Rachel was a replicant and she could procreate, so Deckard being able to have kids doesn't prove anything either way.I dont think Deckard is a replicant. Wouldnt he too have to be a special replicant that can procreate in order for that to be the case? That would be dumb.
Rachel was a replicant and she could procreate, so Deckard being able to have kids doesn't prove anything either way.
Since Villeneuve has said the movie is deliberately ambiguous, I don't think there's any determinative plot point. You can basically choose whichever reading you prefer.
She makes memories for replicants. He just happened to get one that was based on a real event in her life. Or thats how I took it.
Rachel was a replicant and she could procreate, so Deckard being able to have kids doesn't prove anything either way.
Since Villeneuve has said the movie is deliberately ambiguous, I don't think there's any determinative plot point. You can basically choose whichever reading you prefer.
did they ever explain in this universe why they needed slave ai fleshy dudes for offworld labor vs just robots?
It's certainly open to interpretation, but I think mine is more in keeping with the movie's themes and K/"Joe"'s arc.I think there was plenty of doubt regarding Joi, 'everything you want to see/hear' was the slogan right? Definitely open to interpretation though.
I don't see that that's any more implausible than female replicants having working ovaries.So male replicants all have working sperm and shit?
Interesting question. This is what I don't get. Rachel had twins or no? The copy in this case was just scrambled records? How did K manage to get her memories?
did they ever explain in this universe why they needed slave ai fleshy dudes for offworld labor vs just robots?
How in the world did we get so lucky that BOTH Twin Peaks: The Return and Blade Runner 2049 lived up to their respective originals?
What a year.
I dont think I was ever this suprised by all the twists in a movie. Villeneuve is just amazing. I want to see it all over again right now.
wait, Joe suppose to have died at the end? Thought he was more... just at peace. Guy seems to have handled every other flesh wound just fine.
wait, Joe suppose to have died at the end? Thought he was more... just at peace. Guy seems to have handled every other flesh wound just fine.
It's certainly open to interpretation, but I think mine is more in keeping with the movie's themes and K/"Joe"'s arc.
Blade Runner is all about exploring the nature of humanity, particularly in relation to men's creations, and making the point that those creations do have humanity despite their not being thought to or meant to. We don't really have the specifics of how these AIs develop, but we also don't know why Gosling, despite being a replicant of the class that is meant to be obedient, ends up not being obedient -- beyond that he developed/chose to.
Moreover, Joi's scenes have weight to them. Take the moment where she walks out into the rain (another "tears in rain" echo, maybe). Villeneuve films this moment primarily from Joi's POV, like the scene is as much about her as K. We don't see it as K being entranced by this fakery, we just watch her looking at her own hands as the rain causes her to solidify.
And, as I said, K's arc is moving past the artificial "chosen one" narrative and choosing to fight for a cause, even at the risk to his own life, which allows him to invest it with meaning. Joi insisted on following K at the risk of her own demise, even saying that by abandoning her pseudo-immortality she could become a "real girl".
Nah, she gutted him from the side with a pretty long knife. Even when he got hurt in the New Vegas explosiom with Ford and got stabbed inthe stomach the other replicants had to come in, save him, patch him up
I think 2049 is better than its predecessor on a story level (at a minimum, it doesn't contain a scene as badly misjudged as the Deckard/Rachel sex scene).And yeah, I personally prefer 2049 over the original film by a significant margin. I wouldn't be surprised if the original still ends up being more influential and iconic as a whole to people in general, but I found myself preferring the overall execution of 2049. The central mystery, even though I'd already been spoiled on it a few days ago, was far more engaging to me than Deckard's hunt to find Roy, Pris, Zhora and Leon was in the original film.
My dad, who really doesn't care much for the original film, felt the same way. He's not much of a sci-fi fan in general, so I was worried he wouldn't be into this film, but he was completely sold on 2049.
The biggest thing I disliked in the movie (more so than the OST) was how easily telegraphable most of the plot points were in the movie. The Memory Maker being the kid, K being or not being a replicant, Rachel's stuff. Managed to guess almost everything way before it happened.
Heh, funny how differently the movie worked on both of us.
Speaking of Luv, how the hell is Sylvia Hoeks and why is she still an unknown? She was fantastic in the movie. I hope to see her poop up in more movies.
Ah you're right, she knew he had killed Dave Bautista. How, I can't say I guess!
I also don't understand what was the deal with K's supervisor, in general. I'm not sure her character made much sense.
As I said, it's open to you to read it that way, but I don't see that that fits with the film's thematics at all, or how the film handles her. We're even shown her interacting with people when K isn't around, where she displays emotional attachment.Joi trying to convince K that he was birthed/the child was telling him what he wants to hear. Its ambiguous. Even telling him to delete her from the home unit could be feeding into Ks desires. Joi is shown to take the initiative, if she believes its in Ks interest, based on some psychological profile she has of him.
I think 2049 is better than its predecessor on a story level (at a minimum, it doesn't contain a scene as badly misjudged as the Deckard/Rachel sex scene).
Visually, it can't escape the shadow of the original, which was one of the most aesthetically influential films of all-time, but that's an impossible standard.
The original Blade Runner was genre-defining on an aesthetic level. Blade Runner 2049 is gorgeous, but it will not have that level of impact; it's hewing within a template for post-apocalyptic futures that other films, including the original, helped establish.Nah fam, Villeneuve and Deakins knocked it out of the fucking ballpark with this one. It owes just as much to films like Stalker, The Sacrifice, The Shining and Se7en as it does the original Blade Runner. There's a much wider range of visuals on display here and that imagery gets pretty mind boggling- especially that sex scene.
The only real arguments that I think anyone could seriously make over something the original does better than 2049 are the score and the villains. From there on out, it's either toe to toe or 2049 taking the lead.
One Blade Runner has Rutger Hauer going on about Tanhauser gates and c-beams. The other doesn't.
Not even close people.
I think 2049 is better than its predecessor on a story level (at a minimum, it doesn't contain a scene as badly misjudged as the Deckard/Rachel sex scene).
One Blade Runner has Rutger Hauer going on about Tanhauser gates and c-beams. The other doesn't.
Not even close people.
The original Blade Runner was genre-defining on an aesthetic level. Blade Runner 2049 is gorgeous, but it will not have that level of impact; it's hewing within a template for post-apocalyptic futures that other films, including the original, helped establish.
Nah fam, Villeneuve and Deakins knocked it out of the fucking ballpark with this one. It owes just as much to films like Stalker, The Sacrifice, The Shining and Se7en as it does the original Blade Runner. There's a much wider range of visuals on display here and that imagery gets pretty mind boggling- especially that sex scene.
The only real arguments that I think anyone could seriously make over something the original does better than 2049 are the score and the villains. From there on out, it's either toe to toe or 2049 taking the lead.
As I said, it's open to you to read it that way, but I don't see that that fits with the film's thematics at all, or how the film handles her. We're even shown her interacting with people when K isn't around, where she displays emotional attachment.
Blade Runer OG really hasn't aged well
Come on. Sure this movie is better in certain regards but its not topping the original when it comes to visual influence. Compared to the original it may have had a wider range of visuals, but not compared to the work already done in the genre influence by Blade Runner. The visual concept has been worked over for decades, there are plenty of scenes in 2049 that you can connect to the original film and films that were inspired by it years later.
Like almost every scene in Blade Runner was unprecedented. Outside of 2049's take on AI love making what hasn't been done before?
Blade Runer OG really hasn't aged well
Visually 2049 is ridiculous
Blade Runer OG really hasn't aged well
what are you doing
Blade Runer OG really hasn't aged well
Visually 2049 is ridiculous
Just got back to the house after a 90 minute long drive from the IMAX theater with my dad. Definitely going to be seeing this in theaters again.
And yeah, I personally prefer 2049 over the original film by a significant margin. I wouldn't be surprised if the original still ends up being more influential and iconic as a whole to people in general, but I found myself preferring the overall execution of 2049. The central mystery, even though I'd already been spoiled on it a few days ago, was far more engaging to me than Deckard's hunt to find Roy, Pris, Zhora and Leon was in the original film.
My dad, who really doesn't care much for the original film, felt the same way. He's not much of a sci-fi fan in general, so I was worried he wouldn't be into this film, but he was completely sold on 2049.
I loved it. All the slowness really made the brutality pop. The locations were fantastic, and it left me with several questions. So many surreal things. To see AI trying to find humanity in a world where human children are slaves, and sold to anyone with passing interest. It still throws me that there was a multi AI sex scene. Everyone in that room wasn't real. I mean the scene was cool by itself, but everything being a creation itself is what gets me.
It wasn't long enough though, and I genuinely mean that. I wanted it to go past the end. I wanted Joi to have a scene with Decker before she died. Wanted to know more about Leto, and the revolution.
I honestly feel like this was 1.5 movies, I mean I know that it was structured well, low point ,climax and all that, but I feel like you could stop after K gets suspended, and have a second movie introducing Deckard, with a third confronting Leto. I mean I don't think this will get a sequel, and that's perfectly fine, but still, I want more. This is a fantastically horrid world.
<3 Joi