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.
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.
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.
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'.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
Loved the sound design in this movie. Still using bits from it as ringtones and message alerts on my phone since it came out. My favorite is the Mesa, when K and Joi go out for their flight and they're going over the wall. To add, the "synthetic" part of the replicants doesn't mean plastic or some sort of artificial material. They're still organic. They age, they bleed, they can die. Their advantage is that they were genetically engineered to be stronger. As you mentioned, they had all the correct anatomy, but no function to actually reproduce, but since they were organic there is some evolution or genetic development implied in the replicants - as was the case of Rachel. Like Dr. Ian Malcolm said "Life, uhm, finds a way".
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.
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 UA-cam 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Simone you have the prettiest, most expressive eyes. And George, you're appreciation for puns is delightfully infectious. You guys rock, love your reactions.
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.
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 UA-cam, 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
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.
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.
An excellent sequel to a masterpiece that not only is a valentine to its original but brings even more rich depths and questions asked about what is real and what isn't? What is life? What is death? What is the afterlife? Truly stunning visuals and the cinematography by veteran DP Roger Deakins justifiably FINALLY won him his first Oscar. Seeing this in IMAX was jaw-dropping (you so need to see any film in the format) and the giantess Joi is my fave (and now I must add Simone's thumbnail tribute as well *sigh*; If.Only) :D xoxo Great job guys - I knew you'd dig this.
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.
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 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.
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 Easter egg as to whether Decker is a replicant is in the first movie. When Rachael is playing the piano decker has a flah of an implant memory of a unicorn and at the end of the movie an origami unicorn is left for him to find as a clue. Basically Decker and Rachael are both replicants. They are the Mum and Dad
Wasn't the unicorn stuff added in post-production because of studio notes or the beginning of Scott's descent into the blithering idiot who made Prometheus?
@@korganrocks3995 I don't remember it in the cinema when it came out but it was on my directors cut and I wasn't aware of it's relevance for at least ten years after that so I couldn't say for sure whether it was post production or post release, would be interested to know though so if you or anyone knows I'm here to learn
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
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.
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.
Ridley Scott has stated categorically (in an interview, you can find it) that Deckard IS a replicant. When asked, his answer was "Of course he is". But George is forgetting the evidence; The unicorn dream. Accumulating of photographs. Even his eyes glow like Rachel's
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
I imagine the baseline test is an evolution or revision of the basic Voight-Kampff test of old, that Holden and Deckard performed in the first movie, more suited for the upgraded replicants. This was a hell of a watch on the big screen.. loved it and I honestly never imagined we'd get a sequel. I was lucky enough to get to see the first Bladerunner a couple of times, first when Ridley Scott released the Director's Cut back in '92 and again in 2007 when he released the Final Cut. I was just a little too young to see it at the cinema first time around, though I remember seeing the poster adverts in the newspapers and thinking I'd love to see it.
The score when Joe dies at the end is the same as was played in the original when Roy does his “tears in the rain” final speech before dying himself. Full closure. Cinematic perfection.
The color yellow and red have specific meanings in this movie.. where as yellow gets you closer to the truth, red is a barrier, and orange, like in Vegas, is a mix of both, because Deckard is the truth and the last barrier to the truth. DV is a genius. Simone is right, it is a baseline test to make sure he is still reliable. The blackout was a result of terrorism perpetrated by the replicants in hopes that they could escape being hunted and from a general sense of revenge and rage. The screenplay is available online and IT IS incredible. No wonder this movie was such a masterpiece, the screenplay is.. well just look for yourself. You wont be disappointed.
So many other little details are on the right place. Like, any real human in this movie looks sick, or have some defect, while all replicants are looking healthy, and generally just better than humans. "More human than human."
'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).
hey awesome that you guys are reacting together in the same place lol really got use to the split screen but this just feels all the more special since it don't happen regularly
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 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.
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.
I have watched this movie so many times, it is my favorite film ever I believe! The most impactful and thought provoking moment for me was the moment giant pink Joi says "You look like a good Joe" and then you see the billboard that says "everything you want to hear" (like all of the Joi advertisements) and suddenly you ask yourself: Did Joi really love Joe, or did she just get inside his head and give him everything he ever wanted because that is what she was programed to do by a company that wants you addicted to their product?
22:14- Exactly. This is the movie I started liking him as an action star. Now we got him The Gray Man. I like emotionless Gosling. 26:00- DON'T LOOK AT THIS!!! LOOK AWAY!!!
Adore this masterful sequel. As for the confusion on how Love found him in Las Vegas, it was not because he turned on JOI. When Love killed the cop, she looked in the computer for the police tracking system and found where he was.
I read that the music playing at the end as Gosling lays in the snow, is the same music from the original movie when Rutger Hauer's character gives the "tears in the rain" speech and then dies. So, the musical motif "hints" that Gosling's character dies, but it's still left ambiguous.
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.
@@AndyMatts44 right, especially since the tipping point for Joe was finding the horse. They couldn't have all found that horse.
@@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.
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.
💯👌like Roy Batty saving Deckard at the end ...yep...
I agree completely, and was about to comment with this. That his death in the end was proof of his humanity, regardless of his birth.
@@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.
SORRY LAST POINT where Roy's death is tragic "like tears in rain" Joe's death is peacful like the snow falling around him.
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.
She wasn't sentient at all, just repeating his thoughts and expectations back to him. They could never have a fight, for example.
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?
Overanalyzing
@@MrBrax You can't overanalyze this film.
@@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.
When Joe sits down on the stairs, in the end scene, and “Tears in rain” starts playing, it gets me every time. 🥺😭 Every. Time.
and the movie opens and ends with scenes in white. loved the dried seasalt on his coat, such a cool detail.
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.
Yep...i cried when i heard the theme start....i was wrecked for days.
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'.
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!
This movie was so much better than it had any right to be, and Villeneuve was the perfect director for it. This and Arrival are amazing films.
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.
bladerunner never was a commercial success
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
typically a movie needs to double its budget to break even.
ah that sucks bad. I didn't know it did so poorly and I thought it was a well received film with all the buzz going around.
Breaking even is not enough. This type of movie needs to make significant money, so the studio can make more movies.
@@1183newman That's self-contradictory. What do you mean?
@@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.
When we find out Joe was just a decoy, my heart dropped. It was sooooo sad.
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.
@@rocketdave719 that's how I always took it.
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 because the billboard also called him joe
according to the screenplay K does die on those steps btw
@@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.
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.
If George were more familiar with Star Trek, we could compare it to Khan being a modified human, not an android.
Yes this. I feel like most people think if you open one up you’d see metal and wires but that’s not correct. They have organs and bones too.
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.
Yes. A movie to be watched more than once and then debated forever. And that's fun!
Every time I watch this, I like it more than the time before. Really a brilliant film.
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
I believe it's this:
"Weta Workshop - Blade Runner 2049 Miniatures"
ua-cam.com/video/sLxxbfsj8IM/v-deo.html
This film is utterly fantastic.. but the music... my god, the music!
Hans Zimmer is todays Beethoven.
@@thegunslinger1363 Absolute legend. Was gutted I had to give my tickets to see him here in Dublin. I get to one of his gigs one day
Paled in comparison to Vangelis.
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.
@@michaelhenry3234 - I choose to believe it was real. The alternative is just too damn depressing.
So, like real human beings.
And maybe also wondering, what is "real"?
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.
Everything you want to hear. Everything you want to see.
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.
@@kennethbryant5819 ....? how do you know she wasn't programmed to do those things?
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
Actually the film that completely transported me to a new world was from the very same directors very next film. Villeneuve knows his shit
@@alexmacdougall5700 I thought the exact same
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.
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.
Within the space of a month I watched Sicario, Arrival and then Blade Runner 2049. When they announced he was doing Dune I was sold.
Sicario is another masterpiece. His French language film Incendies, from 2010 is also great.
Yup Aaronofsky is another favorite of mine that people somehow seem to not talk about at all.
"Prisoners" is amazing. So incredibly tense and my favorite Hugh Jackman performance (sorry Wolverine).
He also directed Sicario, which is pretty intense.
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.
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.
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.
"You look like a good joe"
That one really hit hard. Joy was never really more than a program.
Thats strictly a matter of interpretation.
@@faded1to3black uhh, nope
@@milling321 Uhh yup.
@@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?
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)
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.
I second that recommendation! Worth watching for the soundtrack alone, and the film itself is great too.
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
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.
The banter between you two is even better when you’re together, I love it.
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 made a 3 hours drive to see it in an IMAX theater. Worth it. Totally.
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.
Definately a cinema experience
Was worth seeing in the cinema for the sound alone. The soundtrack shook my body at times and transported me to another place.
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.
hahaha that "should I leave??" moment was hilarious!
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.
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.
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.
You make me sad.
he realizes it after the joi billboard also calls him joe
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).
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.
yep this
Agreed
25:16 Yes! Joi needs one of the Professor's "10 Blank Robots -- Mac Formatted" from the Futurama episode with Lucy Liu!
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.
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
Hardly underrated. I think this is pretty much universally praised as a masterpiece. And it did the unthinkable. It surpassed the original.
@@nightfall902 I agree with you. And I avoid books that are a part of a series. But. Sometimes. They wow us. Like this film.
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.
There are some short clips on youtube that are meant as a sort of prelude/prequel to this movie. It explains the whole "blackout" thing a little more.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this movie is a masterpiece! Thank you for sharing your reactions
Loved the sound design in this movie. Still using bits from it as ringtones and message alerts on my phone since it came out.
My favorite is the Mesa, when K and Joi go out for their flight and they're going over the wall.
To add, the "synthetic" part of the replicants doesn't mean plastic or some sort of artificial material. They're still organic. They age, they bleed, they can die. Their advantage is that they were genetically engineered to be stronger. As you mentioned, they had all the correct anatomy, but no function to actually reproduce, but since they were organic there is some evolution or genetic development implied in the replicants - as was the case of Rachel. Like Dr. Ian Malcolm said "Life, uhm, finds a way".
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.
I saw it in IMAX opening night as a double feature with the original Blade Runner.
One of the single greatest cinematic experiences I’ve ever had.
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 UA-cam 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.
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
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.
how long did it take to copy that from the bladerunner wiki?
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.
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.
Simone you have the prettiest, most expressive eyes. And George, you're appreciation for puns is delightfully infectious. You guys rock, love your reactions.
Jesus, Hurley, they mineral!
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.
The colour yellow is used throughout the movie like the yellow brick road in the wizard of oz. The yellow is used to show that he’s on the right path.
the character acting in this film is some of the very best I have ever seen. This film is a masterclass in everything about filmmaking.
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 UA-cam, 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
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.
So many stories with the Chosen One and this one is like, "nah, Regular Joe can handle it."
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.
An excellent sequel to a masterpiece that not only is a valentine to its original but brings even more rich depths and questions asked about what is real and what isn't? What is life? What is death? What is the afterlife? Truly stunning visuals and the cinematography by veteran DP Roger Deakins justifiably FINALLY won him his first Oscar. Seeing this in IMAX was jaw-dropping (you so need to see any film in the format) and the giantess Joi is my fave (and now I must add Simone's thumbnail tribute as well *sigh*; If.Only) :D xoxo Great job guys - I knew you'd dig this.
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.
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.
Unlike most sci-fi movies, to me this one actually feels immersive
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.
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.
well he definitely was a replicant in the first movie
@@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 Easter egg as to whether Decker is a replicant is in the first movie. When Rachael is playing the piano decker has a flah of an implant memory of a unicorn and at the end of the movie an origami unicorn is left for him to find as a clue. Basically Decker and Rachael are both replicants. They are the Mum and Dad
Wasn't the unicorn stuff added in post-production because of studio notes or the beginning of Scott's descent into the blithering idiot who made Prometheus?
@@korganrocks3995 I don't remember it in the cinema when it came out but it was on my directors cut and I wasn't aware of it's relevance for at least ten years after that so I couldn't say for sure whether it was post production or post release, would be interested to know though so if you or anyone knows I'm here to learn
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
This movie is a straight-up masterpiece. Taking an existing classic and making it even better is a unique accomplishment. Villeneuve nailed 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.
Was wondering if anyone else noticed that
This movie was an absolute love letter to the original. It's among my favorite in the genre.
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.
Ridley Scott has stated categorically (in an interview, you can find it) that Deckard IS a replicant.
When asked, his answer was "Of course he is".
But George is forgetting the evidence; The unicorn dream. Accumulating of photographs. Even his eyes glow like Rachel's
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.
I still like the original more. But this was definitely a worthy sequel.
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.
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.
The music when he died is vangelis Tears in rain from the first film, when Roy is dying in the end. It's just awesome and blowing my heart
Please watch the STAR TREK movies! 🖖
At least Wrath of Khan.
Agree on skipping 1 and yes @cinebinge
@@joegreene7619 yeah. But it's till just a dum movie.
@@joegreene7619 I'll check out the paramount version I guess, but I always fall asleep when they reach... no spoilers
@@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.
100% best react channel. There are a couple others that I watch, but none compare. The dynamic between you two is incredible.
"As far as I'm concerned she's a person too"
Narrator: "She wasn't a person"
Ridley Scott says Deckard is a replicant. Dennis Villeneuve says he isn't. You pays your money, you takes your choice. But dreams of unicorns?
You guys should watch Prisoners another Denis Villeneuve film which is amazing.
One of the greatest cinematic experiences ever, IMAX opening weekend, downtown Montreal. 2049 is a classic for the ages.
“Should I leave? “ 🤣🤣😂😂 I almost choked on my food! 😂😂
I imagine the baseline test is an evolution or revision of the basic Voight-Kampff test of old, that Holden and Deckard performed in the first movie, more suited for the upgraded replicants. This was a hell of a watch on the big screen.. loved it and I honestly never imagined we'd get a sequel. I was lucky enough to get to see the first Bladerunner a couple of times, first when Ridley Scott released the Director's Cut back in '92 and again in 2007 when he released the Final Cut. I was just a little too young to see it at the cinema first time around, though I remember seeing the poster adverts in the newspapers and thinking I'd love to see it.
“Solar farms are good”
Ah, the naïveté of youth.
One of my favorite things about this movie is a lot of the wide open shots like the farm lands, solar areas and the city were shot on miniatures.
The score when Joe dies at the end is the same as was played in the original when Roy does his “tears in the rain” final speech before dying himself. Full closure. Cinematic perfection.
Jesus Simone those intros just get more and morew HILARIOUS!... My Sides hurt! Thnx for the smiles
The color yellow and red have specific meanings in this movie.. where as yellow gets you closer to the truth, red is a barrier, and orange, like in Vegas, is a mix of both, because Deckard is the truth and the last barrier to the truth. DV is a genius. Simone is right, it is a baseline test to make sure he is still reliable. The blackout was a result of terrorism perpetrated by the replicants in hopes that they could escape being hunted and from a general sense of revenge and rage. The screenplay is available online and IT IS incredible. No wonder this movie was such a masterpiece, the screenplay is.. well just look for yourself. You wont be disappointed.
So many other little details are on the right place. Like, any real human in this movie looks sick, or have some defect, while all replicants are looking healthy, and generally just better than humans. "More human than human."
oh and according to the script, K does die on those steps
You need to see the 3 prequel short films. One is animated and shows the blackout.
'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).
hey awesome that you guys are reacting together in the same place lol really got use to the split screen but this just feels all the more special since it don't happen regularly
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.
One of the greatest sequels in the history of cinema. Overlooked, as per usual.
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.
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.
I have watched this movie so many times, it is my favorite film ever I believe!
The most impactful and thought provoking moment for me was the moment giant pink Joi says "You look like a good Joe" and then you see the billboard that says "everything you want to hear" (like all of the Joi advertisements) and suddenly you ask yourself: Did Joi really love Joe, or did she just get inside his head and give him everything he ever wanted because that is what she was programed to do by a company that wants you addicted to their product?
Cool reaction as always Simone & George, you both take care and have a great weekend
So underrated. I loved this movie. For me it was the best movie of the year it was released.
22:14- Exactly. This is the movie I started liking him as an action star. Now we got him The Gray Man. I like emotionless Gosling. 26:00- DON'T LOOK AT THIS!!! LOOK AWAY!!!
2:30- There's my boy. He's actually hunting The Animal, Batista. 4:26- It's Solid Snake. Don't check the box. 27:22- Aye, it's Captain Phillips.
Adore this masterful sequel.
As for the confusion on how Love found him in Las Vegas, it was not because he turned on JOI. When Love killed the cop, she looked in the computer for the police tracking system and found where he was.
The cigarette gets lit by heat because she is made of light and can focus it into her fingertip.
I read that the music playing at the end as Gosling lays in the snow, is the same music from the original movie when Rutger Hauer's character gives the "tears in the rain" speech and then dies. So, the musical motif "hints" that Gosling's character dies, but it's still left ambiguous.