K just wanted to be a real human being, and a real hero

K just wanted to be a real human being, and a real hero.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xEzu0brecM8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Kek. It’s actually the story.

>thatsthejoke.ai

The entire last act was just Drive with flying cars

What are replicants anyway? Are they machines or clones? I just don't get how if they are clones, how do they come out being so much stronger than humans(Replicants can run through fucking walls)

Also, I think in the movie they said K is a newer model replicant. How do they differ from the old ones like what sapper was? IN the movie, they implied that sapper LET K kill him.

I am just trying to get a better grasp of the movie.

Dude it’s vague on purpose bro. Don’t make me break out the “dishonest filmaking” pasta about how modern movies are made for discussion instead of the director having a great revelation. LMAO

Just like me

>What are replicants anyway?

They're almost exactly like humans, but slightly different in that they can't reproduce. Or at least, aren't supposed to. Like the other guy said, even though as a joke, it's vague on purpose. It's just social commentary on the use of human slaves. They have "superhuman" strength so they can be better at their jobs of being slaves for humans.

I think the newer model replicants live longer or something, not 100% sure.

>movie ends exactly like Drive

they're synths

The earliest is the Tyrell Gen 6 Replicants (all of Roy Batty's crew) who only live for 5 years and can only be detected by the Voight Kampf test.
Then there is the Tyrell Gen 8 replicants like Deckard and Sapper who live a normal lifespan and can be detected by the serial number on their eyes. The Gen 8s rebelled and launched a nuke over Vegas and the Tyrell corp went bankrupt.
After that Wallace corp builds their own line of Replicants like K who are not capable of rebelling and also have the eye serial number.

I haven't read any of the "sequel" novels. Did the movie incorporate anything from them?

youtube.com/watch?v=xEzu0brecM8

...and it was kino

tfw he comes out the water choking out that bitch and theres a triple asphyxsiation going on

>triple asphyxsiation

That scene was intense as fuck.

he lives ?

he was a good joe

It's up for debate. The last shot of Goslings character shows him on the verge of dying (because he's bleeding out from a stab in the gut (which happens to be the exact same way he's dying at the end of Drive) while lying down), just like Drive does.

K's breakdown after he starts doubt his origins was amazing. Only Gosling can act like that.

I'm torn about this scene. Deakins is the best DP, bar none. But the whole calm water at Luv's moment of death with a whole maelstrom happening just outside an open vehicle door thing was fishy. I mean I agree on some level that film should not be chained to strict realism, but my suspension of disbelief temporarily slackened in this scene. A minor nitpick I'm not sure is a flaw at all.

> mfw it ends just like Drive

what do you do?

.... i Bladerunner

Since Tears in Rain started playing I'd assume he died like Roy Batty.

I literally left the theater.

*ssnniffffsss*

Quite pungent my dear

Artificial slave labour right down to bar coding on bone structure, limited life span and designed in specific manners to be the thing they are as a product.

The movies are about what happens when your toaster talks back to you basically.

I think they are like genetically modified clones

I liked the way the water crashing on the car was so jarring

I have a question.
At what exact point you realize K is capable of going against what he's programed to do?
The whole point of his Gen of replicant is that they can't rebel, lie, disobey orders etc. Yet he does this, maybe not directly, but he does.
The moment he realizes his memories are real (which makes him believe he was born) he changes, but does he ever actually and directly goes against what he's programed to do?
I dunno, he says to his chief that the child was killed and was a replicant, which is basically true, but only a part of truth. He doesn't actually join the rebellion either.
Maybe only after he saw the holographic add he realizes he actually has a choice?

Sorry for poor English, 85IQ here.

Saw this in a packed IMAX, I could feel in the air just how engrossed everyone in the theatre was, especially after the scene cut and there was absolute silence. Brilliantly made film.

That calm water moment was so obvious that I'm 90% sure it was done on purpose.

Same in my theatre, but one person was breathing deeply.

They were lightly snoring.

I don't blame them.

Still, the film was a masterpiece.

What do you think, user? Where do you think the line is drawn where he's just another obedient Replicant, and where he gains free-will?

EVERYTHING I LOVED WAS LOST

BUT NO AORTA COULD REPORT REGRET

A SUN OF RUBBER WAS CONVULSED AND SET

AND BLOOD BLACK NOTHINGNESS BEGAN TO SPIN

A SYSTEM OF CELLS INTERLINKED

WITHIN CELLS INTERLINKED

WITHIN CELLS INTERLINKED

WITHIN ONE STEM

AND DREADFULLY DISTINCT

AGAINST THE DARK, A TALL WHITE FOUNTAIN PLAYED

I REALIZED OF COURSE THAT IT WAS MADE

WITHIN CELLS INTERLINKED

WITHIN CELLS INTERLINKED

so do all of us

Did you watch it alone?

its an existential play on origins
why do humans have a limited lifespan
and what imperatives direct us to take the actions that we do, or to feel as we do

the replicants are manufactured, but they have human features, and they are creative, empathic, brutal and emotional

because they are not human they are deemed worthless, but the reality is they have their own worth, and are about to come to the realization

the anthropocentric ideal is essentially a crock of shit

To me it was when the virtual waifu add called him Joe.
Up until then his actions could be seen as shady, but not exactly opposed to what he's programed to do.
Like, it's actually one of the most interesting concepts in the film, that by giving real memories to replicants they can actually break free from their programing and have real free will and real emotions, even if what made them have those emotions is based on a artificial program.

I found this scene disorienting because I couldn't make sense of the geography or location. Why was the water rising? How far are they from the shore? It was almost pitch black asides from the light coming from the vehicle.

Then I saw pic related and thought, well, shit, obvious really. But while watching the scene it did have a very suffocating effect

Nah, I went with a friend.

ah, you braderunner

>It's flopping
Kino doesn't sell, why would someone spend 300 million on kino

It's also a mediocre movie, that might have something to do with it. Talk about overhyped pseudointellectual drivel

What did he make of the film?

The water was rising 1. because the car was in a body of water you drengus and 2. because the car was floating out into it farther and farther away from the land.

>K lies down on the steps
>Vangelis music starts to play
>"Finally, after all these years, I have finally become Blade Runner"

Jesust Christ Dennis, really. I walked out right then and there

Yeah same here, I was so confused as to how they were at an angle, and the water was rising. This pictures makes sense.

(you)

Drive ends with him waking up and driving away though

It reminds me a little of the game Remember Me from a few years ago, where the gimmick was changing people's memories of key moments in their past to alter their actions in the present. A person's experiences inform who they are. In lieu of an actual formative childhood, you need to put SOMETHING there, I guess. Regardless of how real the memories are or who they really belong to, it's rattling around in there.

We both walked out of it thinking it's a masterpiece. Had roughly a one hour conversation afterward, drinking a beer and sharing a pizza over just why it was a masterpiece, with a scene by scene breakdown.

kek why couldnt this happen

One of my mates thought it was confusing and boring and the other said it was a 5/10 film
How do i get better friends

Really? I thought this was the bigger offender:

>who are you?
>I'm your father, Blade Runner: The Final Cut
>touches hand to glass

I walked out right there.

>I have finally become a real human being and a real hero

ftfy

That Gosling character arc was so fucking cruel.
That moment at the end when he sees the Joi hologram "everything you want to hear"...
Requiem for a dream tier.

Spend five years at a university with them, and work in the same field of profession the university degree legitimized you for afterwards.

>mfw FUCK, FUCK, FUCKKKKK

This hurt to read. Autistic pseuds discussing a babby's first philosophical movie acting like it's a masterpiece of cinema. I weep for the future

This just isn't true. It was finally a legit movie that was made by people who clearly gave a shit about what they were doing. I'm not calling it a masterpiece but it truly was good.

When "Tears in Rain" hits in, only then can you understand what the film was about. It was, essentially, what the first one should have been about, and somewhat was, with Rutger Hauer stealing the fucking ending.

As he tells Deckard to go in, it is the only time in the film that he smiles.

But yes, once it hits you, goddamn.

>"He wasn't just a hero..."
>"He was the new generation of heroes"
>"K truly was the Blade Runner 2049"
Fucking hell. Did they let Harrison Ford write that one himself or something? Fucking amateur hour.

No need to weep for it. You won't procreate, and will die (hopefully) soon, so the future's got nothing to do with you, and neither will have the present, considering your vapid, edgelord opinions.

>"you're a good joe"

2049 is the result of a script meeting that started with everybody agreeing that Rutger Hauer's character was the most interesting part of Blade Runner and going from there. With the studio exec locket in a closet.

It "truly" wasn't. It's yet another instance of people falling for the high budget = good film fallacy. The cinematography was fairly good, and the costuming/sets were excellent, but beyond that, this film really started to fall apart. The "philosophical" points of the plot were hamfisted and shallow, the dialogue was very poorly written at times, the soundtrack was generic Zimmer Inception, and plot was so full of holes that even a half-assed inspection of plot points brings the whole thing crumbling down. It was enjoyable to watch, but it really wasn't anything meaningful beyond a late summer blockbuster

Sounds like a great start to me. Couldn't have been better. Should've shot the studio exec, but it seems just locking them in a closed worked.

I'm a researcher in physical sciences, have gf. I am literally making the future while you jerk off over college freshman philosophy.

When it's pitch dark and he comes out of the car and you just see the light on his gun before he shoots them up was Kino as fuck

All of the generic points you make in your argument are baseless, and factually wrong. You are simply unqualified to provide an opinion in this case, most likely because you are either inexperienced, uneducated, or both.

Please stop wasting people's time with your inane generic drivel.

Your generic response carries no more weight than mine. Just because you haven't seen many movies or actually read the source material (protip: you should) doesn't mean you can talk down to everyone about how much smarter you are. It wasn't a great film.

Of course you are. Which "physical sciences" are those? What was the title of your thesis? Who is your employer, and what was the university you studied at?

That's right.

Yeah, but that scene with Joi hit me hard.
Like, the movie invests so much in K and Joi relation that you think what they have was special even after she died. Then all of a sudden the truth is that it was all a lie, except for the feelings of K.
In that moment he realizes that it doesn't matter if he wasn't born, the actual truth doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how he feels and what he chooses to to about it.
It's funny because there are hints of this when he meets the memory maker, when she says memories are not about the details, but about how they make you feel.

I honestly feel I want to watch it again.

Neck yourself retard.

I'm sure it's living up to expectations honestly. Films as kino as this never do well theatrically but gain a dedicated cult following.

Yeah except Deckard isn't a replicant.

Repeating what I said, and doubly repeating that it wasn't a great film does not make your claim valid. Just because you say things over and over again does not make them true.

Didn't they teach you that in elementary school? I guess not.

Condensed matter physics, University of Maryland. I'm not gonna fucking dox myself edgelord

I thought they were assembled out of parts which are genetically engineered and grown out of biological matter. Remember that eye ball merchant scene from the original.

Yeah it's a bit vague but they're not clones, they're more like biological robots.

Or is he

I can think of only one plot hole. But yeah, I agree, the "score" was rather meh even though they used that Vangelis-ish synth to drill some notes every now and then. And some of the discussion really did seem hamfisted. Like when K and his boss talk about replicants not having a soul, or even the "there's a wall between replicants and humans" nonsense. So yeah the movie had flaws for sure. But I still liked it so fucking much.

Yeah, the """""evidence""""" of Deckard being a replicant is an obvious afterthought and nobody other than Riddley Scott is adamant about it, so it can be safely disregarded.

>Repeating what I said, and doubly repeating that it wasn't a great film does not make your claim valid. Just because you say things over and over again does not make them true.
Are you reading your own posts? Everything you're saying applies equally to you.

Ok I'll let you have all of those opinions and will agree to disagree except for especially this one point of what you talked about,
>soundtrack was generic Zimmer Inception
No.

We don't know that.

And that he was.

Not at all. I've already explicated several times in this thread why the film is fantastic. Maybe you need to learn how to fucking read.

Do replicants even actually get old?
Deckard aging at human speed is the proof he's human.

I'm 100% not spouting memes when I say that the worst part of 2049 was the soundtrack. Blasting the audience with the brass section for 90% of the film is getting old. Go to bed, Zimmer

Anyone else want an AI gf?

That was one of the most intense things I've seen on film in a long time.

Did you miss the opening of the film? Sapper is old.

I'm supposed to pick out which posts are yours on an anonymous image board when you didn't give any of those points in your replies to me? Learn how to have a fucking conversation if you're going to try so hard.

>explicated
kek
college frosh pseudointellectual confirmed

This hurt to read from someone posting on an underwater basket weaving forum

Deckard old?
How old is he supposed to be? He should be 60 and he doesn't look 60,unlike Deckard.
The truth is we never really got any proof that they age like humans in this or in the original one, unless I'm missing something.

That was by far my favourite scene in the movie and my favourite single frame at the end of the scene, I want that shit as my wallpaper right now.

>Big budget sequel to a cult classic
>Throws up every red flag in the book
>It actually lives up to the original
How?

They understood what made the first one good and worked from there

>Best possible director for the job
>Script that understands the strengths of the original
>No studio meddling whatsoever

>mfw he was having a meltdown because he didn't know if he was a real human bean or a real hero