Blade Runner 2049 (Post-release)

dascoyne said:

Of course. Of course.

Click to expand...

Your jokes are as funny as your ability to comprehend a movie.:lol

Mr Webber said:

You dont really have to make a solid decision one way or another, thats the beauty of the movie Scott made. If Deckard is or isnt doesnt effect the outcome or the way we watch the movie. But he is a replicant.

On the bee`s , I have two thoughts. They are canaries for Deckards coal mine and they are also a reference to the first movie. Will let someone else elaborate on that one

Click to expand...

No, no, no...I can't have this undetermined question in the back of my mind! I have to make a decision here! This definitely makes me appreciate the original even more though. I was firmly in the human camp, but now I'm doubting that after several viewings over the years, and I enjoy the developing mystery and potential explanations I am considering.

But serious question, where does Deckard poop? Because we didn't see that on screen either, and it's keeping me awake at night.

Now that there's been a couple of posts since a horse was mentioned, if it would please the court I will reopen my question about bees.

What do they do in winter? Well, if they're honey bees, they hibernate and survive on the honey they made during the spring and summer. So there will have needed to be flowers for them in the spring and summer. Oh, and if it's winter, they would not be buzzing around the hives, they'd be inside relatively dormant.

I really enjoyed the movie. I went in expecting the worst, but still hopeful for a miracle. It really hit the target for me. It felt like a return to the world I enjoyed in '82 as a 16 year old theater goer. I enjoyed the music, the cinematography, the story, the depth... My only disappointment was that it was over too soon. Seriously, another two hours would have worked for me.

I saw it twice in the theater. The first time with my wife and her brother-in-law. She enjoyed it. We picked at it a bit, but nothing stood out so much that I even recall now what it was. The in-law didn't "get" the first film, so he was silent.

The second time was with my best friend of nearly 40 years. He had some great insights on Wallace's perspective. He conjectured that his position was that the replicants were simply products. In the cases where he killed the one that wasn't pregnant, or had Luv kill Rachael2, he simply thought of them as defective and needing to be disposed. Wallace seemed a little less evil then.

I look forward to watching it with my eldest and gaining her perspective on this layered movie. Maybe it is as deep as the first one.

Force Commander said:

I really enjoyed the movie. I went in expecting the worst, but still hopeful for a miracle. It really hit the target for me. It felt like a return to the world I enjoyed in '82 as a 16 year old theater goer. I enjoyed the music, the cinematography, the story, the depth... My only disappointment was that it was over too soon. Seriously, another two hours would have worked for me.

I saw it twice in the theater. The first time with my wife and her brother-in-law. She enjoyed it. We picked at it a bit, but nothing stood out so much that I even recall now what it was. The in-law didn't "get" the first film, so he was silent.

The second time was with my best friend of nearly 40 years. He had some great insights on Wallace's perspective. He conjectured that his position was that the replicants were simply products. In the cases where he killed the one that wasn't pregnant, or had Luv kill Rachael2, he simply thought of them as defective and needing to be disposed. Wallace seemed a little less evil then.

I look forward to watching it with my eldest and gaining her perspective on this layered movie. Maybe it is as deep as the first one.

Click to expand...

I think this film, on a thematic level, is better constructed and more nuanced than the first film. Visually it’s a rival to the first film.

It feels almost blasphemous to say that.

Ridley Scott is a legendary visual artist. I feel his themes often take a back seat to his visuals. When he tries to be more cerebral we end up with films like Prometheus. Blade Runner is “profound” in where it remains ambiguous. The strong visuals suggest deeper meaning than what is actually on the screen. On a sensual basis alone BR remains one of my favorite films of all time. It’s just not as intellectually challenging as Scott would want you to believe.

Jodo said:

No, no, no...I can't have this undetermined question in the back of my mind! I have to make a decision here! This definitely makes me appreciate the original even more though. I was firmly in the human camp, but now I'm doubting that after several viewings over the years, and I enjoy the developing mystery and potential explanations I am considering.

Click to expand...

CessnaDriver and I had a very interesting and productive two page discussion on the issue in this thread not long ago. If you didnt catch it, its a great read. It may help you come to a final decision on the Deckard is or isnt a replicant question.

Treadwell said:

I didn't see your question until just now. I have a tab open to the RPF almost continuously, but it doesn't mean I'm looking at it every minute. I wasn't even at my computer.

Thank you for answering and sharing your take on it. I wasn't going to say but since you asked, I don't think it's very conclusive. Deckard could have carved those other figures any time, and I assumed it was after he got to Vegas (they did look newer, although I grant they hadn't been buried in soot for a couple decades). It doesn't mean the horse had ever before been in their company.

Deckard's dialogue about "the plan" gives no indication he had been coming and going. It was decided he should be away from the child and should go away without telling anyone where. So he would have had to carve the horse before going to Vegas. If he had been making prior trips to Vegas, he wouldn't have gone back there to hide, because no one could have any idea where he might go.

So it still doesn't make sense to me that the horse would have Vegas radiation on it.

Click to expand...

He took a bough from the tree to Vegas with him (where the wood got irradiated) when he left before Ana was born, and carved the animals there (he was on his own in a dead city - maybe hew took up whittling to pass the time?). Mariette even says 'It's from the tree' when she picks up the horse in K's apartment. The resistance all know the story of the baby, and presumably Rachael's grave (and the dead tree that marks it) is a sacred place for them which would be why Sapper didn't just sell the wood.

Deckard had presumably been back to the farm at least once if it was him who left the flowers on Rachael's grave (he must have flowers if he's got bees). The horse and the tree were carved with the date of Rachael's death and Ana's birth, so Deckard must have returned when he was told of her death and Ana's birth and would have left the horse for the baby then.

The presence of bees at Deckard's hideout allows for a callback to Rachael's VK test that was replayed earlier in the film - Deckard asks about a wasp landing on her hand and she says she'd kill it. K just stares in wonder at the bee that lands on his hand..

Nice work buzby. Nailed the wasp and bees relationship as well.

Jodo said:

No, no, no...I can't have this undetermined question in the back of my mind! I have to make a decision here! This definitely makes me appreciate the original even more though. I was firmly in the human camp, but now I'm doubting that after several viewings over the years, and I enjoy the developing mystery and potential explanations I am considering.

Click to expand...

My interpretation of this whole thing is that it really doesn't matter in the end because the main thing is that this question is even raised. Just exemplifies perfectly the "what makes a human" theme of the movie where the main "hero" ends up questioning his own very existence. Similarly to Inception, the answer to the final question if Cobb is in a dream is not important because it isn't important to him. The question is there but unlike Deckard who has new doubts in his mind Cobb ignores it. The important thing really is what the characters do with the question.
I know Sir Ridley is very adamant that he always intended him to be a replicant, but I like to interpret ambiguous story threads on my own. After all, that's why they are left ambiguous. In this case I side with Nolan who refused to answer yay or nay when asked what he had in mind when he wrote the story. If you leave it open for interpretation let me interpret it.

Jodo said:

But serious question, where does Deckard poop? Because we didn't see that on screen either, and it's keeping me awake at night.

Click to expand...

Probably the same place where Luke Skywalker gets green milk.

Bee Answered: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utsPTIL0ACE Spoilers obviously

CutThumb said:

Bee Answered: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utsPTIL0ACE Spoilers obviously

Click to expand...

Very nice, but who`s Deckaarrd?

the peugeot spinner used tis drone, r2d2 like to self repair

DarkKnight said:

the peugeot spinner used tis drone, r2d2 like to self repair

Click to expand...

It didn't need to be fixed - the scavengers harpooned a kite to it so it would get struck by lightning which caused it's electrical system to trip out (which sometimes happens to planes in real life) and K had to perform a manual forced landing. You see the systems rebooting and coming back online while K is out cold and the scavengers are cutting the lock on the door, After Luv blows them all up K releases the drone to watch the car and the doors close on their own - it's working again by that point.

buzby said:

It didn't need to be fixed - the scavengers harpooned a kite to it so it would get struck by lightning which caused it's electrical system to trip out (which sometimes happens to planes in real life) and K had to perform a manual forced landing. You see the systems rebooting and coming back online while K is out cold and the scavengers are cutting the lock on the door, After Luv blows them all up K releases the drone to watch the car and the doors close on their own - it's working again by that point.

Click to expand...

A great example of how tough these flying cars are, even earlier models, is the Japanese made short film, BR 2022, which is canon, as we see Gaff and his spinner crash into a building after the setting off of the EMP and yet, here is appearing in BR 2049 relatively unscathed in the "retirement" home, love that, many years later.

Why was K on the run? What did he do that was wrong? He was doing his job like he was told.

I didn't understand the whole "baseline" thing either.

Laspector said:

Why was K on the run? What did he do that was wrong? He was doing his job like he was told.

I didn't understand the whole "baseline" thing either.

Click to expand...

The problem with Tyrell's Nexus 6 replicants was that they developed their own emotions despite being limited to a 4-year lifespan. Without the years of life experience humans have to fall back on to to handle them, it caused them to become mentally unstable and violently rebel. Rachael was a prototype for a solution to that problem, which was implanted memories and open-ended lifespans. This was implemented on the Nexus 8 replicants, but still did not stop them developing their own emotions, and led to a violent rebellion during the Battle of Calantha, when Nexus 8s on both sides of the battle realised they were killing each other in a proxy war between humans. This led to the replicants forming a resistance movement and causing the Blackout. They were then outlawed completely, causing the fall of the Tyrell Corp. and the remaining Nexus 8s were to be 'retired' on sight.

Years passed, Tyrell's assets were taken over by Wallace and he covertly began developing a new generation of Replicant, the Nexus 9. Wallace built on the implanted memories and open-ended lifespan of the Nexus 8 series and modified the neural design of the Nexus 9 replicants to be totally obedient. As a safeguard, replicants that are exposed to emotionally stressful occupations are subjected to regular 'baseline' tests to evaluate their emotional stability. Due to his power (he developed the technology that provided an alternate form of agriculture when the failing environment caused a worldwide famine) he strongarmed politicians into lifting the ban on production of replicants, based on the premise that his new generation could not rebel (as K says to Sapper, 'We don't run').

The baseline test is similar to the VK test for the older replicants. It involves asking provocative questions or statements containing or linked to with a series of key words which are part of the subject's memorised phrase (in K's case a passage from Pale Fire) that are designed to probe for any signs emotional instability. The subject is supposed to ignore the emotional content of the question or phrase and reply with the key word it contains or is linked to. Instead of the eyes being monitored, it appears the subject's brain activity and biological signs are monitored instead. Any hesitation or biological signals (i.e sweating, changes in respiration, vocal stress) when providing the answers.are interpreted as a indicator of emotional instability.

In K's second test, he has been emotionally traumatised by the discovery that his implanted memory is real, and is led to believe he is the child of Rachael and Deckard. This causes him to fail the baseline test (he noticably hesitates before certain answers) and be removed from duty. I guess the standard procedure would be that he remain in custody and be retested in 24 hours with a repeat failure resulting in 'retirement', but Lt. Joshi allows him to leave the station (as she probably realises that Wallace's operatives would be looking for him, and holding in the station would be handing him to them on a plate).

I’m luving this thread. Some really great insights here. One thing that I’ve been mulling over is the technology behind enabling a 3D hologram (Joi) to be projected into the real world. I heard someone suggest that when she first left the apartment and looked at the rain, her perception was that the rain was hitting her hand (even though it was passing through), so the software enabled raindrops to render on her skin. I like that idea...but I’m struggling to envisage how she might appear, often at quite a distance away, from essentially a small box inside K’s pocket. I don’t have a problem that the technology might exist in that universe...but I’d love to hear the opinion - of minds more familiar with hologram/video technology - how something like that could potentially work one day.

PartyRichter said:

I’m luving this thread. Some really great insights here. One thing that I’ve been mulling over is the technology behind enabling a 3D hologram (Joi) to be projected into the real world. I heard someone suggest that when she first left the apartment and looked at the rain, her perception was that the rain was hitting her hand (even though it was passing through), so the software enabled raindrops to render on her skin. I like that idea...but I’m struggling to envisage how she might appear, often at quite a distance away, from essentially a small box inside K’s pocket. I don’t have a problem that the technology might exist in that universe...but I’d love to hear the opinion - of minds more familiar with hologram/video technology - how something like that could potentially work one day.

Click to expand...

Hologram projection into air already exists (n a lab, at least), though not with the definition to project an image as realistic as Joi.
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-holograms-d-thin-air.html

Thanks Buzby for your reply, that clears things up for me.

I get the baseline thing, but Joshi being mad at him for failing it was a bit weird. It's not something one can control. Either you pass or you don't.
Concerned for him, sure. Pissed at him... wtf