Blade Runner 2049 Discussion (SPOILERS!!!)

[battema]

Like you, I've just gotten used to bring/wearing my "light" earplugs in the movies. I started after the horrible Godzilla 1998 film, which was the first time I found myself covering my ears during the movie. These are the same ones I use with medium-volume bands as well as some random things like super busy convention centers. I get far fewer headaches now.

Blade Runner 2049 was definitely loud, similar to Dunkirk. But it was pretty clear too; I've seen other movies where the sound was just plain boomy. I remember Terminator Salvation's soundtrack sounded like it was coming from the back of some teenager's car trunk via a used woofer.

Dumb question: is the film even in 3D? I ask because the theater by my house is an IMAX and Dolby Cinema joint and they almost always go for max profit. A 3D showing would've added a buck or two to every ticket price, but all showings are in 3D.

[rcarlberg]

There’s a 3D version out there; I haven’t seen it so I can’t comment on how good it is.

[Guitarplyrjvb]

The theater I went to had IMAX and 3-D. The 3-D version was not in IMAX.

[100423]

There was 3-D at the theater we saw the film at too, but we opted out as well.

[Vic2012]

I saw the film this afternoon. Good, hard sci-fi. What exactly are replicant? They're like the Terminator, or the Borg, biological mixed with tech.

[rcarlberg]

Replicants are exactly like humans, except manufactured. They have stronger bones and stronger muscles and faster healing, but they’re still biological not mechanical. They bleed, and can die.

Which makes the child born to Rachel such an enigma — a child born through egg+sperm fertilization would not have serial numbers in her cells. Would not have a fluorescent serial number on her right eye. Would not be a replicant therefore?

If Wallace wants to breed replicants to populate the off-world colonies, presumably he’d still want obedient Nexus 9 replicants... not unreliable humans.

[rcarlberg]

All the animals on earth have gone extinct (presumably) except mankind. If breeding artificial owls resulted in non-artificial owlets being born, they’d no longer be extinct would they?

[Vic2012]

Replicants are exactly like humans, except manufactured. They have stronger bones and stronger muscles and faster healing, but they’re still biological not mechanical. They bleed, and can die.

Which makes the child born to Rachel such an enigma — a child born through egg+sperm fertilization would not have serial numbers in her cells. Would not have a fluorescent serial number on her right eye. Would not be a replicant therefore?

If Wallace wants to breed replicants to populate the off-world colonies, presumably he’d still want obedient Nexus 9 replicants... not unreliable humans.

They are human clones. How are they programmed? With code or just training?

[rcarlberg]

One question not really addressed in BR2049. In the original BR replicants (Nexus 6) were given “an automatic failsafe, 4-year lifespan.” Eldon Tyrell says “You were made the best we could make you. The candle that burns twice as strong burns half as long.” But (in the theatrical cut at least) Rachel is revealed to be an experimental Nexus 7 with an unlimited lifespan.

In the opening crawl to BR2049 it is stated that the Nexus 8s have normal human lifespans. So Wallace must have advanced Tyrell’s experimental long-lived replicant design, and made it standard.

So, are replicants created as adults? Or are they created as children?

The “latest model replicant” that falls out of the goopy bag is full grown, so that would tend to argue they’re still created full-grown. But that isn’t a normal human lifespan, is only maybe 75%.

[rcarlberg]

Replicants are not clones. They have serial numbers embedded in every cell.

And they’re not “programmed.” They have implanted memories, but their decision-making is free will based. Except maybe for the option to disobey (in Nexus 9).

[rcarlberg]

A common misconception about cloning is that a clone is born adult. That’s not true. Cloning involves installing DNA into a fertilized egg, so the fetus grows up replicating somebody else’s DNA. They are born as infants.

[Vic2012]

Oh kay

[Guitarplyrjvb]

Did Rachel, she of the unlimited life span, die in childbirth? I think that was explained. I’ve got to see this again!

[rcarlberg]

Yes, Rachel had a small birth canal and even an emergency C-section by field medic Sapper Morton could not save her. Saved the baby apparently, but not Rachel.

[Vic2012]

I guess the next film will pick up where it left off. Harrison Ford has a hell of a legacy.

[Sputnik]

I'm a little late to the party, but I couldn't open this thread until I saw the film, which I just did. Overall, I liked it, but I didn't love it. It thought as a movie, it was visually stunning, very well acted, and tight in its plot. It retained that "noir" feel from the original, which I love so. It was possibly a bit too long, and while it's full of "possibilities," I thought it was a bit thin on the relation of all this minutiae to the bigger questions that PK Dick was really asking in the book... what is real?, and what does it mean to be "human?" To me, it didn't add a whole lot to those questions which the original film didn't already explore, and explored better to my mind. But that doesn't mean it was intellectually bereft either.

I've read every post here, and the most interesting thing that came up that I didn't consider is why Deckard lied about Rachel's eye color (assuming he did, which for the sake of argument I do). I think the answer is simple and complex, and perhaps is the most interesting in the movie. On the simple side, he was lying as much to himself as to them. He knew that wasn't Rachel, as much as it looked like her, it wasn't her. It wasn't the real Rachel. So he rejected her, and that was very hard for him. He knew in his rejection she would be killed, but he also knew he was denying himself the joy of being back with her, because it wasn't real. And that's a complex emotional chain, and very human.

I know there's a lot of hoopla about Deckard being a Replicant after the Director's Cut of the film. No question, the Director's Cut raises that question, but leaves it unsolved. I think Deckard's decision to pass on Rachel Mark II is an indication that he is, in fact, human. Personally, I like this, because I never particularly liked the Director's Cut, feeling the question of whether Deckard was a Replicant or not didn't really add anything to the fundamental questions. That's my take on it, anyway.

There are definitely some things in the plot that I don't quite understand. Very little feels accidental, but I can't quite place some contexts. For example: in the office of the orphanarium, after the owner has fled and K is looking over the book (with torn pages) alone in the room, he stops and deliberately turns an ashtray to look at the butts. I can't for the life of me figure out the significance of that detail.

I don't think there is any magic to it, it was an ashtray of a horse, and that put his "remembered" wooden horse back in his mind and sent him looking for it.

Bill

[JKL2000]

I'm a little late to the party, but I couldn't open this thread until I saw the film, which I just did. Overall, I liked it, but I didn't love it. It thought as a movie, it was visually stunning, very well acted, and tight in its plot. It retained that "noir" feel from the original, which I love so. It was possibly a bit too long, and while it's full of "possibilities," I thought it was a bit thin on the relation of all this minutiae to the bigger questions that PK Dick was really asking in the book... what is real?, and what does it mean to be "human?" To me, it didn't add a whole lot to those questions which the original film didn't already explore, and explored better to my mind. But that doesn't mean it was intellectually bereft either.

I've read every post here, and the most interesting thing that came up that I didn't consider is why Deckard lied about Rachel's eye color (assuming he did, which for the sake of argument I do). I think the answer is simple and complex, and perhaps is the most interesting in the movie. On the simple side, he was lying as much to himself as to them. He knew that wasn't Rachel, as much as it looked like her, it wasn't her. It wasn't the real Rachel. So he rejected her, and that was very hard for him. He knew in his rejection she would be killed, but he also knew he was denying himself the joy of being back with her, because it wasn't real. And that's a complex emotional chain, and very human.

I know there's a lot of hoopla about Deckard being a Replicant after the Director's Cut of the film. No question, the Director's Cut raises that question, but leaves it unsolved. I think Deckard's decision to pass on Rachel Mark II is an indication that he is, in fact, human. Personally, I like this, because I never particularly liked the Director's Cut, feeling the question of whether Deckard was a Replicant or not didn't really add anything to the fundamental questions. That's my take on it, anyway.

I don't think there is any magic to it, it was an ashtray of a horse, and that put his "remembered" wooden horse back in his mind and sent him looking for it.

Bill

I think you're right, Bill. I also think it was a bit of a joke because usually the detective would be interested in the butts (who else has smoked this kind of cig?), but in THIS noir, it's the ashtray that's of interest. Anyway, that's what came to mind for me.

[rcarlberg]

Makes one wonder where they still grow tobacco.

“Too long”? Yes, on my second viewing I identified about 30 minutes that could’ve been cut without affecting the story. I just rewatched “The Martian” and was reminded of the clever way that movie jumped ahead, in time, making perfectly clear what happened but not showing any of it. BR2049 could’ve used more of that.

But it didn’t seem too long to me. When the original BR ended I was really sad to have to leave that BR universe. I wanted to spend another week exploring that world. The new film was not quite as inviting, but I still enjoyed being lost there for 2 hours 44 minutes.

[Sputnik]

So I've been giving this move a bit more thought. The more I think about it, the clearer it becomes to me that Joi is the most important character/element in the film. K's relationship with Joi is given a lot of screen time, and I'm beginning to see why.

The pivotal scene in the film is near the end when K is walking alone, beaten to shit after being rescued by the Replicant underground, and meets that gigantic hologram. In that encounter, K is made aware of the possibility that everything Joi told him was just part of her programming. It's after this encounter that K makes the decision to save Deckard. He does recall what the one-eyed Replicant said about sacrificing for a greater cause, which of course evokes what Joi did for K. But I think there are two possible paths of motivation for K to save Deckard.

The first is that he believed Joi "jumped her programming," and committed a conscious, selfless act to be deleted from the console, and at that point K accepts what is said about sacrificing for the greater cause being a sign of "humanness," and basically does the same thing.

The second possibility is a bit more complex. In this scenario, K realizes that what Joi did was simply part of her programming, and was not "real." For K, this calls into question the idea that a Replicant, or anything that has been "programmed," can ever truly achieve authenticity or humanity. But they can take actions that further the experience of real humans with authentic emotions. For K, the only person that fit that bill was Deckard, and so K's sacrifice was not motivated by as sense that it would make him more human, but was motivated by his sense that Deckard's sacrifice for his daughter was the authentic human emotion and commitment to a greater idea. I think when Deckard asks at the end, "why me," this is what is in K's mind. The answer is, because you're human, and I'm not. You're real, and I'm not.

I also think put to bed any notion that Joi was a double agent or that her programming was being monitored in any detail by Wallace. Too much was said between Joi and K that would have led Wallace to conclude that K might be the child, and they would have taken him along with Deckard when they left Vegas.

So, those are my recent thoughts. I think it's nice that one of the new elements (Joi) has such a central part in the film, in either scenario you think accounts for K's motivation to save Deckard.

Bill

[rcarlberg]

Ah, but Wallace Corp was watching K through Joi. When K destroys the chip inside the Emulator (or whatever it was called),the instant he did that they cut to Luv sitting at a desk. Her feed through Joi’s eyes just went down, and she races into action to find out what K is going to do next.

That’s also how Luv knew all about Lt. Joshi.

[rcarlberg]

Which raises an interesting question, now that you bring it up. Joi kept telling K he was special, he was born not made. Was Wallace Corp making her say this (she’s a Wallace Corp product too)?

If so, to what end? They are using K to find the child, so what use is it to make him think he’s it?

K is a Nexus 9, unable to lie or refuse an order (“I wasn’t aware it was an option.”). Yet Wallace must have known K would have trouble retiring the child, or capturing it for dissection since they didn’t task him with that directly, themselves. They used LAPD to do their dirty work.

[walt]

th (10).jpg

[Sputnik]

Ah, but Wallace Corp was watching K through Joi. When K destroys the chip inside the Emulator (or whatever it was called),the instant he did that they cut to Luv sitting at a desk. Her feed through Joi’s eyes just went down, and she races into action to find out what K is going to do next.

That’s also how Luv knew all about Lt. Joshi.

Yeah, I know Luv was watching something on Joi's feed and reacted when it went down. But if she was literally seeing through Joi's eyes, then why didn't they take K in Vegas? They would have had ample reason to suspect he was the child from what he and Joi discussed, but they totally took a pass. This means to me, they couldn't possibly have heard the conversations. And if they didn't hear those, why would we assume they heard any?

Luv could have found out about Lt. Joshi any number of ways, the same way she found out where the bones were in the morgue. Unless I missed something, which is possible, I don't see any evidence either piece of came from Joi's feed. Yes, they were monitoring the feed, but it isn't at all clear to me what level of detail they were getting from it. So I maintain that they were in the dark as to the specifics of what Joi and K discussed.

Unless...

Which raises an interesting question, now that you bring it up. Joi kept telling K he was special, he was born not made. Was Wallace Corp making her say this (she’s a Wallace Corp product too)?

If so, to what end? They are using K to find the child, so what use is it to make him think he’s it?

K is a Nexus 9, unable to lie or refuse an order (“I wasn’t aware it was an option.”). Yet Wallace must have known K would have trouble retiring the child, or capturing it for dissection since they didn’t task him with that directly, themselves. They used LAPD to do their dirty work.

There's only one reason to make K believe he was the child, and that would be to get him to go after Deckard, who he thinks is his daddy. Which is what he did. So that would make something of a case for Joi being under Wallace control and would also explain why the left K in Vegas, knowing he wasn't really the child, and for that matter why Luv stomped out Joi... she'd served her purpose.

So it wasn't actually Luv monitoring K, but rather Wallace broadcasting to K what Wallace wanted. This is plausible, but if Luv really wanted to disarm K when they were fighting at the end, why didn't she drive the stake through his heart and tell him that Joi was under their control from some point onward, and prove it to him with some carefully chosen words Wallace had put in her mouth? This makes me a bit skeptical that this was what was happening.

It isn't clear what was happening with Wallace monitoring Joi, so you can't dismiss the idea she was under their control. But it seems the movie would have made more of a point of it if she were. So I remain somewhat skeptical of this reading, but open to it. I still think Joi is at the very epicenter of the film in more ways than one, and in any scenario, the key to the film goes through her character (no pun intended ).

Bill

[JKL2000]

It was a little unclear to me what happened in Vegas - I don't know why they got Deckard but not K, and then the rebels got K. But I think they didn't suspect he was the special child, since it seems he wasn't and he just hoped he was, and Joi was telling him what he wanted to hear.

[Trane]

Saw the movie, but it wasn't in the biggest room in the cineplex, but in the second biggest with the screen still quite an eyeful, especially that I was alone on the third row with the GF... Room 3/4 filled on last showing on a Sunday evening is not so bad, and the vaudience average was probably in the late 20's or early 30's, which might be surprising to some (moi, for ex). Didn't find the sound level too high, except on a couple of shouts (notably K yelling in the presence of Dr Ana)... and it seemed the sound was notably higher for the next few minutes, before coming down a notch afterwards. No-one walked out and it seems like everyone knew what they were seeing and followed the story and cencept, like they were quite familiar with it.

Hadn't viewed the first prior (didn't feel I needed to), but I did view the intermediate years short flicks, and I must say the last two shorter films were a fair bit of help to understand the BR2 flick, but found the anime no help at all. Plot made sense, storyline is fairly easy to comprehend (I was a bit afraid abiout that issue), if you're a BR1 fan. The film does reliven more or less the same induced-thoughts on humanity. Kind of dislike these kung-fu-like fights, but hey, as if it was possible to make such a film without them.

Visually, I found the BR2 fairly disappointing and lacking the weird poetry of its predecessor: of course the surprise setting of BR1 cannot work a second time, but you'd have expected the city to have become even more spectacular in the 30 years interval between the stories.So the sppecial effects "wowed" me at all, and TBH, the magic is gone because much of the story happens outside LA, which kinds of spoils the rich urban scenes of BR1 that i was (foolishly, maybe) expecting.

I was disappointed hearing they were making a follow-up of a classic that didn't need one, and was set not to see it. Then I grew to the idea that there would be one, and decided that I'd wait to see if the first echoes were good or not... Not that I'm happy BR2 exists (I still think it's unnecessary), but now that it does, I'm OK with having seen it, but most likely will never watch it a second time.
My worst fear is that BR2 would sully its predecessor and my memories of it, but this hasn't happened.

BR1= 9.5/10 & BR2=7/10