Blade runner 2049

[Nom de ploom]

so why the surgery on the female replicant?

i interpreted it the other way round - so the police luietenants' motive to kill the child and preserve order was entirely false?

those are conflicting motives....

[CzechItOut]

I haven't read all 15 pages(!) but does the fact that Deckard fathered a child prove that he wasn't a replicant?

Edited by CzechItOut on Tuesday 6th February 15:11

[Guvernator]

Nom de ploom said:

so why the surgery on the female replicant?

i interpreted it the other way round - so the police luietenants' motive to kill the child and preserve order was entirely false?

those are conflicting motives....

The lieutenant wants to find and kill the child as she thinks if humans and replicants found out that replicants could reproduce, it would disrupt the current status quo and cause chaos which she as a police officer would obviously want to avoid

Wallace wants the child because he wants to find out how to make replicants that can reproduce. Yes they are conflicting motives which is why Wallace eventually has the lieutenant killed.

I think Wallace cutting that replicant open was him just showing his frustration at what is probably another failed attempt to make a reproducing replicant which makes it even more imperative to find the one replicant who can reproduce.

[Guvernator]

CzechItOut said:

I haven't read all 15 pages(!) but does the fact that Deckard fathered a child prove that he wasn't a replicant?

No I think it's implied he is still a replicant but he and Rachel are special one off prototypes that can reproduce, they are last experiment done by Tyrell before he was killed by Roy Batty. Wallace has so far been unable to replicate Tyrell's success at making a reproducing replicant.


Boy I'm glad I didn't really enjoy this film.

[southendpier]

Nom de ploom said:

so why the surgery on the female replicant?

i interpreted it the other way round - so the police luietenants' motive to kill the child and preserve order was entirely false?

those are conflicting motives....

Surgery? He just killed her didn't he? She meant no more to him than say swatting a fly. It showed that he was a mentalist. The fact that Luv shed a tear was (i think) the important part of that scene.

[CzechItOut]

Guvernator said:

No I think it's implied he is still a replicant but he and Rachel are special one off prototypes that can reproduce, they are last experiment done by Tyrell before he was killed by Roy Batty. Wallace has so far been unable to replicate Tyrell's success at making a reproducing replicant.


Boy I'm glad I didn't really enjoy this film.

Blimey, that's a leap I didn't make.

If he was a one-off prototype, why would he be working as a blade runner and not like Rachel, kept as Tyrell's "special" replicant?

[HighwayStar]

southendpier said:

Nom de ploom said:

so why the surgery on the female replicant?

i interpreted it the other way round - so the police luietenants' motive to kill the child and preserve order was entirely false?

those are conflicting motives....

Surgery? He just killed her didn't he? She meant no more to him than say swatting a fly. It showed that he was a mentalist. The fact that Luv shed a tear was (i think) the important part of that scene.

Yes, they were moments were Luv showed, in the context of thee moment, a lot of emotion. Declaring I'm the best one. Displaying confidence and self awareness. Watching the film I felt she wanted to please Wallace and child like, receive praise. There was more going on with Luv than ruthlessly going about her business.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

HorneyMX5 said:

The whole point of the film is that a Wallace wanted to create Replicants that can breed, but he couldn’t. That’s why he wanted the child. To find out how that had happened.

Exactly. The cost savings of being able to breed them like cattle, rather than manufacture them, would be immense. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Tuesday 6th February 15:45

[Guvernator]

HighwayStar said:

Yes, they were moments were Luv showed, in the context of thee moment, a lot of emotion. Declaring I'm the best one. Displaying confidence and self awareness. Watching the film I felt she wanted to please Wallace and child like, receive praise. There was more going on with Luv than ruthlessly going about her business.

Yep a child in an adults body, feeling emotions and not knowing how to handle them so ironically the very thing that a lot of people fear about replicants. Anywhere else and she would be terminated, she'd never pass the voight kampff test that K had to go through for instance. It's only by dint of working for Wallace that she gets away with it.

[HighwayStar]

Guvernator said:

HighwayStar said:

Yes, they were moments were Luv showed, in the context of thee moment, a lot of emotion. Declaring I'm the best one. Displaying confidence and self awareness. Watching the film I felt she wanted to please Wallace and child like, receive praise. There was more going on with Luv than ruthlessly going about her business.

Yep a child in an adults body, feeling emotions and not knowing how to handle them so ironically the very thing that a lot of people fear about replicants. Anywhere else and she would be terminated, she'd never pass the voight kampff test that K had to go through for instance. It's only by dint of working for Wallace that she gets away with it.

Exactly... He couldn't see what was right under his nose.

[r11co]

Watch the shorts that were released before the main movie to understand what is going on. The middle one centres around Wallace getting the ban on all replicants being overturned by demonstrating he has produced a replicant that will self-terminate on the orders of a designated human.

Luv and K are both of that generation. Sapper wasn't.

The undertow of the story is that there are three types of beings out there (and IMO Wallace is a replicant of the older variety hiding in plain sight).

[Derek Smith]

I saw it last night. I was a bit confused.

HERE THERE BE SPOILERS:

The twins bit; was he the male? If so, who were his parents? I've just got a limited knowledge of twins but my impression is that they must be the same for both.

I fell for the pressure to believe that Joe (K) was the child.

I got the feeling that much was deliberately left unexplained, maybe for BR3 to work on.

I loved BR1 when it first came out. I was a big Philip K. Dick fan and thought the film built on the story enthusiastically. I've seen it lots of times in all its incarnations. I can't, at least at the moment, think that I'll view the new one quite so frequently.

At this stage I'm not sure I liked it.

[Dog Star]

Derek Smith said:

I saw it last night. I was a bit confused.

HERE THERE BE SPOILERS:

The twins bit; was he the male? If so, who were his parents? I've just got a limited knowledge of twins but my impression is that they must be the same for both.

I fell for the pressure to believe that Joe (K) was the child.

I got the feeling that much was deliberately left unexplained, maybe for BR3 to work on.

I loved BR1 when it first came out. I was a big Philip K. Dick fan and thought the film built on the story enthusiastically. I've seen it lots of times in all its incarnations. I can't, at least at the moment, think that I'll view the new one quite so frequently.

At this stage I'm not sure I liked it.

There were no twins, only the female, Ana Stelline. K thought he was the child because he had her memories implanted (as did a lot of replicants). Note how in the memory of "him" hiding the horse from the other children that "he" has a full head of hair - but only the girls in the orphanage had hair, the boys had shaved heads......

Ana Stelline was the child of Deckard and Rachel.

Personally I don't want there to be a BR3; 2049 was as good a sequel as I ever hoped it could be, and more. It appears to have been created with no regard to the cost, but as a piece of crafted cinema. I don't know that a third film would get that latitude. It's a film that I doubt accountants would allow to be made, and all the better for it.

[gavsdavs]

Dog Star said:

Personally I don't want there to be a BR3; 2049 was as good a sequel as I ever hoped it could be, and more.

I agree with this. I was very wary of there being a 2nd film added to the story and thankfully it's come off well, 2049 is a sensitive supplement to the story. I now feel again that they should not re-open this story and dilute it.

If you didn't follow br2049 I strongly recommend another watch of it, but then i'm quite tolerant to seeing movies over and over again and I know other people aren't.

The original BR was on sky last night, the version sans unicorn dream-sequence and with deckard monologue. Had to re-explain it again to the missus, the emphasis of that version is quite different.

Love both of them, each is awesome.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Dog Star said:

Personally I don't want there to be a BR3; 2049 was as good a sequel as I ever hoped it could be, and more.

Generally I agree. That is until say 30yrs down the line when everyone's forgotten just how much it cost, and how badly it did at the box office, so make another.

[r11co]

gavsdavs said:

If you didn't follow br2049 I strongly recommend another watch of it, but then i'm quite tolerant to seeing movies over and over again and I know other people aren't.

I pretty much managed to hook it all up first time round, and I was drawn right into the belief that K was the child and genuinely felt the disappointment when the reveal came that he wasn't. That to me was the brilliance of the film - the audience wonderfully directed to feel empathy with a character who was supposed to have no human emotion.

There is so much that is so good about the film.

[Mothersruin]

r11co said:

gavsdavs said:

If you didn't follow br2049 I strongly recommend another watch of it, but then i'm quite tolerant to seeing movies over and over again and I know other people aren't.

I pretty much managed to hook it all up first time round, and I was drawn right into the belief that K was the child and genuinely felt the disappointment when the reveal came that he wasn't. That to me was the brilliance of the film - the audience wonderfully directed to feel empathy with a character who was supposed to have no human emotion.

There is so much that is so good about the film.

I did wonder if it was going to be a Matrix type Oracle moment where he was 'The One' but told he wasn't to take the pressure off and have him work it out himself.

[gavsdavs]

r11co said:

I pretty much managed to hook it all up first time round, and I was drawn right into the belief that K was the child and genuinely felt the disappointment when the reveal came that he wasn't. That to me was the brilliance of the film - the audience wonderfully directed to feel empathy with a character who was supposed to have no human emotion.

There is so much that is so good about the film.

Yeah I got it all first time round, but it's beautiful, it sounds amazing, some of the subtle expressions with Luv are terrific, Wallace has gotten slightly less annoying (not usually a fan of Jared Leto). it's the sounds i generally go back for, it just can't be loud enough

[anonymous-user]

Swervin_Mervin said:

Generally I agree. That is until say 30yrs down the line when everyone's forgotten just how much it cost, and how badly it did at the box office, so make another.

I suspect it will be like the original, a slow burn financially that will make a lot of money via the DVD/streaming route as more people want to see it.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

jsf said:

I suspect it will be like the original, a slow burn financially that will make a lot of money via the DVD/streaming route as more people want to see it.

It's one of those films that will become a classic, I think. With both it and the original being shown back-to-back in special screenings etc.

(Obviously with loo breaks, commode seats, or Tena pants)