Joe is a normal replicant. Merely encoded with the child's memories. The "twins" conceit was merely a ruse to conceal the girl's existence. Also, the film rather suggests that she may have encoded lots of memories into lots of replicants, spawning the resistance movement that put the tracker on Joe.
While an interesting idea, I'm not sure why her actual memories being used would somehow unite older-model replicants into a movement, especially when she has no idea that she has that lineage.
@@eternalturtl6320 They didn’t all find that horse. It’s implied the replicant movement goes beyond just the memories as the women states that they all thought they were the child, not out of memories, just out of knowing the chicks exist and they all thinking it was them. But they have dates they were created, things would have to line up perfectly. It just so happens that this replicant got fooled into the chase
we could assume that those replicants were encoded with a small part of the girl's memory, like Joe was. Cuz I always questioned how he only had memories of THAT specific moment with the horse and didn't remember anything else, so yeah idk
There's also that moment where Mackenzie Davis' character is in his apartment and notices the horse, before Joi tells her to leave. On second viewing, that moment reads as her having the same implanted memory as K, and is having a WTF moment seeing the horse.
This is one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. I do enjoy the story, but even if the story isn't your cup of tea, the world that is created and presented is fantastic, unique, very OG Blade Runner, and artistic as hell. I love when a film is a passion project and this feels like one
This movie is such an underrated masterpiece. I need more from this universe because it's so intriguing and so detailed that you just want to explore it
This film suggests that it doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant or not because the lines between human and replicant are so blurred that if you can't tell the difference without knowing ahead of time then does it really matter? Also does anyone else see strong parallels with the Halo game series (NOT THE SHOW)? An AI and a "machine" human in a romantic relationship making you question the nature of love and what it means to be human. I know it gets covered a lot in science fiction but the similarities seem so strong between these two relationships.
It's still open ended whether Deckard is or isnt a replicant, though its strongly suggested that he is. Its also suggested in the first movie that Deckard was a replicant created with Gaff's (origami guy) memories to take his place after whatever injury left him with the cane. It's too long to write up here, but the theory tied around it being connected to the origami that Gaff leaves lying around, especially the unicorn he leaves at the end of the first movie, along with a few other things Joe was a normal replicant along with all the ones we see in the resistance, who were also all implanted with Deckard's daughter's memories. Thats where the line "we all wished it was us" comes from...
Deckard is human. He wouldn't have been allowed to be on earth as a blade runner if he was a replicant, because relicants on earth were outlawed when the first movie was made. He's human. Also, we don't know how many people Deckard daughter put the horse memory into. It probably was one that she was proud of because she didn't let them boys steal her horse. She probaably just didn't know that someone was going to come back to her and ask her about it. The revolutionary womans comment, "Did you think it was you? We all did." That kind of gives away that a lot of the replicants that have her memories are hunted by them in some way.
When "Joe" meets the woman living in the dome she mentions that "Dying for a good cause is the most human act that they can do." In the end "Joe's" death and reuniting Deckard with his daughter is an act of selfless human sacrifice thus cementing "Joe's" humanity. He also goes through with all this after immediately finding out he's not a part of any of this and doesn't owe anything to anyone.
@@ninawildr4207 Hell yeah! I love this Parallel! However where Roy was looking for an extension to his life and running away from death, Joe states at the start of the film that "His kind doesn't run" he's not afraid of death. Roy spends his time in the first film looking for a way to extend his life and when he realizes its hopeless, it's his form of humanity to at least save Deckards life. With all his life experience that will die with him there's no reason for Deckard to die as well and Roy sees this. Joe's fight is with belonging. He wishes to belong to something greater than himself. He mentions to be born is to have a soul cause be believes he is souless at the start of the film. It's through him finding meaning in reuniting Deckard and his daughter that he can find true belonging and his "soul." His self sacrifice and mission complete he also allows himself to "presumably" die at the end of that film. ALL OF THIS IN PARALLEL TO ROY BATTY. fuck this film rocks.
Also this whole time we get his AI girlfriend who is the kindest relationship shown to our main character. Once she's free from the apartment she mentions that she has one life "like a real girl" echoing the ideal that we have this one life and how we use it is important. It's also treated as a giddy beautiful romantic moment. Only to be tragically torn away from us later when she gets destroyed. Her last words are "I love you." Joe's closest relationship is with his Alexa effectively. Then later we see the ad where she says that he looks tired "Joe" and we realize even his name was a manufactured part of the AI personality. It then begs the question if she truly grew to love him as an AI or was it a programmed part of her. How much does her developing longing and personality constitute a real person? ALL OF THIS IN PARALLEL TO JOE. as a synthetic individual he questions his own belonging and soul whilst simultaneously having an AI robo girlfriend. GOD THIS MOVIE ROCKS SO HARD.
There comes a point in every Denis Villeneuve movie where I'm like "is this the best movie ever made?" The answer is (for me) obviously "no," but I take it to mean that the dude is just a master filmmaker and knows how to tell pretty mindblowing stories, both storywise and visually. He's one of the all-time greats (already) at world building and I'm 100% here for whatever he decides to do next, which right now means the "Dune" sequel. I love his work.
I think he is like Nolan in that he is a popular filmmaker who targets a wide audience, but I think he is better than Nolan because he understands the nuances of the craft a lot more. I don't think Nolan could've made Arrival without seriously increasing the level of action sequences and removing a lot of the subtlety for example. I feel like Villeneuve makes movies as though he thinks the audience is smart enough to "get it", but Nolan usually thinks the audience need it spelt out with an explosion or a monologue.
@@Hooga89 Keep in mind, Nolan is a fan of action films and masters of the genre like John McTiernan and Tony Scott. He doesn't view those as lesser works as he sees the craftsmanship in that space. What makes me a fan of him is his attempt to mix that wide audience spectacle with the arthouse/indie sensiblities. I always viewed Nolan as a lovechild of Michael Bay and Terrence Malick, which works sometimes and not so much other times but there's few like it (especially in the current Hollywood climate).
@@Hooga89 Agree. I LOVE Nolan films. Like... a lot a lot a lot. I have him ranked very high on my personal list of all time great filmmakers. But... I can't deny that there's this dynamic with his movies where the more I see them, the more filled with holes they become and the more I kind of ... fall out of love with them. In some cases, the more I've seen of a particular film of his, the more dumb it kind of seems. I don't have that with Villeneuve's films. ...at least not yet. So for me, they are very similar in a lot of ways, but I have Denis ranked slightly higher. Not like it matters, obviously. Rankings are so dumb when you get down to it. haha
I have seen all of Villeneuve's movies since Polytechnique and every single one of them are either really bloody very good or masterpieces. The man's talent is just too much!
When K sees the holographic advertisement for Joi, it calls him a good, “Joe.” Which is what his Joi called him -I believe the meaning of this is that Joi was never alive, never self-aware. She was merely an AI so forwardly futuristic, that neither he nor we could tell the difference. Joi knew how to be a more pleasing girlfriend than any real girl. That’s what was so heartbreaking, the moment he saw that advertisement hologram -In that moment K realized he’d been asleep his whole life, stunting and allowing others to stunt his emotional growth-He was a slave to everyone around him, the LAPD, Wallace, the Replicant Rebellion. Joi was just another level of control-At the end, he chose to save Deckard, to do the right thing. Uniting father and daughter, proving himself to be more human than human. Replicants were always real, albeit genetically designed. The world chose to blind itself to that fact, just as slavers in the past saw their slaves as less than men. K chose life, in a dying world.
I think that's the thing the writers and director are toying with, and I think us dismissing her as sentient is too easy, and this is where he really tests the lines we draw about what makes something human. Arguably Joi, a "product", did a lot of things that would not likely be part of the programming, like hiring a prostitute, like telling Joe to erase her from the apartment hardware which isn't exactly what a data-mining company would program its holograms to do. That she doesn't fully escape her confines(none of us escape the programming of our upbringing anyway) and that she pulls from her programming to call him Joe, is a brilliant choice because it undermines her humanity to the audience, and to Joe, but does it make her any less sentient in the end, really?
@@annaclarafenyo8185 i don't really see any bigger meaning in any movie. She was just programmed to call everyone Joe and his realisation was that she was just a generic template that tons of people also had, she was nothing special.
Both of the Blade Runner movies have Biblical references, and this one plays with that theme by making Joe think he's the Savior, only to find out he's actually a John The Baptist figure, meant to pave the way for the real Savior. Which means he still has great value in the scheme of things, but it's an awfully bitter pill to swallow.
Very good writing. Joe is the decoy - so is he going by the program laid out for him by Decard, or did he exercise agency over his own fate, i.e. choosing his own end? The fact that HUMANS haven't arrived at consensus on this argument lends weight to Joe's humanity regardless of whether his end was the result of design or choice.
I don't think K was intended to be a decoy. He, like a lot of other replicants, just happened to have Dr. Stelline's childhood memory. It was only a coincidence that he got mixed up in this particular case.
Joe was not a decoy. Joe was one random replucant that by chance got a piece of memory from the real hybrid baby, as she had the habit of inserting personal memories in some of the replicants she was contracted to by Wallace. The replicant resistence tried to turn Joe into their pawn but Joe had none of that and made his own choice. Joe was the wrong man at the right place at the right time.
I loved the reveal that Joe isn't The One. We immediately empathize with him because we, the audience, are so used to seeing from the point of view of The One. I can tell you seeing this in Imax was an experience. Went to see it multiple times. Still annoyed that it wasn't a commercial success.
Woohoo! I believe the point of the scene where he sees the billboard is that just because Joi was an AI, it doesn't mean that the experiences that they shared or his belief in her feelings for him are any less real to him. He has been clinging to the idea that his experiences were less real because he was a Replicant, but that's the moment when he decides what he does matters more than what he is. As others have said, the movie preserves the mystery of whether or not Deckard is a Replicant. In addition to setting up the idea that right around the period of Blade Runner, they developed Replicants with no automatic death date, Jared Leto's character asks Deckard if he wants to know, and Deckard says "I know what's real," so the audience gets no official answer. Finally, it is definitely implied that Joe dies, as they reprise the same music from Roy Batty's famous "tears in the rain" speech from the end of the original as he lies on the steps.
The Billboard scene also implies that although he sees 'Joi', it isn't HIS 'Joi', so that not only weren't his experiences any less real but neither were hers. This asks the question that the first film and the original short story asks; 'What actually IS a human?'. Where do you stop just being the sum of your parts and start being something more?
I saw that scene as the moment that he finally realized that his whole life was based on a lie and he decided to do something real and aid the resistance by saving Deckard. The director did an amazing job with the design choices in the film and I think his choice to bathe the entire scene in magenta is more than just an aesthetic choice. All colors have specific wavelengths which distinguish them from one another on the color wheel, but magenta doesn’t and nor does it exist on the light spectrum. When we see magenta, our brains can’t make sense of it so it comes off as a purple-ish, pinkish hue. I think the director’s choice to use this color on this scene was to illustrate that the entire relationship was fake.
@@Perfectly_Cromulent351 your piont about that his relationship is fake is what most people think, im assuming this about other youtube comments. but i prefer Tyler Foster's opinion more. i like to think that calling him Joe at that moment was a sing of that her soul lived on and called out for him, so he went on sacraficing himself so they can be together. i base this idea also on one more moment, when they have "real" sex, the billboard Joi smiles.
What a piece of music Vangelis conjured up 40 years ago! Of course, Zimmer carried his share of the weight in this movie as well...absolutely stunning score.
It was such a powerful choice to have the original come in there, at that point. Big Vangelis fan, loved how Zimmer was inspired throughout by the original soundtrack. And yes: that scene gets me every time, together with Deckard simply saying 'here eyes were green'.
It won 2 Oscars Best Visual Effects Best Cinematography. This was the first Blade Runner film to win any Academy Awards. It made $260 million dollars against a $180 million dollar budget, though some people say it bombed, it was a moderate success, but we may have to wait to see more BLADE RUNNER films
@@pvanukoff Look up Hollywood Accounting. The sum of it is that studios use "creative" accounting methods to record profits and losses from films so that even if it made more than the budget it can still lose money overall.
I think some of the confusion comes from thinking replicants are robots, they aren't. they're engineered from organic parts, so aging and birth would be possible. but replicants were engineered to be controlled and to only live for a certain amount of time.
Techinically an organic artificial creature IS a robot. A robot is an umbrella term the same way like primates. Replicants, androids, automated machinery are all robots the same way humans, gorillas and chimps are all primates. Matter of fact the term robot came from the theater play R.U.R. where the robots were organic humans grown in vats. The metalic humanoid robot that we most associate with - like the android like C-3PO - had its genesis with the movie Metropolis made afterward - and even then in that movie the metalic robot was a mere endoskelleton covered in humanlike skin and hair). The very name robot cames from a common slavic language word for work or to be more exact and indented servant, a serf. One clever touch of the Blade Runner movies that took from the original novel is that the replicants are variations of the model Nexus. A Nexus in ancient rome was a legal definition given to a particular type of slave. By model name alone the replicants are slaves, in purpose and name both.
@@TheYakusoku android simply means an artificial autonomous object - a robot - made in human form and shape imitating at the very least the humans in look and dislocation - walking bipedal. That's what android really means. As such, replucants ARE a subsect of androids.
Yes thank you! Opening text calls them “bioengineered humans” and also what would the point of a V-K test be if you could just pin-prick their fingertips to see if motor oil, wires, or Bishop From Aliens Milk comes out?
I've always felt that this is the type of movie that you have to watch more than once to really understand it, there's a lot happening, a lot of references to the first movie and because the movie is so visually beautiful that you miss a bit of dialogue here and there because your busy looking at the backgrounds and sets, they really did well with the look of this movie.
You see Joi start out as as this hologram that exists to be the perfect companion for lonely men that appears to develop personal feelings for K/Joe (and he returns those feelings) who seemingly has her own wish to become more real so that she could be more than just a companion. It makes her death feel like a real loss. And then towards the end they just deliver the hint that maybe none of that was real; that all the implied development and soul of her character was just clever AI designed to make the user think that their hologram was more than just a program and that her interactions with K, including naming him Joe, was just part of her program. So you're left wondering if any of it was real.
Oh, there's no wondering, she's definitely just clever/advanced programming. Everything she says and does is exactly what Joe wants to hear and do, she's just a "robot" who's meant to affirm his every whim. It tragic.
@@thubelihlezondi5822 There is some ambiguity, though, since this is a film with programmable replicants. Being programmed for certain experiences doesn't make the experience any less real. Y'know, like we're programmed to feel a deep love for our children, is that fake? Of course, it depends on how advanced her AI is, but it's a fascinating subject in a movie about artificial humanity. In the same movie we get Harrison Ford telling us to "ask him" when questioned if the dog is real, we get an AI that might tell you it's real but actually isn't. Imo some of the most fascinating scenes in the movie are the brief moments when JOI is alone or separated from K.
This movie is a frigging masterpiece! Fun thing: weta made the physical props, and that includes a large portion of the city with meters high buildings. Its online somewhere. The details are beyond insane. Worth a look
After Arrival and then this, I had total faith in Villeneuve to adapt Dune. I was fully on board with him as a director. It was a long time after that I realised he also made Prisoners, which I really enjoyed when I watched it in cinema years ago.
I can't remember if you both have already watched Drive, but it's another great film. Ryan Gosling has little dialogue in the film and uses body language and facial acting to get his emotions and point across.
36:43 aw... you didn't comment on possibly the most heartbreaking thing about this movie. When he's looking at the big projection of his lost love, she calls him a "good joe." which means when Joi named him, it was nothing more than an algorithm, not something sentient.
Yes! That's one of the important gut punches... The movie explores the question what is life and who is a real person in multiple ways. Joi seems like a real person, but in the end she's just a piece of software sold to many different people. I guess a clever AI doesn't make a real person.
Eh, that hit him in that moment but you can argue both ways. She wasn't programmed to activate every time he was around another woman. Even when he told her to stop getting sappy over him, she never held back. She definitely wasn't programmed to order another replicant over so that she could simulate sex with him.
@@kennethbryant5819 Wouldn't she be programmed to do that though? Didn't K/Joe express sadness that they couldn't actually touch and feel each other? That would have been like showing dissatisfaction with a phone app because of a, b, c, and then using the app the next day and those features being there.
14:00 he's trying to create self-replicating replicants (replicants that can have babies). I guess he's somehow able to tell if the new prototype will work or not, and kills them if not. He then wants Rachel & the child to help advance his efforts since Tyrell succeeded. Also, I expect the daughter being immunocompromised was just a cover story to keep her hidden / avoid attention from people looking for a replicant, and she really isn't. And to me, the line about long-lived replicants was intentionally put in to keep the waters muddy as to whether Deckard was human or not. He could just be one of those long-lived replicants that appear to age. So, can replicant women have babies, but only with human fathers? Can two replicants have a baby with no human involved? All options are open.
Deckard is not a replicant, Scott was only screwing with the fans with the unicorn dream. The original book said Deckard was not a replicant, and the screen writers also said he wasn't and Ford was told he wasn't.
I think you have the sentiment of Luv backwards in your reaction. She doesn’t dislike or hate Wallace, she loves him. She wants to prove herself to him that she’s his best creation. She’s a fanatic but she still has rules. That’s why she has to lie to Wallace in order to kill K’s boss. I love this movie because you can debate about it for hours. Also I’m pretty sure they have never definitively said if Deckard is a replicant or not.
Deckard is not a replicant, Scott was only screwing with the fans with the unicorn dream. The original book said Deckard was not a replicant, and the screen writers also said he wasn't and Ford was told he wasn't.
Truly the last experience in the cinema that completely transported me to another place, another world. There aren't many things like that now. There wasn't beforehand either for many years to be honest - a stunning piece of work on all levels which only grows in stature the more I watch it. Destined to be a modern classic. So delighted you both enjoyed it too, and a stellar reaction as always. x
Same, yeah it was like you were seeing through a window into another universe. It's a shame it didn't do better at the box office but then these sort of films never do anymore.
@@alexmacdougall5700 Dune is so damn good. I can't wait for part 2. He's also planning on adapting Rendezvous with Rama into a movie, which I trust he would do justice.
The most heartbreaking part for me is when he sees the giant hologram of Joi so soon after losing his Joi. It almost erases everything she was turning her into a product that just acted out her part of the relationship according to her program, not real feelings.
If you're ever lacking for another Patreon exclusive show, I highly recommend the Battlestar Galactica re-imagining from 2004. It has some similar themes of what it means to be human, and so forth. I think you would both enjoy it.
I think the whole “Is Deckard a replicant?” thing was pretty much the brainchild of Ridley Scott, and wasn’t built into the original script/story. Scott says that he is a replicant and filmed everything with that in mind, but ultimately it doesn’t matter; it just adds another layer of texture to the piece. The real question these days is “Is this a better film than the original?” 😁
Yep. I think Villeneuve was poking fun at that in the scene when K goes to Vegas and is talking with Deckart. He points at the dog and says "is it real?" mirroring the audience's own question about Deckard. Deckard just says "does it matter?" George in this reaction seems 100% convinced that Deckard isn't a replicant and I'm not sure why haha, if anything the unicorn origami in the original movie implied that he was a replicant. But like you said, it doesn't ultimately make a difference.
IMO, this is the best science fiction film ever. There's absolutely nothing like it. Too bad that when it came out they did almost no press stuff, almost nobody watched it in the huge cinema screens, really a pity
I remember that I meant to go and see it but got so tied up with work that I forgot. Watched it the next year on small screen and it was like watching a Greek tragedy. Utter catharsis.
Just like the original. It was planned that way. The prequel got very low views and STILL has low views due to a number of things. Most people who have seen the 2049 one has seen the original. Most who has not the original would almost never hear about 2049. I like it that way. It makes the cult classic extend to the 2049.
I love the question of whether or not Joe's JOI is 'real' or not because the answer itself doesn't matter, the fact that you're having to ask the question is what matters.
@@milling321 uhh, yep. Joi's whole existence and the question of whether or not she's sentient mirror's that of the replicants in the first movie; i.e. is there more to her than her artificial origins. Personally I think the answer is yes, but of course, we have no way of resolving that question.
@@boop4801 I don't know... After seeing it so many times and reading/watching some other opinions, I'm leaning more towards Joy being really good programming. Everything that she is is about serving Joe, didn't you find it curious that she only ever wants to do exactly what Joe needs?
@@flcl666flcl I wouldn't call it dumb, but it just doesn't feel like a star trek movie at all. It feels closer in pace and scope to 2001 than Star Trek. I also need to state I'm not saying it is anywhere close to 2001 in quality though.
This film is just amazing, the directing, the cinematography, the sound, the performances all incredible. One of the best sequels ever - it somehow manages keeps the vibe and aesthetic of the original but with fresh characters and an original story.
If you want to see the whole blade runner world you can watch the following: Blade runner 1982(Original movie) Blade runner black out 2022 ( Short 15min anime - Humans vs Replicants, Explains Blackout mentioned in 2049 and Replicant prohibition) Blade runner Black lotus (13 episode anime - Explains the Tyrell corp bought by Wallace corp. Young Niander Wallace and how he gains control of Wallce corp. Also DOC Badger from 2049, as a teen) Blade runner 2036 Nexus Dawn (Short film Niander Wallace) Blade Runner 2048 Nowhere to run (Short film about Sapper Morton, Dave Bautistas character) Blade Runner 2049 (Second Movie)
For me this is the greatest sequel ever made. Score, effects, acting, direction, cinematography, etc. All make this a work of art. My favourite film of the late 2010s.
The film was written by two primary screenwriters (one of whom, Hampton Fancher, was also one of the original’s screenwriters). Fancher doesn’t believe Deckard is a replicant (Ridley Scott decided to make him one during filming of the original). The other screenwriter, Michael Green, DOES believe Deckard is a replicant. So, the screenplay was written in a manner that both perspectives could be true. And as George points out: it ultimately doesn’t matter. 2049 is one of the best sequels ever made and a monumentally genius act of screenwriting.
Deckard is not a replicant, ignore Scotts insertion of the unicorn dream. That came many years later when he decided to screw with the fans with his directors cut. The original book said Deckard was not a replicant, and the screen writers also said he wasn't.
A great movie. I know some hard core fans of the original dumped on it, but I think it's extremely well done, very well acted, with loads of atmosphere. And of course technically and visually it's stunning, as is most anything that Denis directs.
One thing I love about this is that there are loads of small details which add to the world building and even contributes to the plot. One interesting part is at the start when JOI is with K making him food and she says she's getting 'cabin fever'. Then you realise afterwards that she basically is programmed to say that to indirectly advertise the Emmenator (the thing that K buys her later) and to get clients buying that. Such cool world building done in a flawless and seamless way. You realise early on that JOI is just a product (like a s3x doll, but for emotionally lonely individuals), and companies will try make money off these people. The whole relationship between K and JOI makes you think, what is love and can it be real if one of them is programmed to behave in a certain way? Maybe not JOI, but K was definitely in love. Edit: also JOI isn't sentient. She's a product programmed to emulate love based on the specific users preferences.
I think it was intentionally spelled JOI after the acronym for a certain sexual activity to further drive the fact that it's meant to be a sexual product.
How do you know JOI isn't sentient? I think, much like the question of Deckard being a replicant, JOI is portrayed in a way that one could argue both sides; that she's just a product or that she's transcended her programming. I think the arguments that she has gone beyond her programming is the fact that everything she encourages K to do does not serve the company but opposes it. To die for the right cause is the most human thing of all, and JOI essentially sacrifices herself to save K. If she hadn't appeared when she did, Love would have killed K. Instead Love killed JOI and left K alive to suffer the loss.
@@CSeraphym while there is nothing concrete, I think there are more signs that JOI isn't sentient. First of all JOI is a product made by Wallace Corp. It's a mainstream product to the point it's openly being advertised. I dont think it makes sense for Wallace Corp. to invest in trying to create a sentient A.I (JOI is an A.I in the form of holographic imagery). It would make more sense and easier for them to create a programme to emulate love rather than create a sentient AI and have it go rogue and therefore create security risk. It makes more sense for Wallace to invest in replicant technology, which is what we see Wallace doimg in the movie with him witnessing the birth of a new replicant then dispatching it because its not advanced enough (can't birth). Also when JOI gets destroyed by LUV, there's that whole scene with K staring up at the giant JOI hologram which is a clear indication of him realising that she was a product all along and that if he wanted to be a real human, the closest thing he could do was to make his own decision (I think the replicant group leader actually says something like that too).
Deckard as a replicant is a 40-year-old controversy. Most people have settled on one answer, but one important person in the creation of Blade Runner strongly disagrees.
I like that for 2049, you can interpret it either way or retain your head canon. It makes no commentary whether or not he is. If he is a replicant, a double miracle in that he and Rachel could conceive. If human, also a miracle.
Yeah, I personally like to think Deckard is human, because that means they transcended the human/machine boundary. And that's even more meaningful to that thing Sci-Fi has always been about, i. e. hold a mirror up to humanity and question what human nature is, in the first place ... but that's just my personal take.
I've seen Blade Runner, the original, over 80 times. I lost exact count in the 40s. When I heard there was going to be a sequel I was absolutely sure it was going to be a complete P.O.S., and instead Villeneuve made a damn masterpiece. Never been so happy to be wrong. BR2049 is better than the original movie.
25:30 - “As far as I’m concerned, she is also a person.” - George, about Joi For me, this was the most important concept to “get” from this film. The first _Blade Runner_ wanted to drive home the idea that there was no meaningful distinction between humans and replicants, and this sequel doubles down on it, granting personhood to something so entirely alien (what is, essentially, some fancy software and projectors) that bickering about the humanity of replicants becomes untenable.
It may have taken 35 years to get it, but this sequel is just as stunning and thought provoking as the original - a masterpiece. As a side note I often wonder if it was intentional that both antagonists in the original and the sequel (Batty and Luv) were both played by Dutch (Rutger Hauer and Sylvia Hoeks) actors too?
@@laserpanda94 I'm 51 so did see it back in the day, it changed cinema forever and the visual style has been copied ever since. 2049 was a worthy sequel and gets the Neo-noir Cyberpunk vibe perfectly.
One of the best sequels ever made Roger Deakins deservedly won best Cinematography Oscar. Is Deckard a replicant I don't think so and I think this film proves it. Interesting bit of trivia David Bowie was the first choice for Wallace, sadly he died before filming started.
@@somthingbrutal The first movie left It ambiguous if Deckard was a replicant, so no, not definitely. Even Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott disagreed on it. This movie tends more 'definitely' into that only Rachael was a replicant. Her pregnancy wasn't planned for or expected and it gets even more improbable when both parents were not be 'natural'.
@@nullunit But Wallace said (paraphrased)"...almost like you were made for each other...". This is seriously meant to make you think that her pregnancy WAS planned by Tyrell. I don't know how you determine the opposite conclusion.
The baseline test was an examination designed to measure any emotional deviance experienced by Nexus-9 replicants in the course of their work. To be "off baseline" would be considered a failure of such test. Hence the test Joe does is to make sure he's stable and won't become dangerous. P.S There was also some extra short films made for the movie that where not included in the feature...One is an anime that explains the "Blackout" the other explains how "Bautista" was discovered to be a replicant. You can find them both on youtube.
Love this movie. Saw it 3 times at the cinema. The last time was the day it was pulled from my local cinema. I was in the screen all by myself. As perfect of a cinema experience as you could possibly have. Spare parts? Replicant's aren't robots, theyre living tissue. They're grown, so getting older is what happens as time passes.
Joe was just a standard replicant, the only special part about him was that he was the one who got those particular memories, his whole tale is just pure happenstance/serendipity.
Joe's grunt as he holds Luv underwater freaks me out as much as her growling as she dies. They were so similar. Stronger than everyone else and bred for a specific purpose, yet they were so different in how they lived. I don't know if Deckard is real or replicant because of the different versions of the first movie change its meaning. I think it's more effective if he's real, because it shows that both human and replicant will need to move forward together in order to stave off a genocidal war. Even the replicants are prone to the narcissism of thinking your race is "superior." And the replicants lose some of their innocence by requiring Deckard's death to further their cause. While it may be that Joe doesn't die it is, again, more effective if he does. He was the most innocent, even with all the blood on his hands.
Imagine what it was like to wait 30 yrs for this movie and watch this...was STUNNED SHOCKED and weeping ! Its a helluva experience ...I hope the next one doesnt take 30🤔ill be 85
As a life long Blade Runner fanatic i thought a sequel would not come close to the original, but in fact this masterpiece surpasses it, asks more questions, answers none from the first and opens new parallel themes. It's so underrated. A visual and audio work of art.
So glad you saw this. Blade Runner is one of my favorite films, and this sequel was everything I could have hoped for, and more. I think it's also Harrison Ford's best performance. Catching up with Deckard after all these years, really hit me in the feels, and seeing him finally meet his daughter, made my eyes fill up. There are 3 Blade Runner shorts that you should check out on RU-vid that were released before this film. "Blade Runner Blackout 2022" "Blade Runner Nexus 2036" and "Blade Runner Nowhere to Run." They give you a bit more background into that world and fill in some of the spaces between the 2 films.
Why would people hate a perfect replacement for people? When robots started taking over factory jobs there was an enormous backlash against them. Machines that didn't need a break health benefits, vacation, sleep...anything...were putting workers on the street. It's the same here. Organics that work like robots. They're property, so you can do whatever you want with them. They're disposable, so if they perish in the chemical mines just replace them.
@Shasi iishi Not TOOK. Companies no longer needed to hire you. They had a workforce, so you were out of a job. This isn't an argument about immigration.
@Shasi iishi that's fair, I think I may have misread. People having time to adapt to changing job markets, while possible, are still often met with anger. For example miners being put out of their trade by changes in where we get our energy. They are resisting and not too happy.
Why do people hate androids? Simple answer: economics. Androids take people's jobs. And the worst part is that they don't take the job of a garbage man, a waiter, a nanny, a miner etc (I respect any job btw, the problem is that this jobs aren't prestigious or high paying). AI, programmed by Big Corp dont take bad low payed jobs. No. AI programed by Big Corp take all creative and analitical jobs. Because it's high paying jobs. And Big Corp would rather see this job done by the cheap AI and not by costly meatbag. That's it!
One of the greatest sequels ever made. I hold this up with Aliens and T2. Edit at 29:30 the note he presses on the piano, is the same note that the cigarette box with the sock was hidden under at Sapper's house.
Not gonna lie, this was a difficult reaction to watch. There's a lot of clueless observation and speculation that could be readily avoided by just paying attention to the film.
DECKARD IS A REPLICANT. Deckard had "dream" of unicorn. Edward James Olmos character in the first movie at the end left a unicorn at Deckard's doorstep as a hint.
'Joe' dies. We know this because the musical cue is 'tears in the rain' (Batty's death scene from Blade Runner 2019). An n, Deckard isnot a replicant. Deckard's daughter is not immuno compromised (or she would have died in the orphanage). She keeps away from society so as not to be accidentally discovered to be a hybrid. The youtube shorts (also produced by Villeneuve) show the blackout and intervening years as well as just before 2049 and Sapper Morton's life before the film (Dave Bautista). Blade Runner: Black Lotus is fun, not very in the spirit of Blade Runner (it's an anime with way too much fighting)but it's Niander Wallace's origin story (Jared Leto).
99% dont get the message of:when the dealer said this small piece of wood is worse a fortune.... and then dont remember the palace of Niander Wallace(Jared Leto)had these huuuuuuge open rooms, all covert with perfect wood all around!!!!! this would cost a fortune in our days already but imagine he has a palace like a pyramide in the future where even a small hand of wood would cost millions... If this is not a perfect symbolysm of a "god" like being then i dont know...😶
The reason Wallace killed the new female replicant was because she was just a sample of the new model they designed and are planning to produce. She had no memories, no personality, a blank minded being that’s essentially like a new human infant, but adult. Wallace didn’t intend for her to be anything more than an expendable sample. He wants to be able to breed replicants because manufacturing them at maximum capacity is not satisfying off world needs. He said he wants to conquer the stars, we need more. He wants to increase production with breeding, but can’t find Tyrell’s answer, and it aggravates him. So, he touched her abdomen where her barren womb is, and terminated the sample by slicing that barren womb open. Niander Wallace is a true Doctor Frankenstein like mega maniac, and quite sick.
I highly highly recommend you two checking out the channel Like Stories of Old here on RU-vid. It's a philosophical analysis of film and television and sometimes video games that looks beyond the surface to illuminate much deeper subtleties. There is, of course, a video about 2049. Whether it's in your own time, or even reacting to it on the channel (even though I know it's not cinema), whatever the case it is well worth taking some time to appreciate some of these films that you've seen. The one about this adds a little more depth to the character of Luv that isn't exactly explicit in the film.
I was a huge fan of the original Bladerunner and in my humble opinion, the sequel sucks 8 different kinds of ass. It was slow, boring and even the acting was weak as hell. I've spoken to dozens of Bladerunner fans who felt the same way....the sequel blows chunks.
I see a lot of people don't get the basic concept of replicants. They are not made out of plastic or metal or whatever. They are basicly super-clones, made as a grown adults so you could throw them into any task they're made for from day one. Imagine 2 pieces of meat. One was once a living animal and the other one is made in a lab. Both made out of organic meat, same taste, same structure, same molecules, the same DNA. But one was taken from a real animal and the other - a replica, grown from scratch in a lab. The Blade Runner society tells us, that the "real" meat is "real" cause it was once born and formed naturally, while a "replica" of that meat is inferior and artificial, cause it was grown in a lab.
Appreciate that you both have a natural comedic chemistry that is a great match for a ton of movies, but I think your tendency to enjoy banter during the film robbed a lot of significant scenes of all of their emotional gravity, and probably robbed you of the ability to enjoy this one fully. Paired watches would maybe be a better match for comedy and action movies, as opposed to cerebral dramas like this one 🙂
There is a subtle hint all the way through the film that Rachel's child is a girl. If you notice in the orphanage and in Joe's dream all the boy's have shaved head's but not the girl's and in the dream the child being bullied does not have a shaved head.
This is such an amazing movie... It is one of my favourites of all time alongside the original Bladerunner... Denis Villeneuve made an amazing thing... A 30 year latter sequel at the same level or even better than the original. I hope you also watch Dune soon!
Simone you have the prettiest, most expressive eyes. And George, you're appreciation for puns is delightfully infectious. You guys rock, love your reactions.
The psych test is to compare his emotional state after killing another replicant with a control test that was administered at some point in the past. I'm assuming if he shows any emotions like guilt or remorse as a result, he would be retired.
2049 goes to the top of the list of my favorite sequels ever made and also turns out to be one of my favorite films. Absolutely love this movie! Thank you for watching
Pay attention to the use of color. Yellow is used in each stage of discovery of the protagonist’s journey. The change of Luv’s outfit is an interesting touch too.
Bring able to implant memories requires the ability to read them in the first place, as further demonstrated in this movie. Thus Gaff's knowledge of the unicorn memory says nothing about Deckard's status.
About the blackout... there are at least three short movies released around the time this movie was released, I think they are still online here in RU-vid, one of them is animated and explain the story of the blackout itself. The other two are the introduction to the Wallace character and the replicant played by Dave Bautista. Great video as always guys
