I really appreciate this period I'm a huge fan of the original but lost my vision about 28 years ago. 2049 had descriptive audio for the blind but it wasn't nearly as detailed. Well done. Take care.
I'm glad you said that the ending is happy because K realizes that while he isn't special, he can help serve the greater good and that makes him special. I always thought that was profound. It seems that point was lost on most people.
Yes, while he wasn't born special, it isn't an attribute assigned at birth, but more of a personal choice. It's easier for him to continue his path as a blade runner that found out that he doesn't have any importance per say in the resurgence of the replicant kind than to sacrifice himself for a noble cause, a human act as referred in the movie
Yeah, this film brings up interesting questions sci-fi has been obsessed with since at least Philip K Dick, probably longer (Asimov?)… and to Villeneuve’s credit, it doesn’t hit you over the head with any of them. As a result of leaving the philosophical parts unsaid, people who tend to enjoy reading between the lines and interpreting film in a more poetic way will get a lot out of this film. While people who go to movies for ‘bang bang woo hoo boobies’ may find it boring, ‘empty’ or pointless (if you cannot see it, you think it’s not there). Don’t get me wrong, bang bang movies can be cool, i like those too. But here Villaneuve absolutely made a film that lends itself to a more philosophical or poetic interpretation. Am kind of amazed a movie this subtle was greenlit and actually given the budget it was. It’s kind of a secret art-house movie, like a lot of Cohens films. Personally i think this film rose to the level of the original, while remaining its own statement on the same themes.
a very zen/bushido way to view exsistance. It was a mistake to make Russia more prominent than Japan in this distopia. The theme is more bushido than marxist@@Vascopalmeirim_
I took the meaning as K realizing that how you are made/what you are doesn't make you special but what you do with your life and the actions that you take can make you special to someone else.
Bit of a correction on the Joi segment. The Emanator "Present" isn't how K is tracked. Because Joi specifically tells K to break the antenna inside so that she can't be tracked. Meaning that Joi was also starting to free herself from the shackles of just being a product. As she instructed K on how to essentially jail break herself as a product. I think it's also interesting that originally Joi would make suggestions to K, then immediately change her mind if K showed the slightest resistance. Such as her suggestion he read to her, he resists, she throws the book away & says she hates the book. But towards the end she started making more demands vs requests. Such as the prostitute scene, he was very resistant at first. It was something she took the lead on but they both wanted. But her idea to delete her home files he absolutely did not want to do. That was her taking the lead on something he did not want. Essentially, she was becoming human herself. What are we told directly after Joi's "death?" That to die gor the tight cause is the must human thing we can do. Joi chose to appear while K was being beaten. She knew how vulnerable she was. She chose to die for her right cause. Which was K, whom she mistakenly thought was special because of his birth. K was tracked through his boss's office by the by.
This existential philosophy is flawed because then we can say no one who has made significant achievements is special, and eugenics becomes a possibility
I don’t think Joi’s emotions were fake. The point of Blade Runner is that the line between synthetic and natural is irrelevant, rather it’s the experience of emotions and drive that makes something alive. Joe is hurt that his love is dead and what he sees is a ghost of emotions he felt. Synthetic or real, it felt the same. That radicalized him to fight and destroy the line between synthetic and natural. The reason I believe this is because the point of blade runner is push against the hierarchy of awareness. If Joe sees his love as false, then the hierarchy is maintained. But if he realizes it is false and yet still real, then the cause has a real purpose. Westworld has a very similar theme as well in the first and second season.
No, you missed the whole point. Joi (K's AI) is fake, is just a program. Your evidence is just philosophical meaning you personally derived. The hard hitting thing about the dynamic between K and Joi is that K actually loved Joi (he's able to feel love because he's a replicant. Replicants can feel love. Joi isn't a replicant, she's an AI PROGRAM.) but Joi didn't actually love K because she can't. Again, all your proof that Joi was real is just some philosophical meaning that YOU came up with.
@@samuelc.9686 you’re fun at parties huh? Yes some of this comes from my own interpretation. I wrote a critique on the film for college as well as the evolution of AI in storytelling. The story become very nihilistic if you want Joi to be fake. If Joi’s love is fake, then it reinforces what the oppressors say about the replicants. It’s kinda boring. Also the entire series is nothing but philosophical questions. The entire point between the two films, the story, and the shorts is about the line between synthetic and natural. With the ultimate point being that there is no line. A replicant feels and therefore they are alive. Joi felt love, fear, pain, and she acted on her own to make K happy (the prostitute scene). She even feels jealousy. Her creators created her to fall in love and be the perfect companion, but her actions were real to her and to K. She may not have as much awareness as replicants, but she has a “soul”. When K sees her hologram, he is seeing the soulless default created as he was. If he sees his experiences as faked, it completely nullifies the point of the two films. But if he sees his own pain and real emotions despite his default programming, then his motives are much more understandable. Also Dennis Villanueva absolutely loves these unsolvable philosophical and ethical questions. Watch Sicario, Enemy, Prisoners, Arrival, etc. He’s a director who is willing to put a blank scene for the purpose of having the audience fill in the meaning. The end of Enemy is very similar and is literally only meant to be interpreted. A fun philosophical idea is what did our creator program in us? Is that why we have religion, desires, ethics? Are our motivations in service to a creator? Does that make creation an act of oppression?
@@samuelc.9686 no, you missed the point. you say she's fake, but how is he more real than her? is it just his physical body? he's a created product as much as she is. and most humans in their world probably doesn't see much of a difference. in a world where artificial life has pretty much been perfected, i don't think it's outlandish to think a digital AI could be more than the sum of it's parts too.
There are 3 types of people. Those who believe AI can become as sentient as humans. Those who believe humans are just as sentient as AI. Those who choose not to think.
For me, Joi's emotions were real. K was confronted throughout the movie with the wonder of Anna's birth and that he never had seen a wonder himself. When he was confronted with the "standard" Joi, he was reminded of what he had and who she was to him, making her love his wonder. He then takes up the fight to protect Deckard to ensure that he'll have the wonder of sharing his life with his daughter now. A wonderful movie and one of my absolute favourites. Watched it three times in a row just to appreciate it entirely. :)
If something is capable of imitating love so convincingly we cannot tell if the entity is just imitating or truly feeling it, does the difference even matter anymore ? Doesn't the boundary sort of disappear ? Even if the processes behind it are different, but the outcome and external manifestation is the same, does the difference matter anymore ?
The "Japanese and Chinese" companies in that list are all Japanese except for two Korean. I hope he uses the income from this video to hire some fact checkers.
This movie was GRIPPING. I've seen it two or three times and it's always a good reminder that not all sequels and reboots are trash. If passion is applied the result is so sweet!
@@mcfresh4913 I always pretend movies I hate simply don't exist. For instance, in my reality there's only one matrix movie. Hopefully this helps you too
Here’s something you didn’t notice. K and luv fight in the car, which is circular like an egg. There’s water and it symbolises a womb. They’re twins, both followed orders and both had notions they were something greater. K killing luv symbolises him killing his twin
Philip K. Dick had a twin sister who died six weeks after their birth who he considered his "phantom twin". Possible K (KD6-3.7) is Philip Kindred Dick and Philip K. Dick was a replica ? :)
I don't think Luv tracked K because of Joi since she asked him to break her antenna before running away, so they won't get followed. Actually, Luv got their location through Madam computer after she killed her.
I loved that he tried to make the best movie with the tone and plot he wanted without worrying about spoon feeding fans, being scared of reviewers getting board by the pacing, and wasn’t scared of sacrificing some action to include more room for viewer interpretation. A great way to make a long awaited sequel the honored the original’s legacy without being confined by it. Like it or not, there’s a lot to respect here.
Farming bugs. No animals. No trees. No meat No freedom, cyborgs, Completly depressing vision of the future. The only way we get to this dystopia hell is if we let the elites steer humanity this way. Which they are now. Evil only exists at the top. Good people do not desire power over others. Only evil does with evil intentions.
@@Civsuccess2mfs like you will use the word ‘woke’ without any idea what it means 💀 don’t leave any comments again if you’re gonna continue being a brain dead waste of space
I agree. Which is why it wasn't a box office success and is a cult success. Sadly, the average movie goer simply wants more explosions and shoot'em up action. They aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate how the gray, wet, dilapidated scenery, slow pacing, music and even Goslings' flat, depressive affect all contribute to the somber mood of the world man has created in this dystopian vision of our future. And yet, in the most sobering and non-schmaltzy manner, the movie still preserves hope for mankind- capable of expanding our definition of humanity, of finding a purpose to live/die for and experiencing love.
In the big joi billboard scene it also says something to the effect of “ she says exactly what you need to hear” which says to me at AI was only telling k what he wanted to hear, and he realizes the “love” he felt was fake, and the love between the father and his daughter is REAL love, which is why he goes back to help.
EXACTLY. People don't want to face the hard reality that JOI WAS FAKE, she didn't love K because she CANT love K. Joi was an AI, she's fake, and she's not unqiue. She tells the owner everything the owner wants to hear. People get sad when they hear Joi wasn't real, but that's the entire point. That's what seperate AI and replicants. And that's what make replicants human.
@@samuelc.9686ot to cope - but the way you draw the line is pretty arbitrary. You do realize the replicants are AI too? They are mass produced, designed to be slaves, AI put into a synthetic body. Joi was a mass produced sex slave, an AI, but not put into a human body. The argument you’re putting forth is too simple and doesn’t hold. To show that Joi wasn’t real we need to analyze her behaviour
Absolutely a masterpiece. I want that 4 hour cut. I don't care about pacing at this point. ive seen it a bajillion times already. I want to see Deckard in the desert.
One Easter egg to note - when K flies along the sea wall to head to San Diego, there’s a ship hovering above that’s definitely a replica of the Sulaco from Aliens
The children born to Rachel were twins. Anna and K are both this guys' s children. Rachel means "sheep" and he wears sheep skin the whole time. That is the point and the title. The guy who wrote the screenplay was satanist, clearly who covered it up by daoism and other BS, I doubt he ever had a twin. All his bio is bullshit. The movie is really based on Tanah and prophecies of coming messiah. All humanity knows about deep inside but the movie means to reprogram the human and usher in the Antichrist. The movie programs your mind don't be so encharmed by it. It is meant to divert and pervert the truth , what will happen according to prophecies. In Tanah for example, God gave Rachel a child because she was both beautiful on the outside and on the inside, unlike most of other women. Notice how Lucifer is present in the movie but God is completely absent.
Thank you for these indepth breakdowns of the two Bladerunner movies. I love both of them. I also appreciate your inclusion of background content, which I somehow had not come across previously. Cheers, Paul. :)
The thing about Rache;s eyes being green is, if you pay attention to the 2 Voight Kampff tests, they clearly use the SAME eye in both tests, Green with a slight patch of light brown near the top. Bryon James (Leon) has Blue eyes and Sean Young (Rachel) has brown ones. So the her eyes were green line is either a way to cover this small detail in the oroginal film OR Deckard is just saying that to mess with Wallace, who thinks he did a perfect creation and Deckard is not falling for it.
One of the best sequels and sci-fi films with the original. Denis And Harrison deserved Oscar Noms. Amazing film with great respect to the original while making its own great story. Can't wait for Blade Runner 2099.
@@fredbloggs5902 Harrison brings more to this than he did as Old Man Han And Indy. He's playing a lot of emotions and not just playing Grumpy Harrison Ford.
Lmao This movie was idiotic. An android not designed to give birth "magically" gives birth. He makes visually amazing movies that have the worst writing ever. Another David Lynch. The premise of this literally doesn't make sense in any scientific way at all. It's pseudo-Christian magic. That people think this movie makes sense in any logical way makes me sad for humanity.
It's an incredibly deep film. Gosling was criticized for being too wooden in his performance (ironic, I know), but pay attention to his eyes - there's some wonderfully subtle acting going on there. My favourite moment though is the way Deckard reacts when he says Rachael's name out loud (probably for the first time in a long time) - he ever so slightly softens, it's like a weight has lifted from him, it's an absolutely beautiful character moment and makes me tear up every time. Great critique.
I'm sure Gosling was directed to maintain an emotionless demeanor, but somehow I still felt emotions boiling beneath the surace. They evoked this with lighting, sweat on his face, eye movement, etc. Finally it boiled over when Anna told him his memory actually happened and he snapped: "GODDAMMIT!" It did actually happen, but to Anna. That part of her memories went into K when he was made. She said, in fact, she puts part of herself into each Replicant.
I def knew about the anime short but not the TWO PREQUEL SHORT FILMS that accompanied 2049?? I have to see them now wtf 2048 is in my top 3 movies ever
Whether Joi's love for K is real or not is irrelevant - it's the exact same thing as the replicants being alive or not. If she is programmed to love him, then she would feel that love as strongly as any human experiencing love. She's not programmed to pretend to love him - she's programmed to actually love him, which means that to her (and to him) there is no difference. Of course this asks that age old question - what is love?
Joi's goal is to show love. People "fall in (and out of) love," and that is not planned. We often don't even know why we love someone, just that we do. The difference is intent, and intent means everything when it comes to emotions. If it is premeditated, then that is logic taking over (or programming), whilst emotions are reactions to external stimuli that we then internalise and feel. We cannot define love because there are different types of love, but we at least know it is an emotion, not something that we can plan, not something we can control.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo essentially it is the same thing as a sensor which reacts to light by making a beeping noise. It doesn't matter if it understands what light is, and it doesn't natter if it knows why it is making a noise. It is porgrammed to do so, and so it does. Joi is just a more complex version of this system, but with more sensors receiving information and with a wider variety of noises it can make to send information. Joi is about as sentient as your average smoke alarm. The "ai" we have today is no different. The replicants represent something different - more akin to cloning or "designer babies." They may actually be sentient, albeit they are not born naturally, and that is the main question that these movies are asking. They are neither human nor robot, sitting somewhere inbetween or adjacent to them.
K's persona is reflected in Joi and viceversa. I distinctly remember while watching the movie that I thought "K's a really softie, you really get to know him by knowing his Joi". I think at a statistical level she's aware of her other personas, if you know what I mean... Being so unique, being made so pure, by K's personality alone, I think she really enjoys herself, so, because he made her what she is, she does really love him. On the Bridge, he realizes she was unique, and that he's unique as well. She had supported his beautiful dreams, even is she wasn't real, now he's gonna do the same with Deckard. Lovely movie, isn't it.
I love the care and reverence you showed to both the Blade Runner films. I saw the original in the theatre, and the impact it had on me lives to this day, and always will. It was a once-in-a-lifetime thing, and it truly deserves its cult classic status. Thanks.
Thank you for the Möbius apartment detail, which ties beautifully with the Bradbury from the original. Also, the Peter and the Wolf connection with Bowie, as he was supposed to be Wallace
I do think Joi loved K, insofar as she is capable within the limits of her programming...which was, of course, exactly what she was programmed to do. So she was both in love with him, and programmed to do so. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and it's exactly the question we're meant to be asking. To Joi, the love wasn't a lie. Simulation Theory is an infinite loop, so acceptance of Truth in that loop must be chosen by the person evaluating it. K must decide for himself if Joi "really" loves him...and in doing so he joins the rest of humanity in wondering if a loved one ACTUALLY loves us in return as much as is given. Humans choose to accept the truthiness of love given to us by someone else every day....
But aren't humans also programmed to love ? We are biologically programmed to feel love in response to certain stimuli. We cannot choose or consciously decide who we love. How is an ai programmed to love in any way different from humans ?
Interesting comments. We are biologically "programmed" to love, agreed. But it is, for most mentally healthy individuals a combination of the unconscious and the conscious. We fall in love with someone we feel a mystical chemistry with (unconscious) but also tend to choose that person based on conscious factors- that they treat us well, with respect, that we have common interests, that we come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds (yes! almost invariably true) and that we can envision an enduring and fulfilling life with them. So I think you can say there is a distinction there based on free will. Joi was programmed to love K (or anyone else who might buy her) without option. She had no autonomous will of her own to choose & give love. She HAD to love K. (Which is different than the tenuous nature of human love that can end... Can you imagine Joi telling K she no longer loved him...) That this programmed AI compulsion to love ultimately feeling manipulative was nicely portrayed in "Her" when Joaquin Phoenix realizes the AI Scarlett Johansson character loved him just as she loves countless other clients. He realized underneath that interactive experience was a corporate profit interest. (Remember Luv asking if K enjoyed their product- Joi.) @@ilkkavierula6664
But Joi does not technically have a consciousness, she is by default literal code. She’s made to pretend. She feels like she loves you, she looks like she loves you and she acts like she loves you, she’ll go into deep discussions about your life but only your life and she will say whatever it takes to please you. So thought if she was a person she would 100% he valid, there’s no real thought in her. There’s nobody behind that code it’s an empty message just wait in for somebody desperate so it can trick them. Joi, sadly, is nothing more then digital code with no true soul to back her “emotions”
@@ethanrabideau7402 Personally, I feel that if something can emulate emotion to the point that the main argument as to why it's not "real" is "well, it was artificially created to emulate it", then there's no functional difference to really be had. Joi believed (or emulated believing that) she loved Joe to the point that she actively sabotaged efforts of and technology made by her creators to monitor and track Joe. And what of Joe and the other replicants? Are they somehow more "real" than Joi, despite the fact that everything they know, all their experiences that formed their basic personality, are carefully crafted forgeries programmed into their brains at the point of their activation? What, exactly, defines something as nebulous as a soul?
It’s actually the same thing as our “free will” We don’t have it…but we do in the sense that the things you think, the things you do, the things you say are completely determined for you by biology, neurology, and all other (incalculable probably) factors…but you would choose those actions anyway.
I thought it was implied (in both movies) that Deckard and Rachel were both Nexus 7. Effectively made for each other. They were the only Nexus 7s made; able to reproduce and actively encouraged to do so. Rachels serial number seems to include "N7". Wallace could never master the production of this model.
After rewatching Bladerunner 2049 a few times a gained a much better appreciation of the film. After the first watch I didn't care for but sometimes you just need to watch certain films multiple times before you really start liking said films.😊
I'm sure others have mentioned this already but having the Japanese influences in the original and the Soviet ones in this one does not necessarily imply that those countries won WW3, especially since WW3 is unwinnable as it would turn into a nuclear one. The idea of globalization fits both sci-fi and cyberpunk much better - just a hotpot of cultural influences from all over the world. Also, the streetwalker warning the other two girls that K is a blade runner speaks Finnish, not Russian. Very different languages!
The Blade Runner storyline takes place in an alternate timeline, so any comparison with international politics and nationalistic attitudes in our world is incorrect. For example, it would appear that in the Blade Runner world, there was never a cold war between USA and the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union was never dissolved.
Great vid…Rachel’s eyes weren’t green tho. They were brown/hazel. Deckard tells Wallace they were green to make Wallace think he got the Rachael reboot wrong as an insult and to break his own emotional connection with the new Rachael
I had no doubts as soon as Anna said the memory was a real one that it was hers and not his. I think the fact that Deckard has visibly aged since the first film is proof that he isn't a replicant.
agree and I've never liked the theory and really thats all it is some nerds trying to b edgy by saying he's a replicant. its pretty clear that deckard is human
@@mikepette4422Ridley Scott said he wanted Deckard to be a replicant in the original script. So, no. It's not edgy to theorize that he actually is one. The whole point of the movie is that humans are wrong about basically everyone they say about replicants, so one without a kill switch implemented might live for 30 more years and age, like Arnie in Terminator, or Andrew in Bicentennial Man.
Fantastic video! Just to add another small detail: Luv's name is spelt like the SMS shorthand version, emphasising that even though Wallace named her, he still sees her as tech. To him, she is not worthy of being called 'Love'.
The wood walls adorning Wallace's "home" are also have a golden color (especially with the water reflections that makes them "sparkle"), which additionally implies his enormous wealth. It also hints at his belief in being a god and living in a golden temple or in Blade Runner's case, wood which is just as, if not more, valuable.
There's a really obvious comparison to two characters often overlooked in the film. Joi and Luv. Luv is told she's special and Joi is considered to be product. Both of them do exactly the same thing: strive to serve their masters. Joi points out shes just a program and the giant billboard isn't just a storyboard about how Joi is just programmed to do as she's told. We can see K's reflection on the advert as critique of himself. Am I a product designed to do as I'm told, or am I more?' He agonises and stresses throughout as he moves off his baseline. I think if we see this scene and take it for what it is, it flattens out the deeper meaning of whether Joi is any less concious. Is it because she has programming and no brain? K is programmed. He is systematically forced to accept his limitations and threatened with termination.
Rachel Was a Nexus 7, however her model was" an experiment, nothing more" then Tyrell was killed before he could continue. Also, it always seemed like the eye in the beginning should have been Holden, looking out the window at the gas flares while waiting for Leon. Also the first letter of the names of the wooden animals spell RACHEL.
@@maxmaxneolit maybe, though Roy has blue eyes and that one was hazel. Though Ridley says it wasn't any characters eye in particular but instead meant to convey an "all seeing eye" at the top of the pyramid looking over the city.
@@ianmcgeehan4627 wow... I've been watching BR since it came out. Watched it in a theatre. Then got it on VHS and that copy got ground to dust. DVD and Blurays followed, theatrical and director's and final cut. I have watched it more than 100 times and never did it cross my mind that it's some random eye. I guess Ridley didn't really know how to convey this properly then. For me, it always represented Roy's eye, mesmerised by life underneath, wanting that life, soaking it all in.
@@maxmaxneolit yeah i love the movie too. Saw the theatrical in early 1980s at 11 years old. Watch "Dangerous Days" which is the 3.5 hour documentary done in 2007 when they did Final Cut version. Amazing documentary.
The continued use of ATARI in the film is probably a reference to the replicants themselves; ATARI is a US company that adopted a Japanese name to come across as Japanese, just as the replicants adopt a visage to hide amongst the humans.
^ Over-interpreting. The "Atari" reference simply indicates that the Blade Runner storyline is taking place in an alternate timeline, and is *not* a prediction of our own world. Atari, Pan-Am and "CCCP" (Soviet Union) which all appear in the films are reminders of things which no longer exist in our world. (Atari still exists as a trademarked IP, but it isn't producing computer games any more, and is nowhere near as famous now as it was.)
I literally just finished watching this movie for the first time 10 minutes ago! I haven’t seen the 1st one but that’s next on my list! Loved the movie but felt confused at times. I’m assuming this is cause I hadn’t seen the original
You and your team are Really Good Man! Sooooo many hidden details, amazing annalise/editing/therioes etc! Great Film with Stunning Compositions/Visuals/FX/Score etc! An Excellent Sequel Cheers
6:24 Rachel's eyes were brown. We see a close up of Rachael's eyes on the screen in Blade Runner during her Voight-Kampf test. The first time the machine zooms in on her eyes they look green due to lighting but when he zooms in during the "boiled dog" question her eyes are brown and her eyes are brown in every scene in the movie.
I love the different takes on Joi and personally I believed that Joi over the course of her “lifetime” developed feelings for K that were genuine. We see consistently throughout the film Luv looking for for reassurance from Wallace that she is special and perhaps loved. This could also be applied to Joi and how K gave her the reassurance and attention she may have craved. Joi is lost in a world where she only had one purpose and that is to please her owner. Similarly K was created with only one purpose and that was to be a slave to humanity. However we see K break free from his original purpose and that was do something that he believed to be important. Something that made him “Human”. Joi could have overtime realized she wanted to break free from her original purpose to please K and genuinely wanted to please him as she felt special. Unfortunately the only hole in my analysis is that Joi was programmed to love K. Meaning that Joi didn’t have “free will”. I’m my own little world tho I like to believe that AI can develop as they receive information from the world around them and become something more than their original purpose. Just like how when a baby is born they are “programmed” to eat, sleep, poop and find love. But as we humans exist, overtime we develop free will to what we please.
2049 is one of all time favourite films. No other piece of sc-fi media has effected me like Blade Runner, and I must not forget to mention a great complimentary video "In Search of the Distinctively Human | The Philosophy of Blade Runner 2049" by Like Stories of Old. Which, for me, elevated the film to the top of my list.
I think you are missing another symbolism at the end of the film, you called the lines on the back of K's coat as a by product of the sea salt, but if you look closer, it is actually representing a skeletal rib cage, signifying that K is half dead.
The entire point of this movie was what's real is precious. Joshi summed it up when she said, "We're all just trying to have something Real" Kay & Joi's love was real even though it was shared by two artificial people. It doesn't matter if Deckard was a replicant because his & Rachel's love was real. That Real Love is probably HOW Rachel and Deckard were able to produce a child. Tyrell made for this development but Wallace would forever be 'Blind' to what Real Love can accomplish. Kay's decision to help Deckard see his daughter was, in part because he was now empathetic. His world view deepens as he experiences Real love from and for Joi.
I never saw the original bladerunner in full. But one evening i thought might as well watch this and the sequel. Honestly watching it back to back was an experience. This is what a good sequel should be. It caught the atmosphere, the ton and the setting of the first movie.
It is a movie that suits better for simple minds as the orignal one does otherwise having you figure it out. Its a good movie but its not the 1982 art masterpiece.
This is brilliant! So much fun. You point out things that I've always thought but wondered if I was right. You explain things that now clear up so much. I love Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049. One of the best sequels ever ever made it almost seems like a continuous part of the first one in a way where it brings a certain reality to it. That probably didn't make any sense but I can't put it into words but I can't wait to watch more of your videos❤
Thank you for doing a breakdown of the movie. This was one of my top 3 movies of the 2010s, and one of my all time favorites. It means a lot to me that you covered it.
For real man this movie was PHENOMENAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like sequels really not live to the success of the first one.....but this movie really lived up to the level of first one or even better!! Really sad that it wasnt able to make good success at box office..
I love BR2049 too, but I think it could be much better if Villeneuve just cut almost all "action" with Ford and shortened final fight too. There was perfect reason for dragged out fight in original, but in sequel it just takes time and adds nothing. If not that, I could say BR2049 was perfect.
Yeah it just hit me at 30:03. Joi wouldn't have really reacted in any way when K/Joe was unconscious in the junkyard wasteland if she hadn't somehow developed some sort of love, empathy, or concern for his well being. There wouldn't have been any reason to.
I sort of disagree with the salt lines on the jacket. You can clearly see the lines at several other times in the film. The markings are vaguely seen early in the film at the 10:32 mark. Then, they are more prominent at the 14:13, 44:39 and 1:02:59 marks; prior to your observation at the steps. Though I do agree that there are salt stains on K’s pants at the end of the film.
The K and Joi relationship broke my heart. We're literally almost at that point with AI. The worlds going to become a much more lonely place. As if it wasn't bad enough already..
Perhaps, but there are plenty of people out there who are socially awkward, handicapped, old, ugly, isolated, or a part of some minority. They would feel that their lonely existence is much improved with the addition of a custom high fidelity companion.
@@extraplain2412 Oh half those things plus a sarcastic butthurt karen to boot. You think my point is irrelevant or incorrect because you think I "spoke on your behalf"? I said "there are plenty of people out there.." that are such and such. I should have added dumb to my list and you could have claimed that one too. I made an innocent on-topic comment promoting healthy discussion and you decided to be a bitch about it. Enjoy your lonely life then but remember, it was your choice.
Nice, I thought for awhile you weren't going to mention Joi's 'Peter and the Wolf' theme, but ya got i! When I was a kid, the house my dad bought had a stereo and some old records including the whole Peter and the Wolf set on Shellac, played at 78, so I recognized it and was amazed they used it.
8:00 *This is completely made up.* Clients of prostitutes are known as "johns" or "tricks" in North America. And "punters" in Britain and Ireland. Prostitutes do NOT refer to men as "Joes"' (neither "often" or "ever". You're not just reaching. *You're making stuff up.*
Nice breakdown. Helped me to appreciate 2049 more as much of this went over my head the first time I watched the movie. At first viewing, much of 2049 escaped me as I was a big fan of the first movie.
The way i've always seen the marks on K's jacket at the end is that it's partly showing a ribcage, so he's now half-human or becoming human, exactly due to having gained a soul and/or free will due to his actions.
There is a deleted scene on RU-vid from the original Bladerunner where Rachel and Deckard are in the car after going on the run. Rachel tells him "you know what I think? I think we were made for each other." Deckard smiles at first, but then gets this great 'wait, what??' look on his face. I think the whole showdown with Wallace gave a big nod to that scene.
Very good review. I’ve seen the original director’s cut many times, and 2049 is very well done. The pleasure models that K talks to in the bar, I believe they are speaking in Finnish or Swedish, but agree with the line that the CCCP won WW3 (god knows how). In the director’s cut you can see Deckard’s eyes change when he’s talking to Rachel in one scene. Very well done review, I really enjoyed it.
I love this video, almost as much as I love the film! :) One point of info though - he doesn't go to the Tyrell building - he flies right by it to the Wallace building which dwarfs the derelict and lightless Tyrell building, just to show how Tyrell corp is so obsolete that Wallace outdoes them on everything, one supposes.
