Blade Runner 2049 SPOILERS thread

edited October 6 in Movies
Ok, so is Deckard a fucking replicant? Or was he just fucking a replicant? 

J&A seemed convinced that he was a replicant, but the only evidence I see is that Deckard had a baby with Rachel.

But who's to say Rachel couldn't have a baby with a human male? Perhaps Tyrell wanted humans and replicants to coexist by eventually becoming one and the same. But maybe I just missed a line of dialogue or something...

Also, what what the symbolism of Gaff's origami for Officer K? It looked like a sheep, so my initial thought was "a lamb to the slaughter" or "mindless follower"

image

Anyway, this movie was DOPE! Seeing it again this weekend.
rkcrawf

Comments

  • amyja89amyja89 Oxford, England
    I had two thoughts on the significance of the origami, neither are particularly mind blowing.

    1. They had Gaff do some convenient origami just to hammer home to those who are completely familiar with Blade Runner that that is the 'origami cop from the first movie'.

    2. It's a little nod to Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep.

    As for Deckard being a replicant, I have to say I didn't see any glaring evidence to suggest that he was. The fact that he aged 30 years and was still alive pretty much goes against one of the only rules that we learned in the original, that the replicants created in his era do not last that long, or even show signs of ageing I guess.


    darwinfeeshyJovial_FalconDaveyMac
  • sean.raysean.ray Texas
    edited October 7
    I don't think he's a replicant, Philip K Dick, the screenwriter Hampton Fancher and Ford all say he isn't. If he is a replicant, he must be a Nexus 6, which is impossible, because He's clearly lived longer than the 4 year life span they set up in the original blade Runner. I like the idea that a human and a replicant can procreate, that to me seems like a miracle, two replicants reproducing just seems silly to me.
    darwinfeeshy
  • edited October 7
    So what do y'all think about the underground replicant resistance?? I felt that it came out of nowhere and was only there as a plot device to get Officer K to pursue Deckard. And the resistance was never revisited and didn't really have a payoff.

    This was my one gripe with the film, and the only thing keeping it from being a 10/10 for me (even though I will see it a few more times before I have a full grasp on the film).
    sean.ray
  • I felt like they are setting up another sequel that will deal with the resistance, but hopefully we can get it sooner than 35 years from now.
  • sean.ray said:

    I felt like they are setting up another sequel that will deal with the resistance, but hopefully we can get it sooner than 35 years from now.

    Shhhhhhhh don't ruin my post-movie bliss with the possibility of a money-grubbing, franchise-ruining sequel based on the uprising... that's a tomorrow problem. 
  • Just got out a second time. I feel like K definitely was Deckards son, in as much as K had whatshername's memories and DNA.
    Jovial_Falcon
  • WonderedObjectWonderedObject SAN Francisco, CA
    holy SHIT what a ridiculously unnecessary long ass movie. 

    The story itself I'd say was about an 8/10. But the length creates a serious problem for me. I can't recommend this movie unless you're a huge blade runner fan. It's just not worth the almost 3 hour cut. 

    I'm a firm believer that Deckard isn't a replicant. Considering how much he aged. But then again, I could understand the arguments for him being one. It's all a toss up really. 

    My second gripe with this movie would be why didn't the gf tell K that he was being tracked? Did she not see the girl slide the tracker in his jacket? Or was I seeing things?
  • I thought Joi got there just after she put the tracker in his coat. She didn't seem omnipresent to me. But you're right could be a plot hole.
    JaimieT
  • WonderedObjectWonderedObject SAN Francisco, CA
    @sean.ray i thought so too. But then as she was leaving, the other woman mentioned about keeping quiet like she knew joi saw. I mean it's they went out of the way to break Jois antenna but not the resistance tracker?

    Ehh it was a pretty movie to watch. Visuals were great.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    I assumed Deckard was a replicant because, even though he clearly shouldn't be in the original Blade Runner, it's practically become the official word(TM). 

    I want to plug Nerdwriter1's short video essay on Blade Runner. He's 1 of 5 artists I support on Patreon. He's very good, and my thoughts are heavily influenced by his take.

    I have strong feelings about this movie. Why am I saying that? I think because I don't feel like arguing any of this, but in the interest of sharing for any who care...

    1) K can't be the son for much the same reasons that Rick Deckard can't be a replicant in Blade Runner. It undercuts the theme of modernity (as Nerdwriter1 puts it), that we're all cogs in the machine, and not even that, less important than that... we're drops in the rain or falling tufts of snow. Rick Deckard as a human showed us that we're not all that different from the replicants we use and dispose of. Ryan Gosling as "a piece of the puzzle" shows us that we don't even have a choice in what we are... we're born from a sack and then later we die. Sometimes we brush up against the greater narrative of our race, and we long to be a part of those stories, but the vast majority of us are beautiful, unique-yet-common snowflakes. To see that truth is to suffer, but it's also to see truth.

    2) I enjoyed a movie where the protagonist's story wasn't the story. I wish the movie would have ended with him dying on the steps. While occasionally the movie broke the rule of staying with K's perspective, it largely followed him, and that final scene with Deckard and his daughter did not deviate a bit from my imagination. It's like if it hadn't been Harrison Ford, we wouldn't have gotten that scene. His star power drew us away. Oh well. Jaimie's Cut: K dies on the stairs, credits.

    3) I guess I was a little bored because at one point I caught myself contemplating the colors of eye-shadow I wanted to buy afterward. I don't fault the movie as much for that because, unlike so many other movies, it didn't seem to be trying to hold my interest 100% of the time. And isn't that awesome? It's awesome.

    4) I love when twists catch us off guard while also not undermining the stuff that came before. The twist where K realized he wasn't the child was great, because the poignancy of his memory with the horse still holds. It's just sad now, not hopeful. And the scene where he was talking to Deckard's daughter, it works on several levels: (1) her shame in being confronted with the fact that she had implanted a real memory into a replicant, despite that being against her ethics, and the implied loneliness that compelled that decision, (2) his despair at having been lied to his whole life, (3) her thinking he's angry at having been manipulated, (4) him thinking she's crying because of the strength and beauty of the memory, and what neither of them know at the time, the truth, (5) that she's the child he's looking for. That's a good twist. A lesser twist would have made a connect-the-dots scene like that nonsensical, or highly impractical, or done nothing to it at all... rare that a twist both preserves the scene's original meaning and adds to it. 

    5) Good God please no sequels. I couldn't care less about the replicant uprising. Blade Runner is about despair.

    6) I never bought that Rick Deckard loved Rachel. It's the same with Han and Leia. Passion, yes, but love? Her appearing to him years later via Jared Leto, it should be less "Her eyes were green" and more "That was 30 years ago." I think that was a misstep. I'm second-guessing this though, because I remember their relationship in the context of him being human. And he's not. So... I guess it could have meant a little more to him, and we can overlook the fact that they have no chemistry. 

    7) I can't completely love this movie because it's a sequel to a very good movie, and I'm so sick of that. And because it forces me to view that very good movie in a way that undermines its meaning. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    amyja89 said:

    I had two thoughts on the significance of the origami, neither are particularly mind blowing.


    1. They had Gaff do some convenient origami just to hammer home to those who are completely familiar with Blade Runner that that is the 'origami cop from the first movie'.

    2. It's a little nod to Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep.

    As for Deckard being a replicant, I have to say I didn't see any glaring evidence to suggest that he was. The fact that he aged 30 years and was still alive pretty much goes against one of the only rules that we learned in the original, that the replicants created in his era do not last that long, or even show signs of ageing I guess.


    #1 and #2, I thought. Both. The sheep can't be an accident. 
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    @JaimieT - The RLM guys mentioned that they thought they left Deckard being a replicant ambiguous in that, per the conversation about the dog.  Is he real?  I dunno, ask him.  I kind of liked that, because Deckard being human doesn't change the miraculous nature of Rachel giving birth.  And I loath the idea of Deckard being a replicant.  

    I don't think him being old is evidence that he isn't, btw.  One of the implications of Deckard being a replicant is that he is special in the same way that Rachel was, and that Tyrell wanted them to meet for precisely this reason.  So I don't think Rick or Rachel would die after four years anyway.

    So the way I see it, Deckard being human is as important as K being a replicant, which is to say neither matters.  They both grew and changed as characters and had massive impacts on their world and culture, which would have happened regardless if they were biologic or synthetic.  
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA

    @JaimieT - So the way I see it, Deckard being human is as important as K being a replicant, which is to say neither matters.  They both grew and changed as characters and had massive impacts on their world and culture, which would have happened regardless if they were biologic or synthetic.  

    I agree that none of it matters.

    But continuing on anyway, I don't think you can make that kind of correlative statement about the importance of the protagonists being human, even if your conclusion is that it doesn't matter. The movies are exploring different things. I'd say Blade Runner is primarily about replicants being "more human than human" and what that means and whether it matters, and Deckard not being human, or having no human at the forefront of the story, breaks the bargain movies make to explore their themes.

    And Blade Runner 2049 is about whether or not we can create our own significance. It's not interested in whether humans or replicants are more able to create significance... it's moved past that. 

    I'm nitpicking one clause in your sentence ("Deckard being human is as important..."), and I think we agree anyway, since you said you loathe the idea of Deckard being a replicant. But the statement "none of it matters" necessitates a strong argument having been made that humans aren't that different from replicants, and a human being absent from the comparison is a flaw. People who say Deckard being a human isn't important mean something a little different than I do when they say "none of it matters." 
  • @JaimieT - The RLM guys mentioned that they thought they left Deckard being a replicant ambiguous in that, per the conversation about the dog.  Is he real?  I dunno, ask him.  I kind of liked that, because Deckard being human doesn't change the miraculous nature of Rachel giving birth.  And I loath the idea of Deckard being a replicant.  


    I don't think him being old is evidence that he isn't, btw.  One of the implications of Deckard being a replicant is that he is special in the same way that Rachel was, and that Tyrell wanted them to meet for precisely this reason.  So I don't think Rick or Rachel would die after four years anyway.

    So the way I see it, Deckard being human is as important as K being a replicant, which is to say neither matters.  They both grew and changed as characters and had massive impacts on their world and culture, which would have happened regardless if they were biologic or synthetic.  
    @A_Ron_Hubbard I really hate the Deckard as a replicant idea too, but I don't think him being one of the escaped Nexus 6 models with the four year lifespan was ever considered to be part of that. Still, even ignoring that and how it breaks the 'more human than human' message, it just doesn't track at all. It would require Deckard to have been just released into the general populace to live a life he thought was real which would require years of him being known to co-workers/etc., only to only many years later be finally introduced to Rachel, or him to have been more recently deployed and his boss/origami coworker what, just playing along Truman Show style? It's just ridiculous either way. 
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited October 19
    Indulgent movie in its length that somehow leaves plot gaps and rushes dealing with issues. 

    Also there's fundamental issues with the whole premise of the movie. To me, it smacks of what @A_Ron_Hubbard talks about in the Mister Robot podcast with world building.  It's like they wrote the script without having clear rules about what a replicant even is and what implications that would have for the plot.  For instance- you can apparently design amazing, organic life forms and implant memories, but you can't cure a purported immune deficiency that we theoretically already know how to cure today (stem cell transplants pretty much fix everything)?  Are replicants fancy designer clones?  Are you actually designing them with reproductive organs because they're vat grown improved humans?  You can implant false memories, you can recreate Rachel but somehow you can't design them to breed?  But 25 years ago, you had programmed in control over their very lifespan?  In fact, I would think selectively stopping them from breeding if they're some form of improved clone would be the harder trick....  It's problematic to me. 

    It's not that I need to know these things, but the people writing the script should.  
  • amyja89amyja89 Oxford, England
    If Deckard is indeed a replicant, then it makes me less interested in the overall premise of 2049.

    Two machines coming together to create another machine is one thing, but a machine and a human somehow creating tactile life is fundamentally more interesting and miraculous to me.
    Jovial_Falcon
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited October 19
    Functionally, the only thing that even suggests they're machines at all is the serial numbers.  They seem 100% organic otherwise.  
    amyja89 said:
    If Deckard is indeed a replicant, then it makes me less interested in the overall premise of 2049.

    Two machines coming together to create another machine is one thing, but a machine and a human somehow creating tactile life is fundamentally more interesting and miraculous to me.

  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    Functionally, the only thing that even suggests they're machines at all is the serial numbers.  They seem 100% organic otherwise.  
    amyja89 said:
    If Deckard is indeed a replicant, then it makes me less interested in the overall premise of 2049.

    Two machines coming together to create another machine is one thing, but a machine and a human somehow creating tactile life is fundamentally more interesting and miraculous to me.

    Just saw this last night and it bugged me a little that the replicants view human-style birth as some sort of validation. It mucks with the whole story, but it would be interesting for K/Joe to consider the idea that nothing has really changed even though he's not Deckard's son. He has memories and apparently feelings - everything he felt related to that horse was real even if the memory wasn't his.

    And the resistance - so they aren't born in the womb? If they can build each other, that's how they're "born."
    They don't grow and learn like humans do, but maybe that's fine.

    Sometimes feels like movies take this approach as a way of introducing humans to the idea of AI being authentic, having rights, etc...

    I always think about the end of AI in these discussions. 

    Also thought the movie put too fine a judegment on the JOI/K relationship, particularly with that scene where he walks by the holographic ad. Yes, his JOI was saying some things he wanted to hear, but it also learned about him and I felt the relationship was unique. It volunteered to destroy it's own backup for his benefit. Maybe I'm weird, but to me that's a real relationship in some fashion.

    My big technical complaint is the score - I think Hans Zimmer sometimes just sets out to break movie theater speakers with all his trademark BRAAAAMFs. That actually has some roots in the original score, but he really pushes it here. As he always does. 
  • I was hoping they would throw in an easter egg for Weyland Industries. Maybe they did and I missed it. I need to watch it many more times.

    I understand if people dont want or like the connected universe but I am all for it. The Prometheus Blu-Ray extras had me geeked out years ago with that young Weyland speech and the various photos or documents hinting at the connection so it would have been fun to throw something in off hand.
  • @chrisk this was the 1st non-RPX showing I have seen in a while and the music was STILL crazyyyyyyyyyy. My buddy and I were laughing because it. I can only imagine the RPX insanity
  • They uncapped the lifespan on replicants because they fixed the loyalty and wanting life issues of the old ones. Yet K has to take that baseline test, and the time when he's really off, his Lieutenant threatens him with termination. 

    So is that something all replicants have to do?  Are those prostitute replicants testing against a baseline in case they go off the rails?  I'm sure they see some bad stuff too.  Cue replicant underground reveal.

    There are problems the way they set up the premise....


  • kevinrileskevinriles New Jersey
    @A_Ron_Hubbard just relistened to the blade runner cast and you said he shouldn’t have visited his daughter. Before that scene joe mentions to ford that he did die, in that ship. So Wallace will see four ships shot down and lost in the ocean. With the only guy that knows what he needs dead. And the guy that shot them down(joe) presumably dead
    Jovial_Falcon
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited October 23
    Just finished the podcast and I'm really excited to see what Georgetown or Providence can do with the Bladerunner sequels they get to direct.  @A_Ron_Hubbard 's Villanova directing this movie is pretty funny.   Are the other Big East schools going to get their shot?

    Also, was just thinking about the main character being called Joe K and realized that the main character of Kafka's the trial being Josef K probably isn't an accident.  

    The Trial
     (original German title: Der Process,[1] later Der ProzessDer Proceß and Der Prozeß) is a novel written by Franz Kafka from 1914 to 1915 and published in 1925. One of his best-known works, it tells the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader.

    Reni
  • CoryCory New Scotland
    So there's really little to no determination as to Deckhard being a replicant.

    I personally go with no, but he seemed pretty fucking tough, especially fighting with K.

    Then again he couldn't break the restraints in the sinking car.

    I just keep second guessing every point I think of, and not in a fun "Leftovers" kind of way.
  • Just opened here in Japan last week so I finally had a chance to see it. I thought it was a great experience overall and had no problems with pacing actually. I was totally absorbed. I do think it felt rushed at times plot-wise though. 

    Also, I know people don’t care for more, but if they did pursue a replicant uprising story I would love to see it done as an anime by Shinichiro Watanabe. He did pretty great work with the 2022 Blackout short and I could see it working well over a short series run or something.

    Also, just thought I’d share this cool review that approaches the movie from a different angle then I’ve seen from others do and focuses on the Nabokov references. 

    “The Poetry of Blade Runner 2049”: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/10/14/the-poetry-of-blade-runner-2049
    darwinfeeshy
Sign In or Register to comment.