So he was a human right?

So he was a human right?

Everything in this movie felt so vague.

No, you fucking moron. Stop trying to generate interest in this woefully mediocre film by faking ambiguity. It was explicitly telegraphed that he wasn't human, and he wasn't the replicant child.

Care to elaborate? I never saw a scene explaining he was a replicant

yeah, sure. Human with super strength.

I feel like Ridley Scott purposefully made it vauge to generate discussion like this.

You just dont get that with modern capeshit flicks.

He was God

Maybe the concrete degradation was bigly, allowing a human to push through it.

The one eyed lady stated it - even going so far as to hold the audience's hand via needless exposition. Later, we even learn that the horse memory was implanted by the child replicant in the bubble; she uses only the best memories which sometimes include her own.

Yeah he was a real human bean and a real hero.

It was heavily implied but left ambigious, as it should be

They really could have explained that horse thing a little better...

You want him to be with your mentally ill waifu shit.

That's my problem. The first film was legitimately vague in the sense that it was thematically complex (dealing with the nature of humanity) and utilised imagery and narrative dissonance effectively to keep the audience guessing. This sequel didn't want to actually leave things ambiguous, for fear of alienating the audience, so instead went for this fake deep angle where everything only seems vague for the first hour - only for everything to be agonisingly explained later on in the film anyway. There were literally zero loose ends.

But would Ridley change his style for the sequel?

I thought there was loose ends everywhere. Like wtf happened to that dog that was with Deckard?

Doesn't matter. Replicants are just bio engineered humans anyway

You're joking right? Did you even see the movie?

Are people ITT pretending to be retarded to elicit this very response? I'm honestly not sure.

>Like wtf happened to that dog that was with Deckard?
You're either a shill, a troll or straight up retarded.

First of all, a movie isnt a math problem to be 'figured out.' It's more than that, it's art.

Go on. Elaborate. What was left ambiguous? The narrative was standard - very little meaning all in all.

What did the first one "mean?" It wasnt any more or less profound than, "Grace and selflessness are what makes us human," which the new one more or less sticks with and expands on.

I never stated a film should be like mathematics. I implied that the sequel was shallow because it lacked a lot of what made the first film's narrative interesting. To put it another way, the first film was certainly more 'artful' in this respect than its sequel.

It's not about the message. Even a terrible film can have a decent message. It's about the quality of expression.

Myself I found the ambiguity of Luv and Joi,the possible inner world of K, judging from what we can see, quite intriguing.

I fail to understand how. It's cool, it's great in its way, but it's a pretty standard noir tale with the interesting techno trappings, besides that interesting central conceit.

Was K randomly assigned to hunt the farmer or did someone purposedly send him there?
How does replicant breeding work?
Did Joi really love K or was she only programmed for it?
Did all replicants get implanted with the horse memory as a seed for the rebellion or was it just K?
Hell they didn't even answer if Deckard was a replicant or not
I'm convinced you're either retarded or didn't watch it at all

Blade Runner's ambiguity was in its meaning and subtext. Blade Runner 2049 ambiguity was in its plot points. Shit like this:
Questions which aren't interesting at all, and just cover for an underwritten script.

>Questions which aren't interesting at all, and just cover for an underwritten script.
That just your contrarian opinion, which you haven't backed up and doesn't matter at all.

You're genitals aren't interesting NERD

The script is filled with half baked plotting and a lack of any development. Feel free to explain why the girl/memory maker is so crucial to the resistance, for instance. You'll give me an answer, but it'll be a shitty one.

BR 2049 was in some regards more ambiguous than BR. It raised questions about the nature of free will, sentience and whether manufactured life has a soul.

The resistance shit doesn't matter at all and was just a means to help establish setting. The movie is about K and his decisions/character development. Why are you such a brainlet?

>woefully mediocre film
Anyone find silly troll comments like this just boring now?

>It raised questions about the nature of free will, sentience and whether manufactured life has a soul.
Questions raised by the original film, and addressed in a more graceful fashion. But no doubt, Blade Runner 2049 raises many questions, to give you the idea that there is depth to its story, but as I mentioned none of it is developed. The film is pretty empty.
>just a means to help establish setting
What setting? The resistance subplot could have been cut out, but since it wasn't, it does matter, as it's in the film and they play a role in the storyline, even it's only to get K from point A to point B.

I suppose ignoring posts and points against your theory is a grea way to win a debate...

Keep moving those goalposts.

To show that they can create themselves.
Is even over explained imho.

Be a kind sir and point em out to me.
Not Mr. Goalposts again. Go to bed. >To show that they can create themselves.
Yes. Now, how is that useful to the resistance? How is the girl the key to the resistance?

Nolan literally did it seven years ago with the ending to Inception. Everybody discussed whether it was a dream or not.

The dog didn't gave a fuck, so it was a robot dog. Real dogs bark and protect their masters.

Nobody gives a fuck about fake dogs

He was an avocado

>What setting?
I don't know. Maybe the futuristic dystopian setting where replicants are a thing and are rightfully pissed at humans? Are you just pretending to be stupid?
>The resistance subplot could have been cut out, but since it wasn't, it does matter, as it's in the film and they play a role in the storyline, even it's only to get K from point A to point B.
It really doesn't or it would have have been further developed. As I said the movie is about K and how the broke his conditioning, making his own path to become 'human'. This is apparent for anyone that watched it.

This is Killerfisting tuer of posting.
The movie expands the themes of memory of the original. The concept of objectification to its extreme. Expnd the humanity question on ai. Winks at movies that influenced br1 like metroplis.
Hell, I found the CELLS scene a good metaphor for this pc society and the fact that one slip, the wrong tweet can get you "retired"

>be kind
Dude the one eyed rep woman ststes it plainlym were you asleep?

He was, dare I say it, a Real Human Bean?

>how is useful
Cannot tell if dishonest or retarded.
If they find how become fertile they do not depends from humans to EXIST.
They are a different species, not machines

>Hell, I found the CELLS scene a good metaphor for this pc society and the fact that one slip, the wrong tweet can get you "retired"
I wonder do other replicants go trough the same baseline screening? Maybe K has to do it so often because he is a bladerunner and they don't want him going rouge.

I think so. Or he has autism. Haven't seen the movie, though.

>states it plainly. New country new keybord lol

>I don't know. Maybe the futuristic dystopian setting where replicants are a thing and are rightfully pissed at humans? Are you just pretending to be stupid?
So shouldn't they make sense in the framework of the story at least, even if they're only there to establish a setting?
>It really doesn't or it would have have been further developed.
Making one iota of sense would have helped.
>As I said the movie is about K and how the broke his conditioning, making his own path to become 'human'. This is apparent for anyone that watched it.
Great, but a poorly written subplot doesn't get off the hook just because it's centered on an individual's story.
I know she does. It's just a stupid reason.
So that leads to the next question: There are people in the resistance who helped the girl go into hiding and know of her location. Why would they sit on that on for literally decades and not get the information they need from studying her as soon as possible, before her position is compromised from literally planting clues in possibly hundreds of replicants' memories?

Also, what happens if Wallace gets to the girl before they do? He'll make replicants that can reproduce anyway. It would no longer be a secret.

no more Patrician films for you, cretin

Where can I buy that jacket?

No. He was a replicant.
This is almost as annoying as those that try to say Deckard is a replicant.

>So shouldn't they make sense in the framework of the story at least, even if they're only there to establish a setting?
How does it not?
>Making one iota of sense would have helped.
What doesn't make sense?
>Great, but a poorly written subplot doesn't get off the hook just because it's centered on an individual's story.
How is it poorly written when it serves its purpose perfectly well?

BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING PROPHETIC FIGURE, TO SHOW THAT REPLICANTS CAN HAVE SOULS

goddamn these people drive me mad. If you don't like the movie fine but stop bringing it down for problems it does not have.

....she's an offspring of a replicant and a human, proving they are capable of giving birth and, therefore, humanity is using slavery on a massive scale once again.
The resistance want to use this to incite revolution.

user you dumb lol

Deckard being/not being a replicant is still ambiguous, 2049 still hints at the question here and there, but my guess is the filmmakers don't have an answer and will never provide one, it's an open question for them too.

Same way Nolan doesn't have an answer for if the Inception ending is a dream or not.

Your choice. Whatever fits you best. That's the magic of that kind of kino.

Read the rest of my post.
>proving they are capable of giving birth and, therefore, humanity is using slavery on a massive scale once again.
Then why do they sit on the information for decades? Why do they need the girl? Why not gather up hard evidence for her birth and her existence?

It is not ambiguous. Deckard is not a replicant.

To protect her retard
Jesus did even you watch the fucking movie

Mind answering the other questions? Why did they sit on it for so long? Why do they need to protect her necessarily when they could just offer up hard evidence that she exists?

A bunch of non-humans trying to act like humans.
No wonder Sup Forums is obsessed with this film. You're all autistic.

>When Scott was asked about the possibility of a Blade Runner sequel in October 2012, he said, "It's not a rumor—it's happening. With Harrison Ford? I don't know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus 6, so we don't know how long he can live. And that's all I'm going to say at this stage".[8]

They don't know where she is, only K figures out who she is by the end of the film by putting it all together
Also it's Dystopia world, someone could easily destroy said hard evidence... by say breaking in and personally stealing it, aka what Luv does. That's the only evidence that a replicant has given birth.

You didn't watch the movie or you're dumb.

>Why did they sit on it for so long?
Waiting for the right moment
>Why do they need to protect her necessarily when they could just offer up hard evidence that she exists?
Because the moment they did that it probably cause an all out war and more persecution
That's not even the point of subplot though. Why do you have to be such a pedantic retard?

Who gives a shit what old man Scott said. Taking ONLY the films into consideration, it is clear that Deckard is not a replicant.

Is implied they are not ready.
And since wallace is creating more and more faithful replicants HIM putting his hands on the girl means possibly many new problems.
You are playing as you are a genious but yiu ignimored simpke things desu.
I bet your favourite channel is cinemasins.

>They don't know where she is,
At least the leader of the resistance is aware of the girl and where she is.
>Also it's Dystopia world, someone could easily destroy said hard evidence...
Someone can easily destroy some girl in hiding. It's just another McGuffin.
>That's the only evidence that a replicant has given birth.
They could make copies.
>You didn't watch the movie or you're dumb.
I might have watched it better than you.

But using real memories is illegal, so it couldn't have been real.

Of course he was human. All replicants are human.

The entire point of the movie is that people destroyed the environment and then each other, and then replaced themselves with replicants. Everyone is a robot. Even the plants and animals. That's the entire joke the book is built around, and extremely clear and obvious story of the movie.

>, it is clear that Deckard is not a replicant
How is it clear? It was always purposely ambiguous

there are some plot holes with the commonly accepted notion that those memories were implanted.

to me it makes a lot more sense if they were brothers, except a male is fucking useless to their cause.

>Waiting for the right moment
>Because the moment they did that it probably cause an all out war and more persecution
If they wanted to wait to reveal this information to the world, why not collect the hard evidence first and then they wouldn't have to worry about whether girl lives or not?
>That's not even the point of subplot though.
What is it then?
> Why do you have to be such a pedantic retard?
The movie was sloppily written. Not my fault.
>Is implied they are not ready.
Not ready for what exactly?
>And since wallace is creating more and more faithful replicants HIM putting his hands on the girl means possibly many new problems.
Possibly, possibly not. If you designed a replicant that could give birth, I would think it would be easy to get one and figure out from there, regardless of whether they're wired to serve.
>You are playing as you are a genious but yiu ignimored simpke things desu.
This movie could have used some more simplicity. It overreached with this byzantine plot bullshit.
>I bet your favourite channel is cinemasins.
I listen to Peter Labuza's podcast on occasion. I'm not a nit picker usually. I just thought this film was underwritten and sloppy.

>not ready for what
>the rebellion
Confirmed for troll of stupid.

Why would he be? What purpose does it serve? There is no indication that he is one. Why not Tyrell? Maybe he's a replicant! What about Sebastian?
fuck outta here with your le ultimate twist bullshit

>byzantine plot
No br movie has complex plot buddy.
You are sub normal or trolling. I am done.

no, he was a robot

the hidden twist is that rachel and deckard are just normal humans and tyrell was just playing mind games with the two of them. their daughter that everyone in the movie cares about is just a normal girl. the entire thing is set in motion by a bored old man who was just trolling some random detective he didn't give a shit about.

the whole message of the movie was how dangerous "fake news" can be and that the media and the public need to be more skeptical about information they hear or things can get out of control

Its the only thing that bothers me in the plot. If she didn't know about the cause, why would she break the law. If she did break it was it used on just K or More.

Yeah but no one outside of the Resistance knows that she even exists? Deckard gave her up for the Resistance to hide, the Blackout wiped out all records of her existence and the official files say she died. The records the orphanage had were destroyed too. No one knows that a replicant-human child exists during the beginning of the film outside of the Resistance and Deckard. How can they kill someone they don't even know for fact exists in the first place?
user the bones have c-section scars on them which meant that she had a baby. She had a serial number on them as well, proving she was a replicant. 2+2= replicant had a baby. But Luv destroys the bones early in the film, that's the only proof they have that a replicant-human hybrid even existed outside of the actual person herself, who cannot be proven to be a hybrid without being autopsied and or having DNA testing done on both the mother and the father. Even then the movie doesn't say if said autopsy would prove anything or if she would be functionally identical to a normal human.

You're still dumb.

You don't get my style, son. I'm playing grand inquisitor. So they're not yet ready for rebellion. So what? The girl is not going to lead the rebellion. She's a lab subject. They need the secret encoded in her genes.

All replicants are humans. That's the point. The whole ideology behind the division between "replicants" and "real humans" is generated by the ruling class (represented by Tyrell and Wallace) in order to keep replicants docile and in their place.

>If they wanted to wait to reveal this information to the world, why not collect the hard evidence first and then they wouldn't have to worry about whether girl lives or not?
Why makes you think the evidence would be believed? What's makes you think they can prove it at all?
>What is it then?
To show that the replicants are capable of the same feelings and aspirations as humans, as in staging a rebellion for their independence and relying on a prophetic figure.
>The movie was sloppily written. Not my fault.
It wasn't sloppily written, you're just a retard.

They didnt. I went in expecting getting intellectually challenged, but it was pretty straight forward if you actually paid attention.

some old dogs can be mellow enough that they don't care about strangers

You didn't answer my question.
>There is no indication that he is one
You either never watched the first movie or you're a retard

pretty much. what would make K special other than being her brother?
did they just randomly pick someone and hoped their plan 30 years in the making worked?

not to mention she seemed surprised by the whole thing. and Deckard to hear he actually had a daughter.

no they're not robofucker
machines don't have rights

the only reason they're running free is because some retard with a god complex forgot to add a killswitch

>Yeah but no one outside of the Resistance knows that she even exists?
She's a memory maker, and they're aware of this. Seems like a risky occupation which could lead to giving away a vital detail of her past to someone who could harm her. Hell, she not only left a memory in K's mind, but gave him one with a specific date that links to her. I mean, Jesus, pretty dumb considering implanting real memories is illegal.
> Deckard gave her up for the Resistance to hide,
Yes, and even though the Resistance knew she was very important, they let her be a memory maker for years, without ever thinking to extract the secret in her biology that made her so special.
> the Blackout wiped out all records of her existence and the official files say she died.
Thanks, wikipedia.
>How can they kill someone they don't even know for fact exists in the first place?
Luv gets pretty close.
> But Luv destroys the bones early in the film,
Earnest question - what explanation is given for this in the film? Seems like it would make more sense for Wallace to preserve the bones.
>You're still dumb.
Aw shucks.

no motherfucker, you're not understanding me. it's the norm to assume he is a human. go ahead, give me the "proof" that he might be a replicant.

>Why makes you think the evidence would be believed?
Exactly. What makes you think they'll believe the girl is who they say she is?
>What's makes you think they can prove it at all?
I don't know how that changes whether its just the evidence or the girl.
>To show that the replicants are capable of the same feelings and aspirations as humans, as in staging a rebellion for their independence and relying on a prophetic figure.
What makes her prophetic? How are they sure this knowledge is going to inspire a rebellion?
>It wasn't sloppily written, you're just a retard.
So I've been told numerous times in this thread. But you still can't give a good answer to these questions.

>so he was human right?

Look at this smile tell me otherwise.

Avocados are vegetables not beans you fuckwit

>The novel hints at the "Is Deckard a Replicant?" problem by having Deckard casually mention that one indicator of an android is a lack of sympathy for other androids. His interlocutor then points out that, given his job, this means that Deckard could be one too.
>At some point of the movie, each replicant has a red brightness in their eyes. It is most prominently seen in the Replicant owl at Tyrell's office. Leon has the red glow during his V-K test, like Rachael during her test; Rachael also has the glow in Deckard's home; Pris in Sebastian's. Zhora has the glow while in the club; Roy has the glow several times, most prominently while killing Tyrell. Deckard also has the shining in his eyes while talking to Rachael in his house.
It's a pretty common theory he might be a replicant retard

She's not the only person who makes the memories for replicants. The police chief says she saw K outside an "upgrade joint" meaning that there are more than one memory development places. You're saying in a theoretical scenario she could give away being born or something, but that's literally retarded and not something anyone with half a brain would even comprehend giving out. The horse memory isn't exclusive to K either.
Like I said user, it's entirely possible that there's no biological difference between a hybrid and an actual human. The bones linking their DNA is what's actually important, as it possible for them to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she is a hybrid.
I don't get that comment, but thanks for admitting i'm right lol
Luv only gets close because she follows K, aka the one doing actual investigation and being really smart. K himself only gets on track by being intelligent enough to guess there's a grave beneath the tree, which starts the whole mess.
I don't think she actually destroys them now that you mention it. Pretty sure they took them to examine them and see what they could figure out. Wallas wants the bones to see for himself for sure that there is a replicant that has given birth so he can disect her and figure out how to make them make babies

Still dumb.

>Exactly. What makes you think they'll believe the girl is who they say she is?
>I don't know how that changes whether its just the evidence or the girl.
What does it matter? She's still the symbol for the rebellion. They don't need to prove it, they have faith in her, which is the whole point.
>What makes her prophetic? How are they sure this knowledge is going to inspire a rebellion?
What makes a possible born replicant prophetic? Are you for real?
I'm not giving you more (You)s, you're clearly trolling or just completely stupid

So is this thread full of bait or are people really this fucking stupid?

It's one dude baiting extremely hard.

>deckard confirmed skinjob