Support NeoGAF

[Window]

I asked earlier in the thread but I wanna make sure I got it right, Gaff did an origami of a sheep right?

Also, the memory maker idea (and scenes) were quite touching and totally acts as a kind of a director stand in.

 

[MMarston]

She is credited because her moving image is used, presumably subject to a contract requiring her to be credited for the use of the imagery. A different actor might have been used in scenes that demanded something else.

Also they used archived footage of her from the original movie, so that’s immediately a given.

As for the CGI itself, it’s definitely better than most, but at this point I’ve seen plenty of films do this trick that it’s really hard not to notice it.

 

[Blubikins]

Just got back from the movie. Loved it. It was just all around the perfect movie for me. Even though it was a longer movie it flew by. Listening to the soundtrack now.

I want to be in that world!

 

[Inceptional]

He complained about only being able to take over 9 worlds or wtvr. Replicants probably take time to make so if he had ones that can reproduce than it would increase mass production. By a lot too. He is just any person in high power who wants more power.

Yea I don't know why people aren't understanding or complaining about the Wallace character. He's Tyrell turned up to 11! He's just like the evil motherfuckers in real life, there's no master plan. They just want more power and more control. He's wants them to reproduce because he can only make so many. He wants to control them though, of course. The replicants are seeing this birth as the right to become free of slavery and live life on their own terms.

Of course, all of this is only lightly touched upon in the movie because its not about all that shit. It's about K and Dekkard and how they navigate through this world. That's why I love Blade Runner. It's got huge themes but built around a simple story of a guy trying to do the right thing. It's brilliant. God I want to watch this again now.

 

[Barajas_201]

Just got back from watching it and I liked it but the ending really bummed me out. Why did K/Joe had to die (or implied death)? Men, I was in my mind screaming "please pull out a Drive ending Ryan. Please pull out a Drive ending!" but nope, the movie cuts away. Also wanted to see more of Deckard and his daughter, also the gigantic tease of the Replicant rebellion... Oh and the still ambiguous question of Deckard's true identity... Movie was too short. 10/10.

 

[Einchy]

Just got back from watching it and I liked it but the ending really bummed me out. Why did K/Joe had to die (or implied death)? Men, I was in my mind screaming "please pull out a Drive ending Ryan. Please pull out a Drive ending!" but nope, the movie cuts away. Also wanted to see more of Deckard and his daughter, also the gigantic tease of the Replicant rebellion... Oh and the still ambiguous question of Deckard's true identity... Movie was too short. 10/10.

Did you watch Blackout: 2022? Your Replicant rebellion itch might be sated by that.

 

[Window]

I'm kind of surprised by questions asking why Luv was shown to be crying. I think the film makes it apparent that the repression built into her design is the source of deep internal conflict. That scene where she talks about how invigorating it must be to be asked a personal question as it indicates desire followed by her asking K a personal question was I think, not a test of K but a subtle attempt to connect with a fellow replicant on her behalf. She very well represents the 'wrongness' of a constrained artificial life (like the toys did in the original) which serves as a nice contrast to the immediate acceptance from the audience of K being just an artificial but complete human. Most of this is present in the earlier scenes with her and it's too bad they don't do much else with it for the rest of the film where she becomes a convenient plot device.

Kermode mentioned (Spielberg's) AI in his review and I think that film still perhaps best captures the ambiguity and dilemma in establishing the free will of an artificial intelligence designed for a specific purpose with certain constraints and dispositions in place. A lot of that is present here too but I don't feel like it creates the same unease in asking us to answer that question, its conclusions are clear for the most part (but that's no different than the original which was the same).

 

[Chezzymann]

Just got back from watching it and I liked it but the ending really bummed me out. Why did K/Joe had to die (or implied death)? Men, I was in my mind screaming "please pull out a Drive ending Ryan. Please pull out a Drive ending!" but nope, the movie cuts away. Also wanted to see more of Deckard and his daughter, also the gigantic tease of the Replicant rebellion... Oh and the still ambiguous question of Deckard's true identity... Movie was too short. 10/10.

Yeah, while I liked the movie a lot, they set up a bunch and kinda left it on the table. I get it was joes story but I hope it doesnt flop so we can get more of the world.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Shoutouts to the dude from Captain Phillips getting work.

 

[MMarston]

Shoutouts to the dude from Captain Phillips getting work.

I was legit startled by this.


I really thought Captain Philips would really be the first and last time I saw the guy on the big screen.

 

[Glass Shark]

My god, what an incredible film. What dark rituals do we have to perform to get more movies like this?

 

[Futaleufu]

I didn't like it.

It ruined all the mystery from the previous movie.
Joi was a very convenient exposition device, and they got rid of her when she was no longer necessary.
The whole movie feels like a pastiche of the original.
Villeneuve has proven he can do interesting films, he should keep working using his own material.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Also, was it me or were they intentionally vague on whether Deckard was actually a replicant? Wallace seemed to say he had no way to know for sure, because of incomplete records, but the conspiracy theory in his head was that Tyrell created Deckard to mate with Rachel and carry out the plan for replicant reproduction.

 

[Totakeke]

I'm kind of surprised by questions asking why Luv was shown to be crying. I think the film makes it apparent that the repression built into her design is the source of deep internal conflict. That scene where she talks about how invigorating it must be to be asked a personal question as it indicates desire followed by her asking K a personal question was I think, not a test of K but a subtle attempt to connect with a fellow replicant on her behalf. She very well represents the 'wrongness' of a constrained artificial life (like the toys did in the original) which serves as a nice contrast to the immediate acceptance from the audience of K being just an artificial but complete human. Most of this is present in the earlier scenes with her and it's too bad they don't do much else with it for the rest of the film where she becomes a convenient plot device.

But there was never a mechanism introduced that could limit a replicant's free will across the two movies, aside from the artificial constraints due to the environments they were placed in. What would happen if Luv disobeyed orders or why was she not disobeying orders? That was never made clear... aside from maybe being hunted or decommissioned? Regardless, her potential story, like you said, was given a very light touch and no more afterwards.

 

[Einchy]

I didn't like it.

It ruined all the mystery from the previous movie.
Joi was a very convenient exposition device, and they got rid of her when she was no longer necessary.
The whole movie feels like a pastiche of the original.
Villeneuve has proven he can do interesting films, he should keep working using his own material.

What mystery is ruined by the sequel? Any ambiguity from the first movie is still present in the second. Also, when did Joi ever spout exposition? I don't recall her ever doing this.

Also, was it me or were they intentionally vague on whether Deckard was actually a replicant? Wallace seemed to say he had no way to know for sure, because of incomplete records, but the conspiracy theory in his head was that Tyrell created Deckard to mate with Rachel and carry out the plan for replicant reproduction.

Denis Villeneuve talked about him thinking the first movie isn't completely clear on Deckard being or not being a replicant and he carried that over in the sequel. Wallace brings that up to play with Deckard's mind because Deckard purposely never tried to figure out if he's a Replicant or not.

 

[Burt]

Also, was it me or were they intentionally vague on whether Deckard was actually a replicant? Wallace seemed to say he had no way to know for sure, because of incomplete records, but the conspiracy theory in his head was that Tyrell created Deckard to mate with Rachel and carry out the plan for replicant reproduction.

They were definitely intentionally vague - and just going off the Denis quotes in the IMDB trivia alone seems to confirm that - but you would think that if Deckard was a replicant with a viable reproductive system, he'd be on the dissection table just as fast as any resultant child.

But there was never a mechanism introduced that could limit a replicant's free will across the two movies, aside from the artificial constraints due to the environments they were placed in. What would happen if Luv disobeyed orders or why was she not disobeying orders? That was never made clear... aside from maybe being hunted or decommissioned? Regardless, her potential story, like you said, was given a very light touch and no more afterwards.

This entire movie is about that mechanism for limiting a replicant's free will. That's the difference between a Tyrell product and a Wallace product, and we see it in K multiple times throughout the film, as he dodges asking or answering questions like they're some elephant in the room he's not allowed to look at.

 

[SixMachine]

But there was never a mechanism introduced that could limit a replicant's free will across the two movies, aside from the artificial constraints due to the environments they were placed in. What would happen if Luv disobeyed orders or why was she not disobeying orders? That was never made clear... aside from maybe being hunted or decommissioned? Regardless, her potential story, like you said, was given a very light touch and no more afterwards.

There actually is one now on the newer replicant models. Wallace made them completely obedient so they wouldn't go rogue like the ones before the blackout, which is why K lying to his superior is such a big deal and she believed him completely. Luv seemed specially designed by Wallace (something K seemed to mention since she has a name), since she can lie directly to the police supervisor on how she killed her. She probably designed to be only unconditionally obedient to Wallace, since she is pretty wanton entering the police station, Wallace's pull probably would get her out of any legal trouble she will run into. So she can easily avoid being hunted or decommissioned.

The short about the new replicants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ

 

[Moonkid]

Also, was it me or were they intentionally vague on whether Deckard was actually a replicant? Wallace seemed to say he had no way to know for sure, because of incomplete records, but the conspiracy theory in his head was that Tyrell created Deckard to mate with Rachel and carry out the plan for replicant reproduction.

As Villeneueve said leading up to the release, the movie actually didn't answer that question at all. Wallace's lines during that exchange seals it.

 

[Window]

I didn't like it.

It ruined all the mystery from the previous movie.
Joi was a very convenient exposition device, and they got rid of her when she was no longer necessary.
The whole movie feels like a pastiche of the original.
Villeneuve has proven he can do interesting films, he should keep working using his own material.

What did Joi serve as exposition for?

I think the original is so effective in creating its world because it's a very expertly crafted pastiche of the visual/thematic/political trends of the 80s. I think if anything there wasn't enough lack of coherence and mishmash in visual style in this as the original.

I've only seen Prisoners, Sicario and Enemy and tbh I think this is his best one yet. I found Prisoners and Sicario to be a bit silly due to their unneeded moralizing and overtness. Some cools scenes with great tensions though.

 

[Iceman]

Shoutouts to the dude from Captain Phillips getting work.

Lol. I felt like giving him a congratulatory American clap when he came on screen. So pleased. Too bad it was such a tiny role. Guy's a star.

 

[Toothless]

“You’ve never seen a miracle.”

The future is a miserable time. Artificiality permeates humanity and humanity evades artificiality. Can a single good act redeem anyone? That is that heart of Blade Runner 2049, a sci-fi tour de force that takes the questions the original film put forward 35 years ago and adds new complexities to them. Villeneuve proves to the perfect choice to revive this property as he knows exactly why the first film has captivated audiences through the years despite its initial theatrical failure.

To be human is to hurt. Fancher and Green's script takes that axiom and utilizes it to finally solidify what the first movie puts forward. These replicants have souls, wants, and desires, and that, more than anything else, causes them pain. It also allows them, briefly as it may be, to truly glimpse the beauty that hurt can create. K's quest takes him through all the parts of humanity; the hurt, the struggles, the dreams, and most importantly, the love and the hope.

To get into technical aspects (cinematography, score, acting, direction) would be a disservice to the story and pure experience Blade Runner 2049 offers on first viewing. Certainly, when I rewatch it, I'll go into those aspects in a more traditional review. But for now, the sheer vision of this film presents transcends talking about the movie in specific natures such as those. Blade Runner 2049 is an utterly beautiful film in every way, never forgetting that humanity is cinema's strongest asset and that to hope is to hurt but to love is to live. An absolute masterpiece.

 

[Window]

But there was never a mechanism introduced that could limit a replicant's free will across the two movies, aside from the artificial constraints due to the environments they were placed in. What would happen if Luv disobeyed orders or why was she not disobeying orders? That was never made clear... aside from maybe being hunted or decommissioned? Regardless, her potential story, like you said, was given a very light touch and no more afterwards.

I think the exact mechanism of these constraints are never directly shown but are heavily implied to be an innate design element in the 2036 short released before the film (and found in the OP). From this I presume that Luv's obedience is not based on coercion but programming.

 

[Barajas_201]

Did you watch Blackout: 2022? Your Replicant rebellion itch might be sated by that.

I sure did, marathoned the first movie and all the shorts before going into 2049 and yes the anime was awesome but I clearly meant the NEW rebellion. Also shout out to the actress that did the Rachael clone, didn't look like CGI to me so they got someone that looked VERY similar, also the voice nailed it.

 

[Futaleufu]

What did Joi serve exposition for?

They needed a character that K could talk to so we, the audience, could know what happens next.

 

[Totakeke]

There actually is one now on the newer replicant models. Wallace made them completely obedient so they wouldn't go rogue like the ones before the blackout, which is why K lying to his superior is such a big deal and she believed him completely. Luv seemed specially designed by Wallace (something K seemed to mention since she has a name), since she can lie directly to the police supervisor on how she killed her. She probably designed to be only unconditionally obedient to Wallace, since she is pretty wanton entering the police station, Wallace's pull probably would get her out of any legal trouble she will run into. So she can easily avoid being hunted or decommissioned.

The short about the new replicants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ

Hmm, didn't see that short so thanks. Was it ever touched upon in the movie itself? It certainly would make a lot sense as to why the Lieutenant so easily believed K when he said he destroyed the child.

 

[wesleyshark]

Saw it earlier tonight... absolutely loved it. So, so good.

 

[Einchy]

They needed a character that K could talk to so we, the audience, could know what happens next.

That seems less like exposition and just a character naturally being part of the plot. Joi isn't just there to move along K's investigation, she's also there to further explore the themes of humanity that are present in both movies.

 

[kirblar]

And in a way that sort of "doesn't matter". The new replicants are supposed to be organic machines, made to act a certain way, that's the purpose of those memory implants, to program them. K became off baseline once he thinks he is the child, he essentially acts more human after. For most of the movie until basically the ending, he thinks this. The memory was essentially fake to him, but it made him believe and act on it (and it is implied by the one eyed lady this was on purpose since there are others with the memory). It gave him a purpose to act on his own and find Deckard. Whether Joi really loved him or not did not matter, but she still carried out the act of love, just like how K is not the real child, but he acted out as he was the one.

Basically K and Joi's programming can be summed up as this,

Joi is an extension of K. She is pointing him in the direction of what he wants but won't consciously admit to himsel.

Thats not a real connection, that's Siri. He gives his life to help someone achieve a real one.

 

[SixMachine]

Hmm, didn't see that short so thanks. Was it ever touched upon in the movie itself? It certainly would make a lot sense as to why the Lieutenant so easily believed K when he said he destroyed the child.

I think there was a line that they were completely obedient in the opening text compared to the Nexus 8 replicants, but I would need to double check that. The rest is mostly implication they were obedient unconditionally.

 

[Curious Puppy]

Joi is an extension of K. She is pointing him in the direction of what he wants but won't consciously admit to himsel.

Thats not a real connection, that's Siri. He gives his life to help someone achieve a real one.

Yeah, one of the reasons I found K's story to be so heartbreaking.

 

[Futaleufu]

That seems less like exposition and just a character naturally being part of the plot. Joi isn't just there to move along K's investigation, she's also there to further explore the themes of humanitythat are present in both movies.

Yes, in two scenes. In the rest she is the servant of the exposition gods.

I mean, in those two scenes she pretty much plays the same role as the hooker in "The Lives of Others", but in a less pathetic way.

 

[Window]

I think there was a line that they were completely obedient in the opening text compared to the Nexus 8 replicants, but I would need to double check that. The rest is mostly implication they were obedient unconditionally.

Yeah not that I think about it that short is very crucial to communicating how different these new models are to Tyrell's. They maybe should have been more explicit about that in the opening text for people who didn't see the short.

 

[Rixxan]

Jesus it has its claws in me, can't stop thinking about it - and I already walked out of the theater loving it

It's been so long since something connected with me like this, and i can't tell you how much i appreciate that its another Blade Runner movie that's doing it

 

[watership]

My girl just downed an edible and I smoked a boat load of Candy Land and now we are in the theater. This is gonna be interesting

Some scene are chill and some are tense as fuck. You're going to have a bad time.

 

[Einchy]

Yes, in two scenes. In the rest she is the servant of the exposition gods.

I mean, in those two scenes she pretty much plays the same role as the hooker in "The Lives of Others", but in a less pathetic way.

We must have fundamentally different ideas of what exposition entails because not once did her character feel like exposition. Not only that, but I felt ALL her scenes were about the themes of humanity and what K was going through the whole movie.

 

[SixMachine]

Joi is an extension of K. She is pointing him in the direction of what he wants but won't consciously admit to himsel.

Thats not a real connection, that's Siri. He gives his life to help someone achieve a real one.

That "doesn't matter" because no matter how unauthentic or soulless something is, it can make characters act and feel. That's why there is parallels between what Joi is and what K is. Both are of them are not the real thing, but their actions have real consequences and impact. Especially since K is the focus, he's not the real child, but he initially acted like he was and tried to connect with Deckard who he assumed was his father. But even though he found out he was fake, he still went through and tried to get Deckard connected to his real daughter. Obviously how people feel and view Joi and K are meant to be subjective, no matter the authenticity of it, what they thought was actually there helped motivate their actions for the film even if it might be built purely on programming.

 

[robotrock]

goddamn this is a good looking movie

 

[Window]

They needed a character that K could talk to so we, the audience, could know what happens next.

I think Joi most definitely externalizes K's internal self dialogue but I feel like it works really well. She is not a character in her own right but represents K's desires - not just romantic but his desire to live, feel and express himself as well. She is in that sense quite literally K projecting his thoughts in the real world - a different persona. Which actually happens to work out nicely because that's exactly what she's designed to do (from the internal world logic perspective). It's a great way to visually explore the character's repressed feelings.

 

[wenis]

this was perfect and i feel exhausted after it. the good kind of exhausted.

 

[kirblar]

I think Joi most definitely externalizes K's internal self dialogue but I feel like it works really well. She is not a character in her own right but represents K's desires - not just romantic but his desire to live, feel and express himself as well. She is in that sense quite literally K projecting his thoughts in the real world - a different persona. Which actually happens to work out nicely because that's exactly what she's designed to do (from the internal world logic perspective). It's a great way to visually explore the character's repressed feelings.

Yup. Her role will be very different on a second viewing.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Couple questions.

How did Joe know Deckard was being transported, and from where to where? He picks up his gun to go do the right thing and suddenly he's exactly where he needs to be at the right time. Felt like there was an edit that snipped something out, but maybe I missed it.

Was the head of the company in one of the cars Joe shot down? Or is he just left to do his thing back in the company?

Wouldn't Deckard get seen/filmed/spotted going to a supplier of the head of the company? I didn't understand why he thought that was a safe thing to do at the end.

 

[whyamihere]

Incredible film. I'm still reeling from it and have to collect my thoughts but it was great.

 

[robotrock]

I remember people getting mad about some reviews spoiling some major twist in the movie. What was that? Was it that Ryan Gosling was a replicant?

 

[radios shipping overview]

Yup. Her role will be very different on a second viewing.

I'm not particularly interested in reducing her importance to the role she serves in the narrative. I see Joi as the Wallace company expanding into a new market, but still using the same M.O. - in this case, creating and enslaving AIs that could develop on their own as sentient beings without the commercial constraints placed on them. K was created to fill a subservient role with a specific set of initial programming, and once that programming started to falter he became more real. As he became more real, so did Joi, and she started to bend or break her constraints.

 

[SixMachine]

Couple questions.

How did Joe know Deckard was being transported, and from where to where? He picks up his gun to go do the right thing and suddenly he's exactly where he needs to be at the right time. Felt like there was an edit that snipped something out, but maybe I missed it.

Was the head of the company in one of the cars Joe shot down? Or is he just left to do his thing back in the company?

Wouldn't Deckard get seen/filmed/spotted going to a supplier of the head of the company? I didn't understand why he thought that was a safe thing to do at the end.

I'm guessing that since they needed to get offworld, he assumed they were heading to the spaceport or whatever and tried to scope them out there. But that's just my assumption, they probably could have edited in a scene of him figuring out where to go.

I don't think Wallace was in any of those cars, I don't remember any mention of him leaving his building.

Yea, I thought that was kind of weird, since she is Wallace's number one memory implant technician. I guess since she is a contractor, she isn't really tied down to the company and works with them whenever she wants. But I guess that's just something they think doesn't need to be thought out too much.

 

[Timeaisis]

Just got out. Way, way, way too long. Scattershot ideas. Ford takes too long to show up. Lack of motives up till the end, and an extremely drawn out exposition. And I thought they over explained the plot to death.

Apart from those complaints, I liked it quite a bit. Visuals were superb. Plot was interesting, if undercooked. K was a great character. Nowhere near the original, but I wasn't expecting it to be.

Going to see it again though for sure. The opening sequence and the memory scene are the standouts for me.

 

[Window]

Couple questions.

How did Joe know Deckard was being transported, and from where to where? He picks up his gun to go do the right thing and suddenly he's exactly where he needs to be at the right time. Felt like there was an edit that snipped something out, but maybe I missed it.

Was the head of the company in one of the cars Joe shot down? Or is he just left to do his thing back in the company?

Wouldn't Deckard get seen/filmed/spotted going to a supplier of the head of the company? I didn't understand why he thought that was a safe thing to do at the end.

1) I don't there's any explanation. I found this to be a bit irksome too and there are several such conveniences in the film but I'm willing to overlook these for the most part.
2) Wallace wasn't in the cars. Still probably at the HQ.
3) There are clearly no surveillance cameras in 2049 (because how else do you also kill 2 police officers in a police station with no repercussions?)

I'm not particularly interested in reducing her importance to the role she serves in the narrative. I see Joi as the Wallace company expanding into a new market, but still using the same M.O. - in this case, creating and enslaving AIs that could develop on their own as sentient beings without the commercial constraints placed on them. K was created to fill a subservient role with a specific set of initial programming, and once that programming started to falter he became more real. As he became more real, so did Joi, and she started to bend or break her constraints.

I don't think that interpretation reduces her role in the film at all. There's several films which employ characters to similar effect. I don't it undermines the question of her personhood either, there is not an easy answer to this question as it is what makes questions surrounding the true nature AI so compelling. Is this an illusion of agency or is it real or if there is even a difference? But unlike Samantha in Her, Joi never directly acts in opposition to her programming which is why there is not as definitive of answer here.

 

[theaffection]

Sweet movie.

A few minor questions:

What was the point of Joe doing the DNA match thing, and why exactly did he get arrested? Also, why did he have to redo the baseline test, and how did he fail it?


Also, what did the officer boss woman mean by "What if I finished that?" during the scene where Joe is telling her about the furnace memory?

 

[robotrock]

Not gonna lie I thought this movie flew by. Was really surprised when credits started showing up.

This is coming from someone who finds Blade Runner (final cut at least) pretty slow.

 

[Raitosaito]

Couple questions.

How did Joe know Deckard was being transported, and from where to where? He picks up his gun to go do the right thing and suddenly he's exactly where he needs to be at the right time. Felt like there was an edit that snipped something out, but maybe I missed it.

Was the head of the company in one of the cars Joe shot down? Or is he just left to do his thing back in the company?

Wouldn't Deckard get seen/filmed/spotted going to a supplier of the head of the company? I didn't understand why he thought that was a safe thing to do at the end.

Seems like the replicant rebellion forces seem to have enough resources to imply that they can pinpoint where Deckard is.

There wasn't any real point to bog down the film with a "we found them with satellite" scene I feel.