Why was he supposed to be the villain?
>saves the entire human race from starving to death
>saves the entire replicant race by making new and better ones humans actually want to have around
>wants to give replicants the ability to give birth, which is the same motivation as the rebel replicants
>wants more replicants to be made so that they can travel the stars
All he did that was evil was kill that one replicant and I guess order Luv to kill a bunch of people.
>>wants more replicants to be made so that they can travel the stars
because he's doing it only for money
educate yourself before posting on my Sup Forums
reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism
*tips fedora*
he captured and wanted to torture deckard. so yes he was the bad guy
People don’t like to do what is necessary.
Was he bad? Yes
Was he a villain? No
Him getting so little screen time and not participating in the climax at all are very deliberate. K doesn't care about ascending to stars, he doesn't care about revolution. He cares about bringing Deckard to his daughter and audience is not supposed to bother themselves with stuff surrounding it.
>controls the whole planet and can do whatever he wants
>wants more slaves and money
He was a weak part in the film.
deckard is a selfish cunt who hid the future of replicant and humans just because of muh daddy complex
He was a villain in the context of the film. But I think overall he is a good person, his means are just a bit questionable. .
yea when you think about it deckard is a real fuckin asshole.
He literally prevented world famine. He is not supposed to be a pure villain.
because he's supposed to be an evil male
>stabs women in the womb female replicant behind him sheds a tear
>wants to control the female womb which the director feels is more important than the male genitalia which is never mentioned in the film but still needed for reproduction
bravo Villeneuve! my favorite feminist director
He was going to cut up and experiment on Deckard's daughter.,
He sees replicants as only tools and not as living beings. He is blind to empathy (thats what the eyes represent in both the OG film and 2049) and only wants to create replicants to use as slaves.
Its also unclear if he actually does want the replicants to give birth. He never out right states that he does. He DOES state that it is what holds replicants back from being truly great. Also theres the scene where he literally slices open a replicant's womb (note that luv also kills the police chief in this way). seems kinda symbolic to me.
what was the timeline after the first? was the daughter conceived in the first film, but Deckard had to at least stay near Rachel long enough to move to Vegas and make the wooden irradiated horse to give to her first, right?
Although it's a birthdate so if he waited till after he would still have needed to be in contact after the birth to send the horse, but the plan was for him to not know
a womb kind of is more important. fertilising an egg with dna is 1000x easier than incubating and nurturing a baby for nine months and then also having the parts to feed it afterwards, the male part is much, much simpler
Wut if he's a replicant and just blindly does what he was programmed to do?
He didn't want money, he was already the richest person in the world, he wanted humanity to take over the universe, colonising every planet in a type of manifest destiny. He was frustrated that only 9 planets had been colonised so far and saw mass reproduction of replicants as the only way to acheive his goals.
Why is a 45 year old hipster who looks like a college frat dudebro playing a sophisticated, rich antagonist who could have literally been played better by any fucking actor above the age of 50.
It's interesting that his goals and the goals of the resistance overlap a bit but they have very different end games in sight. He wants an infinite slave army, they want self determination.
Although I wonder how he planned on keeping all those infinite slaves baselined?
But there's no question he's fucking evil. We see him coldly murder his children for not coming out right. That shit is fucking horrible dude.
>replicants giving birth
This is gayest shit, this movie sounds like crap
FYI the plot of one of the Blade Runner "sequel" books by some hack writer has Deckard & Rachel find that Replicants are suddenly becoming more human and humans are stopping being able to be pregnant
So DEEEEP
Then he fights the bad guy on a literal movie set recreating the original movie
That's how hacky this film is sounding to me desu
>talking about a film you haven't seen
You're an idiot. The movie is fantastic
Trying to bait early teen girls into going to the theater, same as Gosling. Surprised the nerd at the police station wasn't played by a Jonas brother.
he definitely wants them to give birth so he can make more of them
Question: Was Luv also a replicant who was "outside her baseline" since she killed the police chief?
Did Wallace know that she was a malfunctioning replicant but decided to keep her around because she was loyal to a fault?
it's not, the films treats female genitalia like they're god, pretty pretentious stuff by a pretentious film maker
Baseline probably is only for police replicants
>Question: Was Luv also a replicant who was "outside her baseline" since she killed the police chief?
yes, one of the points of the movie is that all replicants are "malfunctioning" to some degree
>Did Wallace know that she was a malfunctioning replicant but decided to keep her around because she was loyal to a fault?
he knew all replicants were becoming "self-conscious", so probably he didn't really care if she was or not
How so?
>he knew all replicants were becoming "self-conscious", so probably he didn't really care if she was or not
Why do you think he knew this?
>Criticising a film you haven't seen
please be a troll
The ability to create life is one of the most incredible aspects of humanity, to have it stem from an artificial source is pretty spectacular wouldn't you say?
I'm sorry, I missed my point while typing in that post. He didn't care because there are two ways of seeing this:
1: He didn't know replicants could become so conscious because of his delusions of grandeur and thinking he was god encarnate, thus missing the possibility of the replicants becoming conscious
2: He did know and simply didn't care, because after all the replicants would rule the world, not him and his creation had to be self-sustainable with a cosnciousness
both are very valid
Right he's this crazy industrialist with a god complex, he's not considering the philosophical consequences of the boundary he's about to erase like Joshi is
>He sees replicants as only tools and not as living beings.
They're aren't fucking living beings.
so replicants are just like Tanks from Space: Above and Beyond?
Mgtow is so 2015.
>Her eyes were green
What did he mean by this?
>he sees robots as robots and not human
gee
>Why was he supposed to be the villain?
There wasn't villains or superheroes in this film
replicants arent robots
it is, however the director completely tunnels on just the aspect of the womb, and completely disregards the role the male plays into it all, to him, the male role in sex and creation of life is irrelevant, again pretentious dipshit of a director
(you)
I figured all replicants aware of the "miracle" are way off their baseline.
in what way does he do this?
So K was the brother, right?
See the movie then. You clearly dont know what you are talking about.
Why did he slice open the newly "born" replicant?
There never was a brother. That was a ruse Deckard came up with in order to hide his child.
It didn't have a functioning womb
How did he know without taking it for a test drive first?
Did Stelline make the horse memory based on her real memory even though it was illegal because she just couldn't help herself, and it just happened to end up in K's head? Or was there a specific strategy at work to lead K to the resistance?
>does every replicant have the wooden horse memory or did he just happen to have that memory and be the one to discover the tree carving?
>why did they take Gosling's gun but let him keep his flying armed police car?
>how did Drive find the convoy that was carrying Han Solo?
>wouldn't the bad guys search the shallow water the car sunk into and realize Ford wasn't in the car? literally a plane scene level plothole
>why didn't anyone just track Gosling's police car?
>why did Leto need to take Deckard offworld to torture him?
>why are there no security cameras anywhere in this world? how did the same woman that murdered someone and stole evidence from a police station the day before walk back into the same police station and murder the police chief without being caught
>why did the people who captured Deckard let Gosling live for no reason even after he shot 2 of them and witnessed the capture?
>why did they add unnecessary side characters like his hologram gf when the movie was already way too long?
He used the fleet of floating drone cameras to examine her
Don't bother arguing with these people. They make even less sense than the movie itself.
first one
>He was bad
No. His path would have established humanity in the stars. Resistance path would have set off a fucking civil war within humanity and probably set them back decades.
Hey you're being up some really valid poin-
>why did they add unnecessary side characters like his hologram gf when the movie was already way too long?
Nevermind, you're retarded.
>guessing a few had it, not stated though
>i wondered about that too. seems like they'd be very trackable too so gosling shouldn't want to use it if they're looking for him
>waiting outside wallace's place, but again it's convenient - how did gosling know they'd take him offworld
>door was wide open, cuffs broken - not too much effort to believe he washed out, and why wouldn't the police/whoever believe that? they don't know about the conspiracy stuff
>yep, stupid point
>yep
>thought this was very, very weird too. she just wanders in with no sign given to how
>assumed he was dead i guess, but true, it was odd
>hologram gf was not unnecessary, him finding out she wasn't special to him was the whole push to make him sacrifice himself for Ford
that's what they already do with the artificial method though and why this movie makes no sense, they act like a womb is important but it really isn't because they are already churning out replicants using factories and artificial methods like crazy, an impregnatable female would in reality make the entire process less efficient and much more time consuming
kek most of these questions are explicitly answered in the movie
>does every replicant have the wooden horse memory or did he just happen to have that memory and be the one to discover the tree carving?
he just happened to have it
>why did they take Gosling's gun but let him keep his flying armed police car?
plot magick
>how did Drive find the convoy that was carrying Han Solo?
he followed them from the Wallace compound
>wouldn't the bad guys search the shallow water the car sunk into and realize Ford wasn't in the car? literally a plane scene level plothole
how do we know it's shallow?
>why didn't anyone just track Gosling's police car?
they did, it's how they find him at deckard's hideaway
>why did Leto need to take Deckard offworld to torture him?
he happens to have his torture infrastructure set up there. maybe there different legalities
>why are there no security cameras anywhere in this world? how did the same woman that murdered someone and stole evidence from a police station the day before walk back into the same police station and murder the police chief without being caught
plot magick, but also we don't really see her enter and exit and there could be plenty of mundane ways to evade security cameras and guards, can't give you this one sorry bud
>why did the people who captured Deckard let Gosling live for no reason even after he shot 2 of them and witnessed the capture?
didn't they think he was dead? or at least mortally wounded with no transportation and a hundred miles away from anything. they didn't know he had a transponder that would lead the resistance to him.
>why did they add unnecessary side characters like his hologram gf when the movie was already way too long?
she's the movie's best new idea, the next level of abstraction beyond replicants. when K honors her right to self-determination even against his better judgment an then has to pay the price, dude that's one of the central emotional beats of the film
>would have set off a fucking civil war within humanity and probably set them back decades
Does that justify the continued enslavement and rape of an entire people? If Wallace got what he wanted and could produce billions upon billions of replicants, that would only make things worse. The revolution is coming no matter what, and the longer it takes to come the worse it's going to be. Better to pull off that particular band-aid sooner rather than later.
They arent making enough replicants for Wallace's liking. If they can start to reproduce they can create alot more
...yeah, my bad, I totally forgot that context. Point taken, the focus on the womb is strange then
>why is the guy who wants a subservient slave race the villain?
Are you a member of the democratic party?
>they act like a womb is important but it really isn't because they are already churning out replicants using factories and artificial methods like crazy
Wallace explicitly says that they can't make them very quickly, they've only colonized 9 planets instead of millions. The movie gives you 0 explicit details about how much resource it takes to create a single replicant, where the fuck do you get the idea they're making them like gangbusters?
yes I know that
clearly not
Ridley is a hack. He made a loose adaption based of do androids dream of electric sheep. Renamed it for erasure and money purposes and makes a name brand sequel cash grab 40 years later. He really is a hack trying to make this setting his own when everybody who is smart enough to read a book knows Blade Runner and BR2049 are derivatives and have no purpose being made. He just took Philip K. Dicks story and bastardized it, twice. This is why visual medium isn't a serious art form.
if it takes so much resources the make a replicant then they make them in the first place? it clearly is largely beneficial, it is never implied that it's hard or easy to make them regardless
the point is that they cant be made fast enough with whatever way they are currently made
That's what makes him interesting.
That being said, he clearly has a god complex that put's even Tyrell's to shame and sees no problem with creating disposable humans. It's a classic dilemma as to whether the ends justify the means or not.
Imagine you have a small plumbing business and needed a wrench, so you go to the store and you buy one. That's ok, because you only needed the one. But things start to pick up and you need more tools. What if instead of having to buy another wrench, your wrench just made another wrench. Now you have two wrenches that can each make more wrenches. And those can make more wrenches. Increasing exponentially for infinity.
If Wallace had one production facility that could make replicants, and then opened another plant he just doubled his production capabilities. But if he opens a 3rd, that's only a 50% increase. The next is only a 33% increase, the next a 25% increase, and so on. There is a diminishing effect to how much adding another plant affects total production. Now compare that to the exponential growth that would occur if replicants could reproduce.
I never said it takes "so much resource", I'm saying the movie is specifically vague about the amount of resource it takes. We know that they're too expensive for some people to afford, and we know that Wallace needs exponentially more of them than he can build.
Ridley was only a producer on 2049. Even if he did only introduce the idea of a sequel for financial gain, Fancher and Villeneuve clearly took it seriously and put a lot of effort into making it a legitimate and worthy sequel as well as something that stands on its own right as a good film.
>This is why visual medium isn't a serious art form.
Well that's a retarded thing to say.
>the entire process less efficient and much more time consuming
>What is population growth
>What is net reproduction rate
that sounds better than what we got
Phillip K. Dicks' story isn't even that good. He's great at coming up with fascinating ideas/premises but his writing style is so dry and banal and bereft of any color or life that he's basically unreadable. He's like the Ernest Hemmingway of sci fi.
>he clearly has a god complex
no really? how ever did you figure that out?
>dry and banal and bereft of any color or life
>implying any of that applies to Hemingway
agree on Dick tho
>what is the industrial revolution compared to chattel slavery in the south
muh good an evil
yes and my point is that I disagree with that plotpoint because it makes no sense
>clearly
I even worded it in a way that indicated that it was obvious. I don't know what you want from me, you salty bastard.
He's evil to the degree that Ozymandias is. Understandable goal, at the very least, but unscrupulous methods.
It does make sense, but also there's the fact that the modern replicants are clearly heavily scrutinized and destroyed at the first sign of any sort of free thought (i.e. K's baseline test). The sense we get is that it's pretty much illegal to make replicants unless you adhere to a very specific set of guidelines. He'd only have to sneak a few replicants with working fetuses into the world and they'd start multiplying like rabbits without any way to keep track of them or control them. They'd become their own race, in effect. Wallace thinks he can control and use them for his purposes because he's crazy.
What don't you understand about exponential growth?
I don't think he understands much of anything that isn't explicitly spelled out to him and even that gives him sperg rage more times than not. So I wouldn't bother, user.
>Ridley was only a producer on 2049
not true.
he cowrote the novela that '49s script was based on.
That's not correct. Ridley was involved with one of the earlier versions that was supposed to be a prequel but he had nothing to do with the screenplay that Fancher eventually wrote. That's why it's good.
He’s a retard don’t engage
>has an unpopular opinion
>must be retarded
classic Sup Forums
exponential grown is already being portrayed in the beginning of the film and the huge explosion of replicants taking over every aspect of society though, it is already known that they are being made extremely fast to the point of replacing humans entirely, it is simply being implied by the director that the growth would be faster by using natural birth which I completely disagree with, as it is a long inefficient process and one that is being sued by humans who are not able to outgrow the replicants, that alone is plenty of reason it makes no sense
also replicants cant get sick and birth complications are probably not a thing, so i would assume almost every birth would bear a healthy child
nigga you can keep making replicants AND have them reproduce to make more replicants too
That doesn't change that the factory method is faster, it's a huge "big deal" as a punctuation to he director's message.
Incorrect. see Wallace can only make so many in a given time frame. Then they grow old, die, and need to be replaced. Pic related, the line along the bottom is what Wallace can produce. The curved line is what he wants to achieve.
>they are being made extremely fast to the point of replacing humans entirely
I don't know where you got this from but it's nowhere in the movie. Replicants were made illegal for quite a long time and now they're manufactured under such scrutiny that most of them get retired after they so much as fail a single baseline test. Wallace is trying to get around that by letting them create themselves. They are a dying breed at the start of the film.
Damn I loved that show
>Wallace can only make so many in a given time frame
Remember the part in the movie where he literally says this word for word? And yet people on this board are still confused.
>completely missing the point of BOTH Blade Runner films
you have clearly never been around rabbits