films of the last 10-15 years but I don't like it that much as a blade runner movie if that makes sense?

it lacks (for me anyways) the whole ethereal and weird qualities that I adore so much about the original.

I applaud this one for being its own thing and all but certain aspects of the film just felt super out of place (in my mind of what a BR movie is of course).... like the whole junk yard missile strike portion and replicant uprising group stuff were just not something I wanted in a film like this.

i'm picking nits here sorry yall

 

[daviyoung]

I do not consider Jurassic Park on the same intellectual ball park with Blade Runner...

Look in case it is not evident... I fucking love this movie... its my favorite movie this year and I hold it in high regard. It is just that this thing is bugging me and I was asking around to see if I missed something.

Its not like this is going to break the movie with me but it is a tiny plothole and I wanted to see if there is an answer.

I can't see K's rebellion as a plothole. It feeds directly into the narrative of "more human than human" and the rise of the machines. It's a design flaw inherent in the creation of replicants, that they soon become human and absorb all qualities of humanity. In K's sense: love, trust, questioning the meaning of his existence. This transformation is a key element of the movie, and his disobedience is a facet of it.

 

[BocoDragon]

I do not consider Jurassic Park on the same intellectual ball park with Blade Runner...

Look in case it is not evident... I fucking love this movie... its my favorite movie this year and I hold it in high regard. It is just that this thing is bugging me and I was asking around to see if I missed something.

Its not like this is going to break the movie with me but it is a tiny plothole and I wanted to see if there is an answer.

Well that's true about the intellectual ball parks of various films.

The answer to me is "the human (errr.. replicant) spirit" I guess.

I don't think the answer is a technical one, but rather a matter of subtle human intuition. The same reason why someone would wake up from the illusion of The Matrix or awaken in eastern philosophy or realize that their endless toiling in society is slavery.

Maybe there is some technical reason ... like the threshold for belief in the system is eclipsed by cognitive dissatisfaction... but really I think it's that replicants are basically humans, and any number of possible doorways could lead them to question their subservience to their overlords.

 

[shintoki]

so after marinating on this one some more and seeing it twice now I think its a really great film and one of the best sci fi films of the last 10-15 years but I don't like it that much as a blade runner movie if that makes sense?

it lacks (for me anyways) the whole ethereal and weird qualities that I adore so much about the original.

I applaud this one for being its own thing and all but certain aspects of the film just felt super out of place (in my mind of what a BR movie is of course).... like the whole junk yard missile strike portion and replicant uprising group stuff were just not something I wanted in a film like this.

i'm picking nits here sorry yall

I felt that was one of the things I enjoyed about it. The OG hits you over the head with those and basically ask you those questions to your face. This actually concludes everything and you can scratch those questions asked, only if you want.

2049 was much more well crafted.

 

[valkyre]

I can't see K's rebellion as a plothole. It feeds directly into the narrative of "more human than human" and the rise of the machines. It's a design flaw inherent in the creation of replicants, that they soon become human and absorb all qualities of humanity. In K's sense: love, trust, questioning the meaning of his existence. This transformation is a key element of the movie, and his disobedience is a facet of it.

Well that's true about the intellectual ball parks of various films.

The answer to me is "the human (errr.. replicant) spirit" I guess.

I don't think the answer is a technical one, but rather a matter of subtle human intuition. The same reason why someone would wake up from the illusion of The Matrix or awaken in eastern philosophy or realize that their endless toiling in society is slavery.

Maybe there is some technical reason ... like the threshold for belief in the system is eclipsed by cognitive dissatisfaction... but really I think it's that replicants are basically humans, and any number of possible doorways could lead them to question their subservience to their overlords.

Thanks for your input guys. I think I'll go with "inherit design flaw", although it doesnt quite click with me.

 

[BocoDragon]

Thanks for your input guys. I think I'll go with "inherit design flaw", although it doesnt quite click with me.

It's not a bug it's a feature ...from the perspective of it being an accurate recreation of a human and not a slave.

 

[Window]

The fact that K and other replicants are able to surpass their in-built restrictions is the entire premise of the film. That it is impossible to create an automaton with human-like intelligence who does not possess the need for the same desires or freedoms that we do. There is no explanation for it because it serves as the axiom from which the rest of the story is derived. The film does not raise interesting questions about the nature of artificial intelligence through use of replicants (that is done via Joi). Instead they serve as a stand-in for ourselves to explore the themes of dehumanization, urban alienation and existentialist ideas.

 

[valkyre]

The fact that K and other replicants are able to surpass their in-built restrictions is the entire premise of the film. That it is impossible to create an automaton with human-like intelligence who does not possess the need for the same desires or freedoms that we do. There is no explanation for it because it serves as the axiom from which the rest of the story is derived. The film does not raise interesting questions about the nature of artificial intelligence through use of replicants (that is done via Joi). Instead they serve as a stand-in for ourselves to explore the themes of dehumanization, urban alienation and existentialist ideas.

I know this is the premise of the film, the tiny plot hole i am referring to is not K disobeying, rather than the fact that the government allowed the production of Wallace's replicants and Wallace being naive enough to neglect the entire paragraph that you very well presented.

 

[UrbanRats]

The fact that K and other replicants are able to surpass their in-built restrictions is the entire premise of the film. That it is impossible to create an automaton with human-like intelligence who does not possess the need for the same desires or freedoms that we do. There is no explanation for it because it serves as the axiom from which the rest of the story is derived. The film does not raise interesting questions about the nature of artificial intelligence through use of replicants (that is done via Joi). Instead they serve as a stand-in for ourselves to explore the themes of dehumanization, urban alienation and existentialist ideas.

Yeah and they literally mention soul as a differentiator.
There is no soul, but the construct of it gives power and a sense of entitlement, that fuels free will.
Which is why K develops free will as soon as he thinks or perceives as having one, regardless of it being the case.
So the idea of having a soul is the separation between person and tool.

It being just an abstraction though, means that at that level of intellect, obedience is always chosen, on some level.

 

[Window]

I know this is the premise of the film, the tiny plot hole i am referring to is not K disobeying, rather than the fact that the government allowed the production of Wallace's replicants and Wallace being naive enough to neglect the entire paragraph that you very well presented.

I suppose because they do not see replicants as possessing human-like intelligence as it is difficult to establish what this threshold is. We the audience know replicants have surpassed this because we're exposed to their inner thoughts (and are watching a movie about replicants who are more human than human) but the people of the Blade Runner universe don't have this perspective.

 

[HariKari]

I know this is the premise of the film, the tiny plot hole i am referring to is not K disobeying, rather than the fact that the government allowed the production of Wallace's replicants and Wallace being naive enough to neglect the entire paragraph that you very well presented.

1. Replicants were brought back because there was dire need for their labor. The world is looking for a reason to allow them again. Wallace makes a fortune in synthetic farming with his new replicants which helps feed the world.

2. He presumably found a way to convincingly suppress their emotions and to test them for defects. K's baseline test isn't a one off thing like the original VK, it seems to be a part of his routine. When he fails, it's implied he has been marked for 'retirement' as Joshi can only "get him out of the building alive" but he still must give up his gun. The controls around replicants seem more strict in 2049.

3. The whole point of uprisings and/or resistance is that they stay concealed and don't talk about things openly.

 

[Donos]

I understand valkyre's as legit criticism in that way that Replicants got banned after the rebellion and then Wallace finds a way to make "perfect" obedient Replicants.Like 100% sure that they don't rebell again. Then it seeminlgy doesn't take much to let one rebell again. So i don't think it's a bad criticism but i also don't see it as plothole. After all, it took 30 years for one to "rebell" again.

Man i want to see the movie again right now. But 19,25 &#8364; for the ticket say i won't >_<

Really liked how Wallace was shot in his last scene with the shade on his face.

 

[Adry9]

I understand valkyre's as legit criticism in that way that Replicants got banned after the rebellion and then Wallace finds a way to make "perfect" obedient Replicants.Like 100% sure that they don't rebell again. Then it seeminlgy doesn't take much to let one rebell again. So i don't think it's a bad criticism but i also don't see it as plothole. After all, it took 30 years for one to "rebell" again.

Man i want to see the movie again right now. But 19,25 € for the ticket say i won't >_<

Really liked how Wallace was shot in his last scene with the shade on his face.

Damn, and I though paying 12€ was expensive. Where is that?

 

[Donos]

Damn, and I though paying 12€ was expensive. Where is that?

IMAX Berlin (Sony Center). Granted 1,75 € is for online pre-sale (why would anybody buy the tickets online ...>_>).

 

[Atraveller]

One thing I noticed on a rewatch: Ryan Gosling's confused face when Luv opens the malfunctioning steel door in Wallace Corp.

That was foreshadowing of her strength but I didn't notice his "WTF" facial expression lol

And she even said “excuse me”, like displaying inhuman strength was considered impolite lol.

 

[Adry9]

IMAX Berlin (Sony Center). Granted 1,75 € is for online pre-sale (why would anybody buy the tickets online ...>_>).

Ah that makes sense then hahah. Passed by there once and wanted to check it but they weren't showing any movie worth the price.

 

[Window]

I have nothing to back this up with but I wonder if Johann was let go because he didn't want to recreate Vangelis' Tears in Rain?

 

[Fallout-NL]

Saw this on Reddit.


tl;dr: Ryan Gosling wrote the baseline test scene that they used in the movie.

Impressive.

The fact that K and other replicants are able to surpass their in-built restrictions is the entire premise of the film. That it is impossible to create an automaton with human-like intelligence who does not possess the need for the same desires or freedoms that we do. There is no explanation for it because it serves as the axiom from which the rest of the story is derived. The film does not raise interesting questions about the nature of artificial intelligence through use of replicants (that is done via Joi). Instead they serve as a stand-in for ourselves to explore the themes of dehumanization, urban alienation and existentialist ideas.

Can someone explain to me how did K stopped being obedient if he was designed to be such?

Given the short story accompanying the film, Wallace pretty much confirms that replicants are obedient.

So how did K manage to break these bonds?

It was my impression that K was not one of these newer (obedient) models but a (male) copy of his sister that was clandestinely inserted in the system later to throw people of the scent of the sister. They share real memories after all and it is illegal to use real memories, he is therefore not legally made. It is never explained how they achieved making a copy however, so that part of the film was not entirely clear to me either.

 

[Adry9]

I have nothing to back this up with but I wonder if Johann was let go because he didn't want to recreate Vangelis' Tears in Rain?

Could be. It certainly doesn't make much sense Villeneuve saying he brought Zimmer because he wanted a sound closer to Vangelis. I mean, I liked the soundtrack but come on...

 

[s_mirage]

That doesnt sound like a convincing explanation to me. Its not something Wallace would allow to happen, ie my Replicants are obedient until they start thinking they are special... there is no fail safe in that and whoever approved the production of new replicants because of this would be naive to say the least.

That there's a baseline test at all suggests that it's possible for replicants on a wider scale to develop a sense of individuality and act according to their own wishes rather than their programming. It's reasonable to assume that Wallace's demonstration model was newly built and lacking real world experience that could build feelings of individuality and self worth.

The fail safe is the baseline test: if a replicant goes too far off baseline they're retired, and they're hunted down and retired if they run.

 

[Window]

Impressive.





It was my impression that K was not one of these newer (obedient) models but a (male) copy of his sister that was clandestinely inserted in the system later to throw people of the scent of the sister. They share real memories after all and it is illegal to use real memories, he is therefore not legally made. It is never explained how they achieved making a copy however, so that part of the film was not entirely clear to me either.

There is no sister. K is not a copy but just another regular replicant. He is not Deckard and Rachel's child. Stelline used part of her real memory even though she isn't supposed to.

 

[Calabi]

There was indeed...and I almost brought it up for an opposite reason. Joi's connection was being used by Luv to track K, and when it disappeared she was extremely angry, jumping from her desk to investigate. Then she got to K's apartment and finds the deliberately broken transmitter. Luv is clearly annoyed yet further upon seeing Joi still there in Vegas and vindictively stomps the gift. In my viewing, the "enjoyed our product" line came off as an angrily dismissive last insult to Joi primarily, as something that caused her unexpected problems. Perhaps just as Mariette also seemed compelled to take a dismissive shot at her...

Exactly, they humanise Joi by the way the treat her. They felt so threatened or bothered by this bunch of non sentient algorythms that they had to insult it and destroy it. They though it was pretty real.

 

[zoukka]

And she even said “excuse me”, like displaying inhuman strength was considered impolite lol.

She said it because the jammed up door was slightly embarrassing to her.

 

[tonysidaway]

Impressive.





It was my impression that K was not one of these newer (obedient) models but a (male) copy of his sister that was clandestinely inserted in the system later to throw people of the scent of the sister. They share real memories after all and it is illegal to use real memories, he is therefore not legally made. It is never explained how they achieved making a copy however, so that part of the film was not entirely clear to me either.

No. The only copying was of birth records including the duplicate DNA record. This has nothing to do with Joe, who isn't related to Ana, neither as a sibling nor as a clone. The only things that make him special are that he stumbles upon Rachael's bones and discovers that one of his key childhood memories (though an implant) is grounded in reality. This misleads him for a while and makes him believe he is the surviving child, just as Charles Kinbote in Pale Fire convinces himself that John Shade's autobiographical poem is secretly about him and his family history.

 

[valkyre]

1. Replicants were brought back because there was dire need for their labor. The world is looking for a reason to allow them again. Wallace makes a fortune in synthetic farming with his new replicants which helps feed the world.

2. He presumably found a way to convincingly suppress their emotions and to test them for defects. K's baseline test isn't a one off thing like the original VK, it seems to be a part of his routine. When he fails, it's implied he has been marked for 'retirement' as Joshi can only "get him out of the building alive" but he still must give up his gun. The controls around replicants seem more strict in 2049.

3. The whole point of uprisings and/or resistance is that they stay concealed and don't talk about things openly.

That there's a baseline test at all suggests that it's possible for replicants on a wider scale to develop a sense of individuality and act according to their own wishes rather than their programming. It's reasonable to assume that Wallace's demonstration model was newly built and lacking real world experience that could build feelings of individuality and self worth.

The fail safe is the baseline test: if a replicant goes too far off baseline they're retired, and they're hunted down and retired if they run.

Very very well put guys! The stuff about the baseline test pretty much nailed it for me! Thanks

 

[airjoca]

No. The only copying was of birth records including the duplicate DNA record. This has nothing to do with Joe, who isn't related to Ana, neither as a sibling nor as a clone. The only things that make him special are that he stumbled upon Rachael's bones and discovered that one of his key childhood memories (though an implant) was grounded in reality. This misleads him for a while and make him believe he is the surviving child, just as Charles Kinbote in Pale Fire convinces himself that John Shade's autobiographical poem is secretly about him and his family history.

There has to be something. He dies in the snow, and inside the building his "twin sister" is imagining snow. That "shared experience" can't be a coincidence.

 

[III-V]

It was my impression that K was not one of these newer (obedient) models but a (male) copy of his sister that was clandestinely inserted in the system later to throw people of the scent of the sister. They share real memories after all and it is illegal to use real memories, he is therefore not legally made. It is never explained how they achieved making a copy however, so that part of the film was not entirely clear to me either.

K was an average replicant. The 'twins' idea was simply a decoy. K is not related to the daughter. She had planted her memories in many replicants.

There has to be something. He dies in the snow, and inside the building his "twin sister" is imagining snow. That "shared experience" can't be a coincidence.

Thats interesting, but another take could be that maybe its because she is trapped in a bubble and can't go outside. She knows it is snowing and tries to recreate the experience for herself indoors..

 

[tonysidaway]

There has to be something. He dies in the snow, and inside the building his "twin sister" is imagining snow. That "shared experience" can't be a coincidence.

That's just cinematography. There was only one child. He is only there, and only becomes who he is, through his actions. That's pretty much what the film is about. There is no chosen one, that's just a delusion of the android revolutionaries.

 

[Window]

There has to be something. He dies in the snow, and inside the building his "twin sister" is imagining snow. That "shared experience" can't be a coincidence.

Siblings don't actually have a psychic connection you know. The shared experience being shown in the film is of shared/fragmented identity because they both share the same memory (or memories), which is a large part of a person's being.

Edit: Reading articles on this (like this one), I'm kinda surprised that there are other people who think K is a clone. This does make me wonder though, instead of checking whether his memory is genuine why doesn't K just cross check his DNA against the records?

 

[Fallout-NL]

There is no sister. K is not a copy but just another regular replicant. He is not Deckard and Rachel's child. Stelline used part of her real memory even though she isn't supposed to.

No. The only copying was of birth records including the duplicate DNA record. This has nothing to do with Joe, who isn't related to Ana, neither as a sibling nor as a clone. The only things that make him special are that he stumbles upon Rachael's bones and discovers that one of his key childhood memories (though an implant) is grounded in reality. This misleads him for a while and makes him believe he is the surviving child, just as Charles Kinbote in Pale Fire convinces himself that John Shade's autobiographical poem is secretly about him and his family history.

K was an average replicant. The 'twins' idea was simply a decoy. K is not related to the daughter. She had planted her memories in many replicants.

There has to be something. He dies in the snow, and inside the building his "twin sister" is imagining snow. That "shared experience" can't be a coincidence.

Yeah I'm not so sure either.

Why create a duplicate record and have him remark on it otherwise?

 

[airjoca]

K was an average replicant. The 'twins' idea was simply a decoy. K is not related to the daughter. She had planted her memories in many replicants.


Thats interesting, but another take could be that maybe its because she is trapped in a bubble and can't go outside. She knows it is snowing and tries to recreate the experience for herself indoors..

I don't remember, does anyone tell her it's snowing or was there another way for her to know?

 

[jellies_two]

Well I thought it was great - just came back - and seeing it in a super loud, clear, theater was pretty amazing.

Didn't really like the hipster evil too much, he looks like the guy up the road who puts patterns into coffee foam at the cool cafe, I feel the head of the entire Wallace corporation should be someone much older and deeper. And someone who should have died or suffered in this long movie, not reserved for a sequel which may never get made.

His sidekick gave me a kingsmen vibe. She was excellent. Does the LAPD of the future really have such poor security?

Loved the introduction of digital humans alongside replicants. Like it nudges the whole universe back towards a more likely and believable future.

 

[tonysidaway]

Yeah I'm not so sure either.

Why create a duplicate record and have him remark on it otherwise?

It's the McGuffin that drives the plot. The existence of the duplicate is explained by Freysa, who also verifies that Rachael's baby was a girl. She also says that Rick had shown the androids how to plant fake records to thwart any attempt to track down the child.

 

[Fallout-NL]

It's the McGuffin that drives the plot. The existence of the duplicate is explained by Freysa, who also verifies that Rachael's baby was a girl. She also says that Rick had shown the androids how to plant fake records to thwart any attempt to track down the child.

It's not a McGuffin since the doubt with regards to his own authenticity is central to the theme. Neither does Freysa explain very much.

But, your explanation of the Pale Fire link does have merit. I should finish that book now (started reading it once).

 

[tonysidaway]

I don't remember, does anyone tell her it's snowing or was there another way for her to know?

She could see the snow on cameras, or somebody could tell her, or she could have noticed the thermometer falling or heard a weather report. She may even have a real window or a skylight.

 

[tonysidaway]

Loved the introduction of digital humans alongside replicants. Like it nudges the whole universe back towards a more likely and believable future.

Yes, it allows us to speculate about the themes in a way that relates more directly to our current technology.

 

[Fallout-NL]

That sex scene was perhaps the most brilliant thing in the film.

 

[Window]

That sex scene was perhaps the most brilliant thing in the film.

It's the love scene from Vertigo as interpreted by modern sci-fi in some ways.

 

[Kinyou]

I don't think I've ever seen a movie where the soundtrack itself adds so much to the scale of the images being shown. It has this amazing, almost oppressive character which underlines these grotesquely huge structures so well.

 

[III-V]

Yeah I'm not so sure either.

Why create a duplicate record and have him remark on it otherwise?

Smokescreen to make it appear that the child was male if anyone ever made it that far tracking her down. Also fraternal twins do not share the same DNA. Neither would a male cloned from a female. You would need different DNA by definition.

I don't remember, does anyone tell her it's snowing or was there another way for her to know?

Not on screen, no. This is my speculation. But I imagine everyone still has the weather channel or weather app on their phone. I would imagine she has several outlets to the world being in her condition.

 

[JB1981]

There would not be a Baseline Test if the creators felt there was no room for disobeying

Seems this was already mentioned and said far more eloquently

 

[Heckler456]

I don't think I've ever seen a movie where the soundtrack itself adds so much to the scale of the images being shown. It has this amazing, almost oppressive character which underlines these grotesquely huge structures so well.

I loved that shot of the sprawling LA cityscape, when K goes back to the LAPD building, where the buildings just kept getting bigger and more impressive. And the music that accompanied it was simply incredible.

 

[Fallout-NL]

It's the love scene from Vertigo as interpreted by modern sci-fi in some ways.

Oh yeah, hadn't thought of that.

Smokescreen to make it appear that the child was male if anyone ever made it that far tracking her down. Also fraternal twins do not share the same DNA. Neither would a male cloned from a female. You would need different DNA by definition.

True, but wouldn't someone looking into that also know this? I mean why even bring up DNA at all then. Something seems weird about it - or just not well thought true by the writers.

 

[tonysidaway]

It's the love scene from Vertigo as interpreted by modern sci-fi in some ways.

Somebody said it reminded them of a scene from Ghost!

I must have been the only person who was actually squicked by the scene. Vertigo is also problematic for me, but there it's clearly supposed to be unsettling.

https://youtu.be/8317VVohgMo

 

[III-V]

True, but wouldn't someone looking into that also know this? I mean why even bring up DNA at all then. Something seems weird about it - or just not well thought true by the writers.

My guess is that it did take some detective work on K's end. He and the audience fell for the smokescreen as well. It also reminds the audience that Replicants are biological, not machine like or computer androids like many people walk in thinking.

 

[Fallout-NL]

To be clear, I was very relieved when it turned out he wasn't the actual son. Was kinda worried the story would go there. So it's not actually relevant whether he's a clone or not I suppose. But it would explain why he has more of a penchant for free will.

 

[cebri.one]

Saw it yesterday. Great movie but very sad. At leasy K found some meaning to his life at the end.