Which is still sort of the point of the novel. At the time of the novel, they were being used by the government to develop colonies on Mars. Like in Martian Time Slip, the androids weren’t slaves exactly. Instead they were fake neighbors who gave a few human colonists the sense they were in a real populated town.
This contributed to the absurd comic tone of the story since Deckard wasn’t going up against deadly robotic soldiers, but just somebody’s idea of an average person you’d like to live next to. And he was killing them so he could afford to buy a live animal and keep up with neighbors he didn’t really like.
It’s also kinda cool that a lot of Dick’s stories are basically in the same world, but no one makes a big deal about it.
Pretty much what we’ve been saying.
Keeps saying 25 years instead of 35…I can’t get over that.
Source? That would be a huge shift for Scott, especially considering his Final Cut.
I think Scott always thought Deckard was a replicant simply because there are too many clues implying it even in the theatrical cut. I’m not sure he believes Deck’s memories came from Gaff though. Certainly the carving he does in the sequel implies that obliquely.
I think that was fan theory more than anything else.
I wasn’t when I left the theater but the more I thought about it, the more depressed I got.
Lt. Joshi is dead. Joi is dead, K is likely dead but his life is ruined because everything has been taken. the scene with the hologram who calls him Joe made me think that Joi giving him a name was programming and not a special connection she had with him, his memories are fake and Deckard isn’t really his dad. A worse part was the possibility that Deckard is moments away from being caught. The first time K visits the daughter, he walks out and is immediately arrested. Dr Stelline works for Wallace. Maybe he knew who she was all along & K’s investigation was just a ruse to flush out Deckard. NOW That is Depressing.
None of that bothered me because, like Ana says - it’s not about what really happened, but how it felt.
Much like Rachel could be copied and Deckard honors what he had with her. Something paralleled with the Giant Joi advert. Joi could be re-bought, and that K was wrong about his identity and he wasn’t special at all…he still acted on what he believed. I think that K died the death he wanted to die.
It’s tragic, but it is tragic in an uplifting way.
The film did poorly because people didn’t want to see it, so that doesn’t say much about whether it was a good movie. However, I wouldn’t recommend it to friends. Not so much because of the plot, but because it’s really too long in all the wrong ways.
Unlike Villenueve films like Sicario and Arrival, the length here loses tension instead of builds it. Everything takes too long. It takes K forever to go anywhere. It took him longer to get to San Diego than I do and his car flies!
He has a battle with random scavengers before he gets to the orphanage. He has a long fight with Deckard before they talk - and nothing is revealed in the conversation that’s worth all that time. Rather than building up to a powerful moment, I felt like I was just waiting and waiting some more for it.
What bothered me a bit by the end was that the final battle took place somewhere random. We hadn’t really been introduced to it before except in a flyover and it dint really mean anything. Had we even seen the launchpad they were heading to?
That answer is easy, the Theatrical. Also, love how that video states that the moodiness of the film is important, but then leans itself into the unicorn sequence which ruins the moodiness of that scene/.
(And yes, I do take offense at the “Bad” qualifier in this video’s title)
I waited a week to see it with my wife when we had a sitter and sort of wish I had done something else instead. I didn’t dislike it or anything but felt like it needed to either be more artsy or less artsy, if that makes sense. It was all kind of spelled out too plainly to be that drawn out, and it wasn’t stylish or compelling enough to justify being that long and slow. But it had some nice ideas bubbling around here and there, and some interesting themes trying to break free.
And I will put this in spoilers so Bernadette doesn’t see it…
I’ve seen Ryan Gosling in enough movies by now to say that I think he is just a terrible actor. A charisma vacuum and an absolute zero on screen. Swap him out for someone like Oscar Isaac and you have a considerably better movie, imo
Gosling is better suited in comic roles, where his matinee idol looks are undermined by slapstick awkwardness. It’s hard to take him seriously.
The more I think about 2049, the less I think is there thematically. It tells a compelling moral journey for its lead but there’s nowhere near the depth of ideas the original had. All the reviews saying this movie runs laps around the first one make me think the reviewers haven’t watched it in a while–or are just understandably high off the incredible visuals and sound.
The first movie asked the question “what makes us human?” But it wasn’t about that in a huge way. Because the answers are pretty simple: emotions, desires, interiority. The first Blade Runner had bigger questions to ask, life and death questions, questions about creation and civilization.
The new one takes the “what makes us human?” question, gives the same answers, and makes that the whole movie. I like how it portrays those answers, especially because I love Villeneuve’s visual style, but they aren’t challenging answers, they’re comforting ones.
2049’s greatest addition to Blade Runner’s world is Joi/the idea of computerized AI. It shines a light on the tension between programming and free will that has always been a part of Blade Runner; we understand a computer being programmed more clearly than replicants, whose origins and biology have always been a bit hazy. To me, the best moment in 2049 is the Joi ad calling K “Joe” and the uncomfortable space that puts him, and us, in. Considering K’s choice in the end, I’m not convinced the revelation that the name “Joe” was programming destroys his belief in her personhood. I think he comes to see, on some level, that there’s programming, digital or genetic or social, in everyone. And if he can see the value in her sacrifice then he can see past his own “soullessness” (he really only sees himself as soulless because his programming is less subtle than a real human’s) and make a similar sacrifice for Deckard.
Aye, like a replicant being in love with an A.I. would seem like the fakest thing in existence to a third party, much like how Gaff took Deckard’s love for Rachel, but I also believe that the billboard bit didn’t destroy K’s belief in personhood. It reaffirmed it. Both JOIs call him by the same pet name, but despite being the same down the detail - they can never be. Much like Clone-Rachel in the previous scene. When he saves Deckard, he’s going against what is practical - and what he has been ordered to do by the Rebellion - as it’s not about them. He does it for no cause but his own. Deckard’s “Who am I to you” (?) underlines that K is acting on the memories. False memories to him, yes, but stuff that still elicited emotion.
Yes, I thought the main theme in this film, and perhaps a secondary theme in the first film, is where do you find love, warmth, and connection in a world this cold?
You can see that here and there in movie, and there are moments where it is quite moving, but the sheer sprawl of the film makes it hard to resonate.
Agreed completely. The Nice Guys was his best performance, and he’s a Coen Brothers comedy waiting to happen. I just looked it up and his next role is playing Neil Armstrong. Huh.