What was his endgame?

What was his endgame?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7NfaBjOq7fg&list=FLateGmkN4tzlJv6j47yhI8Q&index=79
twitter.com/AnonBabble

to extend his lifespan

to see c-beams glitter at the tenhauser gate

>that was all

more life, fucker

I wouldn't believe that.

And then what?

the sky's the limit

being alive is a start.

start a protein farm with his waifu and live happily ever after

he trolled the fuck out of dickhard, he litterally saved dickhard on a fluke

>Tfw balding quickly at age 23
>just want to dye my brown hair white and be Roy

came to type exactly this

He wanted more life, fucker.

Was debating whether to come here and say this, or use the "father" dub.

being C U T E

Why did he kill Tyrell?

To this day I still don't know. Tyrell was honest with him, respected him, and didn't treat him like a monster or an inferior being....and in return he got a fucked up and brutal death

Because he was pissed at Tyrell for giving him such a short lifespan. It's not like anything he did mattered to him anymore, he was about to die

Has Rutger seen 2049 yet? I remember he was suprised they made a sequal and voiced his concerns it wouldnt hold up.

I wonder what he thinks about it.

he was handsome as fuck in blade runner

Perhaps even Roy doesn't know

It was likely just an act of pure emotion, rage and frustration and fear of his impending doom, with his creator finally sealing away any hope he might have had

Considering that he had only lived 4 years, he was emotionally a child in a adult body. What does angry kids do? They lash out without considering the consequences.

Also alot of symbolism about killing your father.

If you watch Blade Runner and just keep in mind that Rutger is essentially portraying a child with the intellect and physique of a grown man, alot of his actions makes more sense.

who knows, thats my 2 cents.

I agree

It makes him very sad and sympathetic, but also terrifying.

It's how I view the "Geth" in the Mass Effect universe and their 'uprising'. Or how I did anyway in the first two games before it was ruined with exposition in the third game.

He is basically a child in an adults body, unable to deal with his emotions. Thats why they have a lifespan, they reach a certain point and can't deal with emotions, Roy is particularly dangerous cause he was a combat model whose purpose was to kill. Tyrell was his last hope and he is told by him that, even if he is brilliant, there is nothing that can be done to extend his life.

But they have implanted memories... Ideally they should function like adults with tons of emotional experience

The newer models like Rachel and the ones that came after her had implanted memories. They imply previous models (like the 4 rogue replicants) do not have this.

Rachel did, Nexus 6 (Batty, Leon, Priss) didnt.

Rachel was a experiment, prototype. Tyrell tells this to Deckard at the end of the scene with him, Rachel and Deckard. Deckard is suprised by this and is told more off camera.
"Those aren't your memories, they're somebody else's. They're Tyrell's niece's"

HE WANTS MORE LIFE
FUCKER HE AIN'T DONE

YEEEEAHH

MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN
MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN
MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN
MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN

Dig through the ditches
And burn through the witches !!!!!@ !@

can anyone explain to me why they can create gmo humans with serial numbers on their hair but reproduction is too hard?
Weren't the replicants made to be incapable of bearing offspring on purpose?

Does anybody else feel like playing Final Fantasy 7 after watching Blade Runner 2049?

It has similar themes and the main city in game, Midgar, was definitely inspired by Blade Runner (as were the main antagonists)

'cause the story says so

They get to make up their own rules for the premise

That shit's really hard.

>Underneath the Rotting Pizza is now playing in your head

I think the replicants being grown in vats in a very complicated process is what allows them to have superhuman traits. Replicating that kind of growth in a human womb is very difficult.

>missing the point of that action this hard

Not be dead.

I'm pretty sure they did, wasn't that the point of Leon going back for the photographs or am I mis-remembering?

So were the "replicants" machines in any way, or just genetically modified people?

I always thought it was sea breams.

They are artificial humans.

Agreed, I hope he likes it.

Why is Deckard such a dick about it to her?

Take over the fuckin world bro!

cus Harrison ford is a crotchety prick

He seems like the revolutionary type. I think he would have done something to break the barrier between human and replicant, break all the barriers.

in the book they're clearly robots
in the movie, they're artificial humans, synthesized to be almost entirely human

>Weren't the replicants made to be incapable of bearing offspring on purpose?

rachel was "an experiment, nothing more"

because contrary to popular belief, deckard actually has a character arch in the film. In the beginning he's a jaded, alchoholic ex blade runner that have killed replicants left and right with little hesitation.
He doesnt think replicants have a soul, isnt alive, they are robots.
>'How Can It Not Know What It Is?'
Refering to Rachel when he learns that Rachel doesnt know she's a replicant.
He's an ass to what he considers a machine with coded emotional responses.

And by the end he's fallen in love with "it" and is the redeming factor to his misserable life and consider Rachel a life worth protecting.

Bishop to King 7

normal life span

Milk and cookies kept you awake, huh?

*stops your fall*

Tyrell was certainly not earnest with Roy. He dismissed Roy's desire to extend the replicants' lives as "academic" and offered little closure for their impending deaths. Roy recognizes Tyrell's patronizing responses for what they are, and kills him.

Yeah, I've been listening to the soundtrack and remixes since I saw the film

I like this one: youtube.com/watch?v=7NfaBjOq7fg&list=FLateGmkN4tzlJv6j47yhI8Q&index=79

>What was his endgame?
Bishop to King 7.

futility

see, this I didn't get at all. Hannibal Chew manufactures eyes for Tyrell. Every single microfiber is serial-coded. Thing about replicasnts in my mind would point to them being assembled.

but in 2049 when the Rachel 'clone' falls out of that growth bag I was really confused: this wasn't the processes of creating replicants in my mind at all

It seems like if you're going to grow through all the work of growing humans that apparently also have some human parts which must be separately assembled and attached that it would be easier to just breed slaves. This would of course completely undermine Scott's symbolism of the creator and the created...but the Tyrell corporation might have a cheaper time at it.

Other triggers from 2049 (because I haven't been on Sup Forums since seeing it:


Fuck Wallace: I don't like that K/Joe loses all this free will, is designed to be better, more subservient than previous models, etc. THEN HE DOESN'T DO THAT. Tyrell could have created completely enslaved models, but he didn't; he recognized the necessity for free will and the value that delivers. Plus it brings up a moral conundrum: if they truly are more human than human should I sympathize with them? More than Deckard even? Why the fuck should I care about K at all? why was I supposed to care about Joi's death? she was even more fake than K. I cared when Roy died, I cared when Prix died: I was shocked in my theatre when a woman gasped after Joi's death.

what was that ending? fuck cliff hangers. Harrison Ford will be dead in 10 years and I don't want another Blade Runner in that time. This should have been a tragedy. I don't care about that girl, I don't care about the rebellion: neither were given enough time in what was already a ridiculously long movie to get me to care.

I know I touched on it already: but I didn't like the removal of mystique around the creation of replicants. Going to one steampunk eye factory gave me so many questions and truly made Tyrell out to be a god. I don't want the nutrient pack breaking on the floor and I don't want to see some bitch dancing around on a holodeck. Replicants aren't Urukai and they aren't Data: they are pure science fiction: anything your imagination can fill in.


What was the greater scope? The first time I watched blade runner I looked at it through a Christian lens (we watched it in a comparative mythology class in high school). the Christ and creator metaphor was very clear and clearly well thought out. This is just a genuine question: what greater theme was Villeneuve borrowing from?

...I think that's it.
I won't lie: I saw this film opening night after a long work day and slept through at least 5 minutes of it so if it's just that I missed something feel free to inform me.

>tfw no pleasure model Roy

also why was gaff there? he served virtually no purpose and I don't get the sheep/goat(?) he made

I-I-I-I've seen things you *BURP* Redditors wouldn't believe. M-M-M-McDonald's locations on, on fire, Morty! O-o-off the shoulder of Rou-Route 66. I, I, I watched Golden Arches glitter, glitter in the dark in Downey, *BURP* California. All those moments will be lost in time, MOR-TEE, like sauce in rain. Wubba lubba dub dub!

Bump.
Im convinced they had no memory implants, but never got what was it about with Leons pictures

might have been a sacrificial sheep or bull, representing k.

also, why not, its a nice nod to the first movie, and fits in with the detective work k needs to do to track down Deckard.

Hell No, he would have fuck ed off with Pris as far from all that crap as possible

And this is the first time I've seen legit criticism of 2049 here.

I love it, but I'll have time to answer you properly at 5 hours time soonest

sheep/lamb=sacrifice, this is a big theme in Christianity, Christ was a sacrificial lamb that saved humanity ("The Lamb of God" is a significant title for Christ in the gospel of John)

the implication here is that K was the "lamb" in this story, an innocent man that had to sacrifice himself to bring some humanity into an increasingly soulless world

he made a white buffalo

user, your brainlet is showing

Seriously though, go watch it again, you missed a ton of shit. The ending is not a cliffhanger at all, it perfectly completes K's character arc. The resistance stuff is just background information that shows the setting is more than just a static backdrop.

The answer to the question of Joi's humanity should be obvious if you understand the core themes in Blade Runner and most of PKD's work.

The newborn replicant coming out of the bag doesn't really confirm much about how they're made. They've always been completely biological (otherwise it would be easy to identify one - cut them open and see if they bleed) so the idea that there is some growth process involved makes sense. Wallace's end goal of course is basically to breed slaves, because a self-reproducing workforce makes the logistics of space colonization way way easier for obvious reasons. At the end of the day though, the way replicants are made is just a aesthetic choice and doesn't really matter for the film's themes.

>but in 2049 when the Rachel 'clone' falls out of that growth bag I was really confused
The replicant that comes out of the bag fucking dies, the one Wallace presents as Rachael is a completely different one

To be fair, we're given an extremely small bit of information on the creation of replicants, I don't think you can base what is in 2049 as tell much of how they're made. Much of the mystery is still there imo, and not only that Wallace is different than Tyrell, perhaps they have different methods, Wallace seems like much more of a spectacle kind of person so it makes sense his way is more dramatic, even still I felt the mystery is still there.

The ending is not a cliffhanger at all, I'm not sure even what you're referring to when you say it is a cliffhanger
Gaff makes sense, he knew Deckard, K is trying to find Deckard, why wouldn't he go visit him and learn more about him. I believe it's a sheep, to represent K, a common thread of the movie is how K isn't special, he wants to be "The One", he wants to be special, he believes he is. That's the only reason he continues the case and goes to find Deckard, but eventually he realizes he's just an average joe, just a sheep like every other replicant

but that's not gaff's schtick; he likes to point out irony. Called Deckard horny and Rachel a beautiful (but fake) unicorn. The best source online that I can find is it's a nod to Do Androids Dream of Mechanical Sheep, the same way Gaff is a nod to the original film.

Also; correct my memory. but don't Gaff and Deckard only know each other for 1-2 days in which time they're largely contentious? why is gaff suddenly so happy with his memories of Deckard?

I think I can get on board with this interpretation. Thanks for the discourse user

To strut around as an edgy, pretentious pseudo-intellectual. He did a phenomenal job.

His only achievement in the entire movie was getting in to see Tyrell. I won't say outrunning Deckard for so long, because Deckard was a moron.

Tyrell very well may have assembled the replicants. Wallace bought Tyrell Corp, that doesn't mean they do everything the same way. Maybe growing them is more efficient (just let them grow rather than have a team of highly trained specialists meticulously hand craft each unit). It's a movie, make up your own reason.

As for why you should care, that's kind of the whole point. The movie is asking the question "what does it mean to be human?'. You say they're fake and that you shouldn't care, but I would argue that they are sentient, and capable or feeling emotion, so are they not the essence of humanity? Why should it matter that we made them, they possess all the traits that we claim makes human life sacred, so are they not in effect human?

>why is gaff suddenly so happy with his memories of Deckard?

Who says he's happy? Maybe I'm mis-remembering the dialogue but he specifically said that they both prefer to work alone and that their friendship was just based on making that happen.

was it a sheep? perhaps it was a ram, but i thought it was pretty clearly a white ox/bull

I heard something about a possible Bull before I saw the movie, but when watching I thought it no doubt looked like a sheep

To kill the gods that made him more human than human.

Found this, looks extremely similar to the one in the movie imo, looked for origami bulls but none of them got close

They were mementos of them, the renegade group. Leon had taken them himself as an attempt at creating his own memories.

MORE LIFE, FUCKER

humanity

If you didn't see the first movie it won't bother you.

it was a bull I swear to fucking god

I'm going to disagree a little:

humanity is free will in the original films; that was my interpretation. If the best version of new Nexuses is not meant to have free will, then the model which is not only lacking free will; but physicality and physical range. She doesn't feel human to me and thus empathy is hard to hold.

Blade Runner to me asked "how do we distinguish humanity" a machine with programmed emotion may have emotion, but it is distinctly not human to be programmed in such a way, or any way for that matter. Plus she's a clone: you can buy her off a billboard add.

The cliffhanger I'm referencing is the reuniting of father and daughter with the looming rebellion on its way. I DONT WANT BLADE RUNNER MUDDIED BY A HUMAN V. ROBOT MOVIE

thanks for the appreciation: to be clear I still loved this movie, next to Dunkirk I feel it's the best film of the year.

I realize the production method isn't actually important. But I hate being shown I'm wrong about something that I had always assumed. It is a little disillusioning and takes some of the magic out of the movie for me. Though I won't argue that it does have little to do with theming, I would say there's some relation. if we saw them being assembled on a line: being screwed and chopped together that would have to mean. I wanted to think they were meticulously assembled the way God is portrayed to assemble us. An embryo bag feels as erratic as a human womb which feels human, but not "more human than human"

Sorry; didn't remember that (again I was very tired)

To all the triggered anons out there: I promise I'll see it again the next chance I get. I hope I haven't brought too much idiocy to this thread.

>"if you didn't see the first movie"
based on box office success I'd doubt anyone saw it who hadn't seen the first movie.

did you really not see the first movie? what was your interpretation of the scene. It felt purely like a nod to the original film that could have been completely gone without if only another tiny scrap of evidence had happened to survive the blackout.

SHEEP
H
E
E
P