This movie is damn good

Let's talk about it

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jCN9Akc9zbc
youtube.com/watch?v=6iqmIoHL74Y
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Okay.

It's a dishonest flick genetically engineered to appeal to juvenile imdbspawn redditors with no sense of sophistication who laud pseudo visuals, which supports upvote groupthink mentality, and meme acting with a good movie pandering reddit tier "subversion entertainment" sensibilities and a wannabe classic aesthetic

>2049 is Good
Wrong youtube.com/watch?v=jCN9Akc9zbc

youtube.com/watch?v=6iqmIoHL74Y

Why not ?

You're not even close to baseline.

Do you think Joi and K's love was geniune? Or did he realize at this scene it was just how she was programmed? My interpretation is the a.i. is similar to the replicates. Together they made each other feel "real" like they had a soul.

Try to review it without all those buzzwords.

>movie is genetically engineered
woah that is some james cameron level movie tech this guy ain't messin around huh!

>imdbspawn
>redditos
>laud pseudo visuals
>upvote
>groupthink mentality
>meme acting
>pandering reddit tier
>wannabe classic aesthetic

fuckin hell, user. Get off the internet. Learn some real words to describe things.

>pseudo visuals

This scene doesn't necessarily mean he realizes she was fake.
You can see it as him realizing that despite the fact that joi still exists and he could buy a new one, he doesn't want to because the joi he lost was real to him. She died like a real girl (what she told him when he told her he would lose her if he deleted the data from everywhere the emanator).

>pain reminds you the joy you felt was real

She was real to him, that's why he won't be able to replace her (which goes back to making her real), and why it hurts so much.

>Do you think Joi and K's love was geniune?
The longer Joi was with K the more data she collected and eventually became unique due to her gathered experiences.

The consensus seems to be that he realized he wasn't loved, just as he realized he wasn't special shortly beforehand, and I think this is most likely what was intended. I don't think the director was necessarily arguing that K and Joi's love wasn't genuine, though. Rather, it's just K's disillusioned perspective after his dream is shattered.

Maybe K realized in that scene that the distinction between real and not real doesn't actually matter.

so fucking reddit it hurts jesus christ

so fucking Sup Forums it hurts jesus christ

An insult that carries no weight

What do you think about Lieutenant Joshi's "what happens if I finish that?" dialogue? Why was she flirting with K? If she wants the Philip K's dick so badly, why didn't she just order him to fug her? Personally, I think she wanted K to express a sexual interest in her himself, of his own volition. She doesn't just want to order him to do her—she's "looking out for something real", in her own words. But why? What's her motivation? Is it just more hot if she doesn't force K into it? Or is she genuinely looking for some sort of human connection, perhaps seeking a break from her LAPD tough guy facade?

Luv is a cute!

She wanted replicant cock. She seems to be a very lonely women who was overly dedicated to her job. I think she was just as lonely as K, and genuinely cared for him.

She's not a rapist, likes him, would rather have him be into it and enjoy it too, and knows ordering a replicant to fuck you isn't right, especially for a police chief, and wouldn't enjoy that ?

Never mind, I figured it out. She just wants to feel desired, probably. She's a woman playing the traditionally masculine tough guy role. But there's probably still a small, buried part of her that wants to be desired.

Did Deckard really live in a wasteland for 30 years ? And where did he get the dog/bees

Hi red*it how are you

Replicant bees

love reddits attempt to transform this into a reddit movie

JUST

Pretty sure it was real because they had spent a lot of time together, and she was customizing and evolving based on those experiences.

He could get there again if he wanted, but it would take a long time I'm guessing.

>pseudo visuals
You're really stupid user

I thought she was provoking him and see if he would get angry if she finished his bottle of Vodka, testing his autonomy and obedience.

wow, you must be so mature and smart, fatass edgelord.

killing your own kind: constant K
drinking your vodka: baseline slipping

Kind of unrelated but I have a memory of a RedLetterMedia video after the 2049 review where Jay says something about the movie they're reviewing not having a boring, standard protagonist and an image of K pops up. Did this actually happen or am I imagining things? I think it might have been in one of the catch up videos.

She probably noticed that his was too human-like and she herself mentioned that she sometimes forgets the difference between humans and replicants. I think their relationship is more like a mother and son relationship, as she is willing to give K a second chance after the failed baseline test.

There needs to be an Alien/Blade Runner crossover movie.

...

Just pretend that Ash, Bishop and David are replicants.

we talked about it when it was in theaters last year. what's your excuse for being this late to the party? are you from a literal shithole 3rd world country where it didn't get a theatrical release?

But it takes everything from the original. Why not just discuss the original then?
And why did the replicants view replicant birth as a "miracle"? Why did Wallace want the child? None of it makes sense, there's no indication that it was special

>this movies damn good

Nice Reddit introduction

>supporting dishonest cinema

He have a skinjob right here.

Did you watch the movie? Both these points were clearly and unambiguously explained.
>HURR its the same as the first so I only watched that!

It absolutely was genuine and he knows it. What i got from that scene is "how shit this is that these gay jois get exist when my pure joi died"

Can you clearly explain them to me, please?

Building replicants is hard and expensive, Wallace wants to make them able to breed so he can make exponentially more of them.

>Both these points were clearly and unambiguously explained.
No, they're not. The replicants now view non-biological aspects like "soul" and whatever else as a defining measure of humanity, but that's just fanfiction-tier writing and adds more questions then it answers. Wallace himself is ambiguous and gives one-liners that amount to quips (e.g. "you do not yet know what pain is", etc), and neither him nor the narrative explain the significance of replicant reproduction. Given they're biological in nature, they should be able to procreate and give birth, and either be sterile or not. It's not complicated, if you can implant memories, you can make them sexually viable (in terms of sophistication of technology and biological manipulation). But it's not explained why Wallace cannot create them so.

I thought Wallace's reason was kind of underwritten too. He says it's because he can only make so many, but never really elaborates on why replicants giving birth would be faster than just having replicants building places to make replicants that build places to make more replicants. The result is the same, because it's not like giving birth magically changes the amount of resources needed to create them. Also for someone who's so big on control, you'd think replicants giving birth would completely fuck up your ability to do that since they'd be essentially as unpredictable as humans and have no memories imprinted.

I think going beyond what he explicity says, there's probably a real sense of playing God there though. To know that someone else managed to do it, and no matter how hard he tries he can't replicate it really fucks with his ego.

No, I'm telling you, it's a brilliant idea.

>But it's not explained why Wallace cannot create them so.
This part is true, the rest of your post is idiotic and makes me think you didn't see the film but are simply reading a summary of the plot.

The evolution of the replicant.

gee that's a lot of buzzwords user

Physiologically what is the difference between humans and replicants?

That's the obvious, but it's just given as-is.
>can implant memories, suggest minute control of brain matter
>can't create functioning reproductive organs
It makes no sense. Furthermore, the significance of Deckard's daughter amounts to nothing in the last act of the film. Her character is only significant to K, as she's the one who gave him his most precious and authentic memory, but really, it doesn't matter that she's a half-breed replicant. "Miracle" amounts to a hyperbole.

>it's not like giving birth magically changes the amount of resources needed to create them.

but it very clearly does.

We at least know that building a replicant requires manpower and a factory. Its very obvious that the biological route would be faster.

>villeneuve is a good directo-
One second the cigarette is in his mouth and then it magically appears in his hand
BRAVO VILLENEUVE!

No it doesn,t how many people do they have working at hospistal?

The "miracle" is something Sapper Morton says, it might not be meant literally, probably more along the lines of "something incredible that gives your life meaning", rather than "impossible supernatural event". Replicants are basically humans, only they're made in a lab instead of being born, this clearly bothers them, even K is troubled by the implications of this for his "soul". If they could give birth then they would be "real humans" and thus "ensouled".

As to why he wants to breed them instead of building them, he says this very clearly, a replicant needs a whole team of highly skilled experts and a huge factory to build, a baby only needs nutrients and care.

>93362189
There was nothing good in this film. There were too many plot holes. Characters popped in and died out of no where. There was no humanity anywhere. The main character has an attraction to a simulation while he spends his time killing replicants. So exciting...

The entire movie was a pornography/dystopia orgy

Would you rather live in Blade Runner world or Blader Runner 2049 world?

Oh, how embarrassing.

Either is fine tbqh

There's enough time off-cam that passes for him to grab the cig. Pretty nit picky compared to more OVERALL problems with the film.

we know of the guy who builds eyes, we know of Deckards Daughter who creates memories. There are probably hundreds of people involved in designing and building a single replicant and it doesnt seem to be possible to automatize it to a degree where its sufficiently fast enough to compete with the snowball system of biological life (which is common sense really).

>here's enough time off-cam that passes for him to grab the cig
No, because you see his back and his shoulder doesn't move. Very poor editing, amateur hour. Glad it flopped at the box office

Plebbit absolutely BTFO'd. Based.

>No humanity anywhere.
>Big twist is that K is actually a replicant
BRAVO DENIS

Literally making up head canon to supplement obvious inconsistencies.

>Her character is only significant to K
There you go then. This is K's story.

Did you watch blade runner 2049
I know you're trolling but this is a lot of effort for nothing here

Some of the people in this thread truly makes me detest Sup Forums.

I thought it was good, but I also think it's weirdly overrated here. The best thing about it was the aesthetics, visual and auditory. The characters were inconsequential, the story was fine, the acting was ok. It's sort of like Fury Road in terms of its value. Honestly only slightly better than the new Star Wars, not to imply that TLJ was amazing or anything. It's odd to me when the Sup Forums culture decides some (admittedly well produced) vapid action movie is the best movie of the year when it's overwhelmingly critical of movies that are literally on the same tier, just a little less successful. Although vapid is probably too strong a word. But yea, shit like this, and Fury Road, and John Wick, etc. are all pretty much on the same tier for me as Marvel, just sliiightly more consistent.

Sup Forums is the best and worst board.

When did you realize you were profoundly retarded?

t. literally a brainlet

>Honestly only slightly better than the new Star Wars
stopped reading there

>The best thing about it was the aesthetics, visual and auditory.
What else is there?

>>can't create functioning reproductive organs
>It makes no sense.
Replicants are already heavily bio engineered. At some point just putting a vagoo and a poono there is not enough and you need to create special replicant sperm but you just don't know how.

Giving up all the things that go into building them also gives up all delusions of control though, which is why the replicants are so big on the idea since it would mean their "people" at least have the potential for a future that wasn't determined for them by the factory. Which leads to the villain and his opponents having the exact same goal. They're killing the very miracle they worship by keeping it from the one person who can make it happen again. Wallace's goals would inevitably result in replicants just being an evolution of humanity, replacing them entirely because they'd simply be better at literally everything.

Still doesn't explain why the replicants would risk their lives and die to protect what is essentially a random child. How does keeping this half-breed help to further replicant rights and freedom? How is dying for such cause the "most humane" thing a replicant can do?

How cool would it be to watch K fight a Xenomorph? I'm telling you, a Blade Runner/Alien movie would be perfect.

ZOMG! his movie...it was so astonishlgly amaxingly..unbelievably slightly just barely above average. Lets talk obaout it!

yeah this. Its believable that creating working ovaries and egg-cells that could actually develop would be the hardest part.

Fertility is a tricky thing if you look at crossbreeding for example.

>Still doesn't explain why the replicants would risk their lives and die to protect what is essentially a random child.
Yes it does, the child represents their ONLY hope for freedom. If they could breed, they could build an army. If they could breed, they'd be "real" and the humans would have to accept them. If they could breed, then they could give their children REAL memories, and live vicariously thru them. The child represents the hope of their lives having value and meaning, people have killed for far less.

>Wallace's goals would inevitably result in replicants just being an evolution of humanity, replacing them entirely because they'd simply be better at literally everything.

well..yes? You might have noticed he isnt the most rational guy and sort of has a god complex. His goal seems to make humanity conquer the stars which requires countless of replaceable workers. Replicants or humans, doesnt matter he just wants more.

Jesus Christ guys, this is what I'm talking about. You must be the same people that think Children of Men is the best film of the century. Not that I hate that one either.

You already know the answer to this, but characters, stories, ideas, and emotions. There were some decent ideas in BR2049, but really just the typical cliches of the scifi genre. How many times are we going to maintain interest in the "will computers have souls?" premise? It's the plot of like every single one of them, and this is no 2001. Again, this sounds probably more critical than I actually feel about it, but when the culture surrounding it is "this movie is actually amazing" and critique of it that puts it on it's actual level, realistically, is met with shitpost tier defensiveness because it was an above average action movie. I liked it, but come on.

Pretty much every scene causes feels in this kino.

>"will computers have souls?" premise? I

Oh jesus christ thats the premise of the FIRST one! BR2049 does NOT question whether replicants have souls (its simply assumed they have) its about whether it fucking means anything!

>he thinks visuals =/= story
Spoken like a true mental midget

>If they could breed
What are they planning to do, breed this one single woman to fuel their army? No, so her existence is irrelevant. And it's been decades, and nothings come of it. And if Wallace is trying to do the same, then their goals are in line. Not to mention that K, Luv, and other replicants are shown to be capable of independent thought and emotion despite being skinjobs, and the original film already established that replicants are capable of humanity and finding meaning in life itself.
>and the humans would have to accept them
Doesn't add up. Recall the orphanage slave factory? Hundreds of human children living like bottom-barrel trash. A replicant child would be treated no better, if not worst. If anything, replicants reproducing would be viewed as a threat amongst the general population.,

Yet none as powerful as the original.

>What are they planning to do, breed this one single woman to fuel their army?

use it as a symbol and proof of their cause first and foremost.

Joi's part in the story asks the same question, and honestly she was still the best character in the movie, despite being a pretty typical theme.

I'm not saying that visuals aren't a huge part of storytelling, but to say that are fundamentally the same concept is a pretty ridiculous conflation.

I mean, it's alright if you turn your brain off

What a dumb totally unrelated comparison of scenes.
Here's an actual valid comparison.

This part bothered me. Just how joi was able to kill two cops and no manhunt or anything.

>Joi's part in the story asks the same question,

it also answers it pretty clearly and she is only a part of K.s existential struggle.

Torrent?