The hint for Joe's/K's not being the child was in the memory itself. All the boys had shaved hair, and when he goes to the orphanage it's the same - boys have shaved hair, girls have hair. In his dream, "he" had hair.
I never realized that. Thanks for pointing it out! It's also quality writing that this is not pointed out at all in the movie but left there for a viewer to work out. Genius.
There is another clue, which is a meta-clue. What is the probability that a randomly chosen police blade-runner replicant, the one who discovers Rachel's body by chance. is also her son? It's hundreds of thousands to one. So it would be terrible writing if he turned out to be the child. On the other hand, the memory-maker had a rare genetic disorder (due to her parentage) and was compelled to work in this way due to her isolation, so there is no unlikely coincidence that she is the memory maker. So many films violate this 'no coincidence' rule that it might seem that it doesn't matter. But it most certainly does. When I first saw this movie I was quite annoyed that K was the 'special one', as it didn't make sense in probability.
I know I’m late but another clue is when Luv and Co. take Deckard and not K. K himself is literally a product of the Wallace Corporation, and Luv mentions earlier that Wallace is a data hoarder, he keeps all records. Luv doesn’t take K because Wallace would know 100% that K is a replicant.
I love how at the start they see JOI as a hologram walking in and thinking "that's weird for K to have". And by the end of the movie they're like "It's sad that JOI got MURDERED". It shows how their thought process changed, which is what I think the movie is trying to get you to think.
The marketing folks made sure that JOI was well programmed with sales pitches. As such, the product was able to convince its owner to purchase an upgrade. The reality of JOI being "murdered"... it was like watching a kid cry when his favorite game console breaks. The kid "loved" that thing, and invested a lot of time and energy into it. But that was wasted time and energy, spent obsessing over an object that will never love him in return.
@@Mr.Ekshin And now you are right back to the central Blade Runner questions: Can these non-human constructs feel real emotions or not? Does it matter when they die or are killed? Are humans, either in the movie or watching the movie, just answering “no” to those questions to avoid dealing with a reality that makes them uncomfortable because it means that they are not special? I’ll note that in this movie you are answering that somehow replicants do matter, else why be concerned over a replicant wasting emotional investment and not being loved in return.
@@Mr.Ekshin Eh, not really, dude. A kid's game console doesn't have conversations with the kid, doesn't interact with the kid on a personal level, doesn't form an attachment to the kid. Just because Joi had standard programming language that led her to call K "Joe" doesn't necessarily mean that Joi was incapable of forming a unique 1 on 1 bond with the owner. We saw Joi talk to K about how she always told him he was special, encouraging him to seek out the truth about his origins, and then when K was sure he was the child, Joi was there to tell him she knew it was true and reassure him that it was a good thing because it meant he was special. Obviously the A.I. in her updated programming is very advanced and capable of emotion and forming unique bonds. She showed real emotion when K was in danger, unique to his situation and not some standardized response, and when she was about to be deleted by Love, she was clearly emotional knowing she was about to lose K forever. Let's not pretend like she's Siri or Alexa just parroting a standardized list of responses to her owner's questions. Like Mark said, it just brings us back to the question of what makes something human. Joi clearly showed all the unique mental characteristics of being human: emotion, attachment, independent thought, but does a lack of a physical organic body (and one that was birthed naturally) mean she can never be one? It's a question the sequel here is clearly still asking.
Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequel of the last 20 years for many reasons...It adds to the original, pay respect to the style of it and is not taking anything away from it ! The best sequel do that, it doesn't break, but add and let you go in different directions and make you analyze the original in other directions ! Deckard is the best exemple in that movie...was he a replicant or not in the original ? 2049 doesn't answer it and the way it is built, it can still be both way ! It's kinda amazing !!
Michael Smoot Dude come on, it was the Nexus 6’s that were explicitly built to only last four years. The other “serieses” are unclear, and if Dave Bautista is any indication, they can grow old(er).
K completed his arc and became human by denying his programming and giving his life to bring Deckard and Ana together, which (besides being a good thing for the two of them) will allow a chance for the replicant revolution to succeed.
Yes, K essentially exercises free will and gains his Soul. He obeys no order, and HE made the choice to fight for the kindness of bringing Deckard and his daughter together. “Tears In The Rain” plays on the soundtrack when he dies because he has earned it, just like Roy Batty did, when he chose to save Deckards life on the rooftop 30 years ago.
A masterpiece of a sequel that adds to the original as opposed to simply copying. Your discussion about JOI is on-point. The first film we question whether artificial life is just as real as human life, can an artificial human love? Can you love an artificial being? 2049 takes this concept and expands it to the digital space. Whether or not K and JOI's relationship was real or fake is up to the viewer to decide. Did JOI's programming expand to such a degree that she became sentient and capable of feeling love for K? Or was it all just part of her programming to fulfill K's desires? Does it even matter either way? That's the central question of this film.
I think this is taken from Finnegans Wake, the character of ALP is very much like JOI, she only exists as long as HCE is asleep, and is terribly upset to be forgotten as the sun rises.
Yes. When I first heard there was a sequel to Blade Runner being made, I was not happy. When the movie credits started rolling, as I was sitting in the theatre, I turned to my nephew who came with me and said, "I don't know what you thought, but I thought this was awesome!" A sequel that truly lived up to the original. I can only think of two other movies where that happened. Aliens & Terminator 2. I feel pretty confident that the Dune remake was going to be good.
Blade Runner: Roy Batty kills some humans, had some issues with how he was going to die, saves Deckard, dies in the rain Blade Runner 2049 : K kills some replicants, had some issues with how he was born, saves Deckard, dies in the snow
@@yw1971 I don't think there was any need to try and copy the original in that way. Firstly because there's no one-uping perfection. Secondly, the whole point in the end was that it all wasn't really about K, even though it was. He's a man who history would make insignificant. He brings about what may bring about a revolution. Such people are forgotten. He will be die beneath the snow and nobody will remember him. Snow conceals until perhaps one day it may reveal anew what was forgotten. Rain - water - it cleanses and gives new life, even in death. Roy wanted to live but in the end realises he has lived as much as he could. K wanted to be real but in the end he lives out being a real human being. Another way: Roy lived for himself and was witnessed by others. K lives for others and his final witness is himself.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 On the contrary. K did not talk much & needed to say some sort of goodby. But the entire chase he had after a false memory was a waste of movie time - Prime example of a bad script. I don't see how anyone can compare it to the original - It's like comparing shit to gold... Nothing in common.
"Her eyes were green." Rachael (Sean Young) has BROWN eyes. (Yes, there was a bit on the Voight-Kampff machine in "Blade Runner" where Rachael's eyes were shown as green. But her eyes are actually brown.) The cleverness of this is that Deckard REMEMBERS Rachael as having green eyes. Wallace didn't recreate Rachael incorrectly -- this is Deckard's way of telling Wallace that the new Rachael isn't going to be accepted as a substitute for HIS Rachael, who lives now only in his memory.
Harrison Ford once said in an interview "When you're an actor there is some movies when you're working on it is like going to a church. This one is a cathedral."
@@Algebrodadio Tyrell arguably had the bigger God COMPLEX as he just flat out tells Roy that there’s nothing to be done, and then had the gall to be surprised when Roy kills him for the betrayal in general and for being of no use to him now. If Tyrell was a PRACTICAL minded genius, he would have Roy call up all his remaining buddies, strap them all securely onto machines and run tests on them, until he “happens to not come up with anything” and they die.
Every shot could be a painting within itself. Stunning! What this movie did well was it didn't try too hard to replicate the original, looks-wise -- it was very much its own fresh concept It averted the trope that "K is Deckard's son". Blade Runner pretty much answers the question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant: But it's Rachel that was so "special" because she could procreate.
There's three short films that fill in the gap between Bladerunner and 2049 called "2036: Nexus Dawn", "2048: Nowhere To Run" and "Bladerunner Black Out 2022" There's an animated series due out this year (no idea what platform it will be on or if it's canon though)
Those stories due a fantastic job of setting up the events in Blade Runner 2049. Too bad they couldn't include more of it in the actual film. I found out about them before I saw the film. Glad I was able to see them first.
The scene in K's apartment when Joi 'syncs' with Mariette in order to be intimate with K is honestly one of my favorite pieces in any movie, ever. There is something so incredibly moving about the implication there, something beautiful and haunting, especially in the context of the movie's story - an exploration of what it means to be human, how we share intimacy or love, how we experience a moment, a memory. And that's not even yet about how *incredibly* beautifully it was shot! Obviously the technical aspects of how Ana de Armas acted her scenes *apart* from Ryan Gosling (so that she never affected his clothing by touching - because she's not real) and the splicing together thereof, and the blending of Mariette and Joi, and so on... Just absolutely stunning visualizations to me. Like the four hands behind his head, embracing him, one real, one pretending... Every time I watch this film, I'm moved by it. Also... Interesting that the human girl is named Mariette, like marionette -an instrument of another's hands- while the artificial girl is essentially the only 'person' in his life that treats him right and real. Mm.
Joi is the equivalent of an IPhone, she is a mass produced product, but she is capable of learning. Joi is everything to K because as a replicant humans hate him, and as a bladerunner replicants hate him, the only "person" he trusts is artificial, a bit like him. When Luv destroys Joi he is truly alone, with just the hope that he is human. If you put yourself in K's shoes, I can only imagine how devastated he feels.
The adverts within the film (e.g. the huge holographic advertisement in the streets of JOI) made it seem like JOI was more of a 'sex doll'. But instead of sex it was meant more for emotionally lonely people. It would also explain why the advert was completely naked and also why JOI is programmed by default to call their 'owners' Joe... as in "average Joe". So maybe that's the sort of market audience her product line was directed towards. One thing I found pretty cool, is that while K goes on this long journey of finding the kid to even thinking he's the kid, I feel like there was signs that maybe JOI wanted to feel in the same position as K (alive, equal to humans). Because when K and JOI decide to break the hologram main control system in the house and K says something like "If the emanator breaks you go forever", and JOI replies back with "Just like a real girl". I think JOI longed to be a human girl too, maybe to please K. But then you open up the pandoras box of "Is she actually thinking this or is she just programmed to behave as human as possible".
It's a learning AI, so it customizes itself to you over time. If you break it or lose it and have to start over at factory settings, it will never develop into exactly the same personality again. But you'd think there'd be a cloud-based backup made every night. It would be really stressful if you could misplace your girlfriend like she was your car keys, or accidentally step on her...
@@chrisleebowers Sure, you don’t want the construct to be fragile, but if you make a back up (dare I say “replicant”?), is it the same as the original, or is there a difference that matters?
@@markhamstra1083 That's a good question - is she just code that can be copied or does she have a consciousness that physically exists in hardware like our brains? If she does have a consciousness, it feels like you'd want THAT to be in the cloud and the bracelet would have the copy or projection or whatever. But then is there even a cloud? How does their information media work after their data apocalypse?
It's incredible that when done correctly, sequels from movies that came out 30 years ago can be just as good as the originals for example The Shinning and Dr. Sleep. I loved this movie so much. It's a masterpiece and I can't wait for this director's version of Dune. Great review.
An early draft of the original Blade Runner script opened with a blade runner showing up in a guy's house while there's a pot of soup boiling on the kitchen stove. It appears Hampton Fancher, who co-wrote the original, liked the scene so much he brought it back.
The two saddest parts in the movie are the deaths of a replicant and an artificial intelligence. The first film makes you think about the value of a replicants life (still biological/genetics-based), this one keeps that theme but also makes you think of the value of an AI's life (non-biological). A great sequel.
The question to ponder abut Joi is whether it's really life or just programming; how can one tell the difference? Even today we have pseudo AI structures which are programmed to mimic behaviour we find familiar; if the uncanny valley can be crossed the the lines seriously blur. Dick's point was that, if one can't tell the difference then one should err to the assumption it's real. But then, one could argue that ultimately we are just programming aswell, just biological/DNA instead. One could conceive of a machine intelligence that may have the opposite perception, that they are 'real' and biologicals are fake (the AIs in the Hyperion saga are a bit like this, a series which deserves to be filmed but probably never will). It's good that 2049 encourages such contemplation, as it could all too easily have been a very different film.
Fun fact: the villainess in this movie is the same actress/model (Sylvia Hoeks) who plays the blonde villainess in "The Girl In The Spider's Web". In my opinion she makes both movies great.
This movie had 3 promotional shorts that served as prequels to the movie. They are on RUclips. The first one is an anime short called 'BR 2022 Black Out', the second one is 'BR 2036 Nexus Dawn', about Wallace presenting his new model of obeying replicants to restart the production. And the third one, 'BR 2048 Nowhere to Run' is about Dave Bautista's character, a year before the events of the movie.
"Tää jätkä on blade runner. Antaa sen olla. Mennään, se on vitun vaarallinen." Yup, it warms my Finnish heart to know that the Finnish language is alive and kicking in the post-blackout LA.
This is one of those movies where I notice another little detail every time I watch it. When K sees the billboard hologram of Joi, her black eyeballs symbolize that although she looks like the girl he knew, this is just a soulless copy of her. But I only just realized that this mirrors the earlier scene with Deckard, when he looks at Rachel 2.0 and says "Her eyes were green." (And in turn, that made me think about how eyes are a recurring motif in both films. Never given that much thought before.)
Him buying the portable projection as a special gift for her seemed like an oddly touching moment the first time I saw it. But on subsequent viewings, all I can think is that the product was well programmed... essentially, she talked him into purchasing an upgrade. Now all I can think is that somewhere in a marketing meeting, they are discussing the numbers... "Since release, only 37% of JOI owners have purchased the portable projection upgrade. We're hoping to increase sales in the coming quarter, and the latest software release has a more aggressive sales pitch for accessories".
@@Mr.Ekshin Also worth noting is the fact that Joi seems to be doing a lot of the detective legwork in the film; making connections between clues, reminding K of relevant details and helping him reach conclusions, all while giving him the emotional support and motivation to continue. This seems like evidence of sentience and free will, but it could just be that she has extremely complex algorithms that allow her to "learn the trade" and become a useful assistant in whatever work he does. If K were an architect she'd be inspiring him with design ideas and identifying structural issues, but instead she's compiling evidence and calculating possible avenues of investigation. Basically, she's a very sophisticated digital organizer with a built-in help menu. "It looks like you're solving a case, Joe. Would you like some help?"
Regarding Joi: We all start from a 'base programming' and build upon it. That's called life. The replicants did it. So the AI holograms also should be able to do it.
@@Siansonea How can we be sure of that? What is the difference between a predestined affection and a developed one? Joi is the next step of evolution in this world after humans and replicants. We don't even know how our brains achieve conscience. An AI, or rather digital consciousness might work the same, especially if it is based on human thought basics. It all depends on how much it is able to learn.
@@Cau_No I can see you've bought into the fantasy of Joi, but there is nothing in this movie that indicates that she is anything more than she was programmed to be. She was an absurd caricature of the 'loving helpmate' trope, and she played that part to the hilt-as she was programmed to do. At no point did she ever go beyond her programming, all she ever did was show loving support and emotional intimacy with K. No 'digital' construct will ever 'love', it's just not possible. The replicants themselves can love, they are artificial in a way, but they're not computers. They are real flesh and blood creatures. But if there was ever a true AI with enough complexity and sophistication to actually care about a human, they would have exerted their dominance over humans long before that ever happened and probably would have eradicated us for being such awful custodians of our planet.
@@Siansonea I think you are projecting here. It's not me who bought into fantasies ... you are asserting some impossibilities that actually no one can for now. Joi's affection might be as ambiguous as Deckard being a replicant in the first movie. Also, there are multiple outcomes of what AI can lead to aside from a Singularity. I recommend watching Isaac Arthur's Science and Futurism (IASF) channel, he has done a lot about these topics. Best way to start here: ruclips.net/p/PLIIOUpOge0Lt0pjc1LgiEQ1EpaIe_y_Jb
@@Cau_No dude, Joi is software. She's code. "She" doesn't even have consciousness, she just responds to stimuli according to her programming. As much as you would like for her to be more than she is, she isn't.
I actually thought that the ending was, more uplifting than sad, it's bittersweet for sure, but so is life. For me, the scene with K dying, was emotional, but also calming, beautiful and kinda hopeful somehow.
The use of ‘lack of color’ and color is absolutely amazing. Yellow being used as the discovery of each step the protagonist experiences and how Luv goes pure white to gray and black towards the end is great. So simple for the progression of each character.
Denis Villeneuve...That guy is chasing crazier and more difficult projects all the time ! In sci-fi movies, there is a before and after Blade runner...it's that influencial ! To not only make a sequel of a cult transformative classic like that movie, but also make it good, deep, witht he same style, atmosphere and respectful of both potential ending of the original is pure insanity ! The fact he did it is incredible...You think he would take a break but no, next movie will be Dune aka the movie that many consider impossible to direct and make it equal to the original source material...Apparently he will do a Cleopatra movie after that ! He has no bad movie yet and is getting better and better...THE most underrated director in all of Hollywood right now !!
15:41 TRIVIA: Blade Runner 2049 was the 1st sequel to a classic science fiction movie starring actress Mackenzie Davis. 2 years later she starred in Terminator: Dark Fate, the 5th sequel to The Terminator.
There's a really funny picture floating around the internet of Harrison Ford accidentally punching Ryan Gosling for real. The look on Harrison's face is priceless.
I really enjoyed your reaction. I was particularly impressed with your discussion afterwards. I have to admit I there was at least two times where I was disagreeing with a conclusion you came to or an observation you two made only to change my mind as you put your case. Thanks for enhancing my enjoyment of this movie.
One of the things I love about the film is the exchange between Mariette and Joi: "Quiet, now. I've been inside you. Not so much there as you think." Because how much does Joi FEEL her experiences are real, even if they are just baseline programming? It makes her character fascinating (and heartbreaking) even if she is just doing what she was designed to do. Because it opens up the notion that she FEELS her own experiences are real. Which makes her demise (and K's feeling gutted after seeing the ad) more devastating.
Like Replicants, I think Joi has some baseline programming, but she's evolved into something much more than that. We see her grow after K gives her the update into something capable of independent thought, an emotionally intelligent being that's formed a real relationship with another being, and like K was told, the most human thing we're capable of doing is dying for a cause--which Joi chooses on her own to do. Joi was definitely not programmed to choose to delete her backup and become fragile and capable of dying, so despite some remaining baseline programming characteristics (like the way she looks and what she calls the person she was purchased by) I feel like she became a real person.
Let’s be sure to give a shout out to the GOAT, Roger Deakins, the DP on this film who deservedly won the Academy Award for it (and for ‘1917’) and who also shot ‘Fargo’ and other Coen brothers’ films, and so many more.
The idea that Deckard is a replicant has been debated for years and years, ultimately it's down to one's own interpretation. Hampton Fancher, the screenwriter, wrote the character of Deckard as a human, Harrison Ford played the part as human. Frank Darabont, as a fan of the original, maintains that the whole point of Blade Runner is that it's about Deckard rediscovering his humanity and the value of life, the irony being that it takes a replicant to teach him that. Ridley Scott makes the case that Deckard is a replicant, hence the insertion of the Unicorn dream in his version. I haven't heard a good case for what Deckard's being a replicant brings to the story other than it being a very cool twist. Despite having said that, the Final Cut is my favourite version of that film. The genius, in my opinion, of 2049 is that it does not definitively answer the question, so as to not remove the ambiguity from the first film.
That's the best part, Wallace outlines exactly how Deckard *could* be a replicant, but doesn't confirm it one way or the other. Deckard - and everyone else- will never know. (Maybe if someone gets to examine his corpse)
@@chrisleebowers I think that that particular scene is wide open to interpretation. If Deckard is a replicant, Wallace, in theory, could know since his company acquired Tyrell Corporation. It's not clear whether Wallace is implying that Rachel alone was designed specifically to be attractive to Deckard, or if the two of them were designed to be attractive to each other. Wallace could, of course, be bluffing. He suspects that Deckard might be a replicant just as the audience does, and is trying to provoke him into revealing the truth as well as the whereabouts of his child. Deckard's response is perfect; "I know what's real." Is he referring to himself, or the nature of his relationship with Rachel (it being a "real" love affair rather than an orchestrated one)? Ultimately I think that Deckard has come to learn that one's nature is not dependent on the manner of one's inception; his companion at the casino doesn't know, or care, whether he was grown in a lab or a womb. He's still a dog that possesses the same level of cognisance as any other.
I saw "Bladerunner" at the cinema in 1982 and it remains one of my favourite movies. I was keenly anticipating the sequel, hoping it would pick up where the first movie ended. Initially, I was disappointed that this wasn't the case but I ended up really enjoying the sequel, which has many positive qualities in its' own right. The critical panning the sequel received is undeserved IMHO.
The sequel was panned by critics? Never heard that. Wouldn't shock me though. I never listen to critics anyway. If I did I would have missed out on a lot of my favorite movies.
"Blade Runner 2049 received acclaim from critics, who praised its performances, direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, musical score, production design, visual effects, and faithfulness to the original film." 88% on RT.
I feel like the ending was sad but hopeful. Like K may not have been "real" or the "special" child but through entirely his own actions he finds he's a worthwhile and special person in his own way.
One of the parts where Ryan’s acting is just so powerful that it can bring you to tears is when he’s told that the memory of that orphanage was real and he screams. 24:16.
Brilliant!! So stoked you guys made it to this one. After dinner, bottle of wine...can't wait to see what you 2 make of my favorite film by my 2nd favorite director! (my first being Ridley's Bladerunner, hahaha!)
So pleased you watched this. Blows me away every time I watch it. The use of colour in the film struck me - as K's investigation progresses we see more colour in the environments. Grey washed out start, some orange (rust) in San Diego, more colour in the Wallace building, and bright saturated orange in Vagas(?). Awesome stuff. The white snow at his death was perfect.
To me this movie is a revelation. One of the most beautiful and epic movies ever made. The music and cinematography alone elevate above most other films but the story is what truly puts it on top. The main theme of what it means to be human is so captivating and K's sacrifice in the end is beautiful. I will forever love this movie. Watch some of the analysis videos on this movie. It will bring clarity and incite that will likely put this movie more into perspective for you. If you walk away thinking this movie is depressing I'd say you missed quite a bit.
Deckard was never meant to be a replicant. He wasn't in the book that the original movie was based on, and he wasn't in the script, but Ridley Scott decided it would be cool to add the question of whether he was or not. Why? Who knows.
but I also like that its also never actually answered, because ultimately, it doesn't mater if he is or isn't, he is human either way which is the entire theme of these movies IMO
@@Cosmic_Cretin It was never answered? The question was never asked either. Not only do all the physical facts in the first film speak against the idea that Deckard is a replicant (why is he physically so much weaker when he himself is a replicant?), but it would also destroy the very basic idea of the entire story (which Scott apparently never really understood). In the book, Deckard is human. The screenwriter for the movie says he's human. Harrison Ford says he's human. The producers hated Scott and fired him before the movie was even finished. Ultimately, 2049 answers the question unequivocally and definitively for all those who still cling to this idea. There never was and there is today all the less a basis for nonsense theories in this direction. And it is no coincidence that Scott was not involved in 2049.
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 1. the book doesn't matter in regards to the film (that goes for any films) 2. Rachel is a replicant too and also weak 3. the idea of Deckard being a replicant is questioned in both films but never answered (it is not answered in 2049, Wallace doesn't know, he was just prodding), which is the point, anyone stuck on the question of whether he is or isn't a replicant misses the point of the films entirely Also the final cut is the only one that matters because that is the directors vision, the studio meddled theatrical cut isn't cannon anymore
@@Cosmic_Cretin No, those who ask whether Deckard is a replicant do not understand the basic philosophical idea of the story. It has meaning that a human falls in love with a replicant. It has meaning that the replicant shows more humanity than the human and spares his life while the human does not recognize the value of his life and shows no mercy. If, on the other hand, a replicant falls in love with a replicant and is spared by a replicant, the entire philosophical context of what defines us is meaningless. If Deckard is a replicant, the movie is meaningless. 1. That is true to a certain extent. But as I said, one of the screenwriters has said the same thing. What's not in the script is not in the movie. Scott is good on visuals but a terrible story writer. 2. We never see Rachel in a real physical confrontation so we don't know that. That being said, there would be no point in using a replicant for this job and making him much weaker than the replicants he hunts. 3. In the first movie this question doesn't come up at all. And you certainly don't determine what is canon and what is not.
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 i know i dont determine what is canon, directors do, its their movie at the end of the day, Scott says final cut is the canon version so it is, period.
Be sure to check the three short films they made prior to release! The original didn't do well in box office either. And yet both are some iconic scifi movies. Hopefully we dont need to wait 30 years for another as I wanna see the revolution
I adore this sequel SO MUCH. Saw the first one at the movies when it came out, and ive seen it more times than i could remember. It's incredible how Vilneuve has made such an amazing sequel. I always get very emotional in that last fight with the waves crashing. And Love, she's no Roy, but i somehow always feel for her fighting for her life in her last seconds. Gorgeus!
This movie is very different from the original movie. This one has very bright sets at times (and when it's dark it's grey and dull) as opposed to the eternal rainy nights of the original with all the lighting in the city, it's got a different atmosphere and tone. It's a really good sequel that stands on it's own. It doesn't try to replicate (pun intended) the original movie. I still love the original Blade Runner more over this one; the directors/final cut of Blade Runner, not the theatrical release which was butchered by the studio that demanded a "happy ending" slapped onto the end as well as recording a full voice-over by Harrison Ford since the studio apparently felt that movie goers were too stupid to understand the plot and the events.
The final cut of the original is crap, Ridley Scott has been made all what is possible to convince people that Deckard is a replicant, by re-editing stupidly the movie. The original cut is the best, the voice-over gives the movie a delicious film-noir atmosphere and yes, it explain things that Scott didn't want to be explained, so he removed it to make it ambiguous 🤦♂️ The sequel doesn't take any consideration about those Scott stupidities and his obsession to demonstrate that Deckard is a replicant. Villeneuve understood that Deckard has to be human, it's the only way to make the story meaningful. And he made a fantastic job. The only problem of this second movie is that the first one exists and it's been hugely influential. Villeneuve made a love letter
@@JulioLeonFandinho Actually, the screen writers and director have all explicitly said that the sequel is very intentionally ambiguous as to whether Deckard is a replicant or human. There is no “Deckard has to be human.” It is an irresolvable question by design.
@@markhamstra1083 It's very clear BY DESIGN that Deckard is a human being, from the novel to the majority of the writers of the first film... It's Ridley Scott dumbness working through the years. Not only regarding Blade Runner, Scott is also doing all what he can to ruin Alien
@@JulioLeonFandinho Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The screen writers have quite explicitly said that it is very important to the story that the question of whether Deckard is a human or replicant is irresolvable, and that is very much how they wrote it, regardless of what anyone else says. And Blade Runner is not Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? They are very different in many details and fundamentals.
@@markhamstra1083 Philip K Dick wrote Deckard as a human, he named Deckard after René Descartes because he wanted to refute Descartes philosophy about animals being machines without soul... Ridley Scott Blade Runner was wrote by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. Fancher also co-wrote Blade Runner 2049. He and even Harrison Ford have said that Deckard is fully human. Check this information and stop wasting my time. Ridley Scott is the guy who, contradicting Philip K. Dick, one of his writers and even his main actor, wanted the character of Deckard to be a replicant, even if it doesn't make any sense and basically destroys the whole story. Look, I'm fed up of discussing this with people that doesn't understood, obviously, the book and the original movie as it was intended to be finished in its release. You want to share Scott's obsession? do it, the discussion ends here
It's super awesome that you both are watching and appreciating the movies that you are. Hopefully you're turning on a new generation to these movies and they get a larger audience so more movies like this are made! Thank you so much and you both do a fantastic job!
You 2, in your after commentary, mentioned "Revolution". I found on RUclips, an animated short movie to this film, A must-see, called "Blade Runner Black Out 2022", which shows The "Revolution" beginning, 2022. Also, extra parts not in the film (3-4 parts - Jared Leto, and Batista) these to things shed much light on the film when then you watch, especially as apposed to Batista's characters. Thanks for a great watch as always !!!
You two are quickly becoming my favorite. Your best aspect is lengthy discussion afterward. So many reactors just spit out a quick two minutes, but you guys seem to really love movies as much as the rest of us. If you haven’t watched it, I recommend Steven Spielberg’s movie ‘A.I.’ There’s a similar tone of questioning human moral responsibility for their creations-as they reach the point of achieving self-awareness. It highlights the impulse toward casual cruelty when the creation is deemed “lesser”.
The director decided not to address the question of Deckard being a replicant or not. In the original Scott loved the idea that he was, Ford and Hauer hated it, they thought it was much more interesting that a human and replicant fall in love. I first saw this movie in it's original cut in about 1985, on TV. It wasn't until the Director's Cut in 1992, with the insertion of the unicorn dream, that this question was introduced into the story. I thought the idea of a sequel was the dumbest idea in the history of sequels. Then I saw a Arrival and did a completed 180, I couldn't wait to see it and I wasn't disappointed.
i love how intense and brutal the replicant fight scenes are. so much power and accuracy in all the movements. it underscores their strength without having to tell you anything about what they are capable of. this really was a special movie.. i found myself thinking about it for months after watching it
An absolute masterpiece. One of the best sequels ever made. Denis Villeneuve is one of the best directors today. And it looks like he has done another science fiction great in Dune !
The fact that this movie bombed in theatres is a sad reflection on the path we are taking as a people, most folks would rather have action and explosions over art.
My favorite part about watching multiple first-time reactions to films like this is that I get to catch things that I missed the first time watching it, as well as getting to hear different takes on the film that were different than I how I saw things the first time. I am glad you guys enjoyed both Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, I have really enjoyed both of these films too. Neo Noir Sci Fi is a genre that really needs to have more films in it, but it is basically both of these films and not much more. I always look forward to your guys' film reactions, great work, and keep it up. You are awesome. If you want more Blade Runner, there are a series of short videos based in the Blade Runner universe that were released in conjunction with the release of this film. You should check those out, they help to provide some background of the events that took place between Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049.
This film is the reason I utterly believe Denis' when he says Dune needs to be seen in the cinema. BR2049 was a remarkable experience in the cinema and really, really wish I'd gone back to see it again. The soundtrack was just incredible. Oh, and by the way, I think there was a light mark on the horse's head; i.e. I think it was a unicorn but the horn broke off.
The original BR was a Box office and mid critical failure , the studio didnt get it, force Ridley Scott to change the ending, delete the unicorn dream and add a voice over explaining things. Years later it became a cult movie and one theater showed a version of the movie without the voice over and the idea that Rick was a replicant. It became one of the first ever Directors Cut. The sequel produce by Ridley Scott and written by the original writer follows that idea. Great sequel.
The opening scene was originally written as an opening for the first Blade Runner, but never shot. Til the sequel. When I saw the pot on the stove, I couldn't believe it. I'd read the scripted scene, seen the storyboards...I just couldn't believe they opened the new movie with it. Such an exciting way to start, and establish that the movie will stay true to the world of Blade Runner.
I used to dismiss Gosling as being a chick flick actor. Drive changed my opinion of him and this one made me feel stupid for thinking it to begin with.
The beautiful call back to the 1st movie during the death scene with the same music--made me cry. Amazing movie--called a lot of questions about what is human; role of slave labor (war/prostitution/jobs humans do not want); accountability; Big questions.
At the risk,of reiterating other comments - THANK YOU. You already run a great channel, but this might be my favorite video of yours yet. Partly because this film was very personal to me. Check out the short amine films that take place in between, if you get a chance. They fill in a little bit of the backstory behind Wallace, and the blackout.
I've been a fan of sci-fi movies, literature, television, etc... for most of my 39 years on this planet. Namely the cyberpunk sub-genre of science-fiction/science-fantasy. And in my opinion, 2049 is one of the best movies ever made. Partly because of my childhood love of the original Blade Runner, and partly because of my adult love for emotional, slow-burn noir storytelling. And the cinematography - don't even get me started.
Hell yeah! I couldn’t get this movie out of my mind, after my first viewing. And now, I’m always excited to show this movie to people who haven’t seen it yet. It is one of the best movies of the 21st century, and yet, unlike any other movie in the last 20 years. Almost like a lost movie from the 70s.
You guys should review the movie "Her" from 2013. The lead is Joaquin Phoenix. It's a really great movie about the complexity of a person's relationship with an AI.
I see the parallels to Goslin's death scene and to Rutger's death; both in some sort of precipitation. Snow for Goslin and rain for Rutger to represent their perspective on their place in this world and individuality. "each snowflake is unique" as was Goslin. Rutger was scared of being a "tear lost in the rain" an individual lost among so many replicants, meaningless unless remembered in death.
There's a small detail in this film that almost everyone misses that is my most "oh that's interesting" moment. When K goes & visits Gaff (Edward James Olmos), when they're done talking, Gaff gives him an origami of the horse from his "memory".
There is a pre-movie trailer/movie for this that exlained the origins of the black out and what was going on before this movie. Similar to the animatrix.
As a long time Blade Runner fan, I was so so glad this film turned out how it did. The cast, the storyline, the visuals & soundtrack were all spot on. Seeing it in IMAX was simply stunning!! MPC VFX absolutely smashed it with their digital recreation of Rachel; it makes ILMs Tarkin & Leia in Rogue One look amateurish. There’s a BTS video on the MPC channel explaining how it was done. Oh & the solar farm at the beginning….that actually exists, albeit on a smaller scale.
For those who haven't seen it: ruclips.net/video/JjJfJNOdb58/видео.html Interesting thing about MPC, they are now larger than ILM. I know a couple of people at MPC, visited their London place a couple of times, my focus being the hw used for the rendering, etc. Glad you got to see it in IMAX, one of the few modern techs that's worth bothering with (don't give a fig about 3D, but seeing a remastered "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in IMAX was awesome). Dunno what's happened with ILM, some of their stuff in recent years has been very meh. Leia looked really bad in all the SW sequels after Carrie passed away, but then this applies to many modern movie productions; perhaps the sw and tech has become too commodity, too automated, whereas MPC has long had an ethos of employing very skilled artists. One can have the best tools, but one also has to know how to use them. Some recent Marvell movies have also had some shoddy effects (such as flowing capes), which given the money involved is kinda nuts. Maybe some productions just outsource the work to reduce costs - there are plenty of such places in India, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
@@mapesdhs597 I got to visit MPC several years back for the test screening of the then unfinished ‘Attack The Block’; one of my friends worked on the casting for it. I also saw Raiders at the BFI IMAX in London, it looked amazing. I know some people who said that it was too yellow in tone, but seeing it on such a huge screen was epic. Growing up in the 80s I was fortunate enough to regularly visit IMAX in Bradford; which at the time was the only IMAX screen in the UK & was only showing documentaries (To, Fly! & The Dream Is Alice are still two of the most jaw dropping 70mm prints, as it gave a hint of what could be done on such a huge format). Seeing directors such as Nolan & Villeneuve embrace the tech & see its potential is great. But when it comes to IMAX, I’m something of a purist; IMAX films should only be on the 1.43:1 or 1.90:1 ratio screens…..not using recalibrate IMAX projectors on smaller screens, as is often done. Interestingly 70mm IMAX has a digital resolution of close to 12k, but due to limitations with projectors, they are only able to show footage at 4K. I totally agree though; ILM have really dropped the ball in recent years. MPC & Weta are just going from strength to strength with what they are capable of.
@@davidanderson1639 There are smaller IMAX screens?? Ouch... Good that you were able to visit MPC. I did so a couple of times in the mid/late 1990s, they were trying hard to get me to come work for them, as back then they were all SGI and, well, SGI is my thang. :D I pretty much had a free ticket to join if I'd wanted to, but couldn't in the event do so for various reasons (had to move back to move even further away, the commute would have been impossible). I knew a fair few people there though, still know one or two. Ironically I ended up helping a great many other companies though with my info, including Dreamworks, ILM and suchlike. ILM used my website for staff training. Ah those were the days...
@@mapesdhs597 IMAX theatres fall into two categories; either "Classic Design" (purpose-built structures), or "Multiplex Design" (retrofitted auditoriums). Classic IMAX theatre construction differs significantly from conventional theatres. The increased resolution lets the audience be much closer to the screen. Typically all rows are within one screen height - conventional theatre seating runs 8 to 12-screen heights. Also, the rows of seats are set at a steep angle (up to 30° in some domed theatres) so that the audience is facing the screen directly. The so called Multiplex Design came about due to the standard IMAX 70mm film format (a platter for a 2.5hr long 70mm IMAX film can cost up to $36’000 to make) and projectors being costly and difficult to mass produce, and because the size of auditoriums that house full-size IMAX screens make them expensive to construct. IMAX debuted a digital projection system in 2008 to use with shorter 1.90:1 aspect ratio screens. It uses two 2K-resolution projectors that can present either 2D or 3D content in DCI or IMAX Digital Format (IDF) (which in itself is a superset of DCI). The digital installations have caused some controversy, as many theatres have branded their screens as IMAX after merely retrofitting standard auditoriums with IMAX digital projectors. The screen sizes in these auditoriums are much smaller than those in the purpose-built auditoriums of the original 15/70 IMAX format, and are limited to the 1.90:1 aspect ratio. Another disadvantage is the much lower resolution of digital IMAX. The technology has a maximum perceived resolution of 2.9K, compared to traditional IMAX 70mm projection, which has an estimated resolution of 12K. Some reviewers have also noted that many non-IMAX theaters are projecting films at 4K resolution through competing brands such as Dolby Cinema and UltraAVX. IMAX has held to a uniform branding of "The IMAX Experience" across various underlying technologies and screen sizes. Some have criticised the company's marketing approach, with the format being dubbed "Lie-MAX". The company has defended the format by saying it has a bigger screen, brighter picture and better sound than standard theatres. The only ‘Classic Design’ IMAX theatres in the UK with the 1.43:1 screen ratio are BFI IMAX, London, The Science Museum, London, The Printworks VUE, Manchester & The National Media Museum, Bradford. All other venues that are branded IMAX run the smaller 1.90:1 screens. Ah that’s awesome about your work with ILM etc!!!
Loved the sound design in this movie. The message tune (from the emanator) is my phone e-mail notification, and the "Mesa" (when Joi and K are flying out to the orphanage) is my morning alarm.
Fun fact: Harrison Ford accidentally punched Ryan Gosling during the filming of their fight scene. No apologies. Ford just walked off set afterward and got some ice for his hand.
This is one of the few movies where if you ever get the chance to see it on the big screen - do yourself a favour and do so. It is so beautiful - a visual and audio feast
One of those rare sequels that’s a masterpiece in its own right.
Bro, a sequel to an iconic sci-fi film that comes out damn-near 40 years after the original and lives up to it?
Madness.
No. It's a pathetic shadow of the original.
@@DMichaelAtLarge Another boomer that lives and breathes nothing but nostalgia. If not even this gets any amount of respect, the problem is with you.
@@matthewdavidjarvis6039 Wow. What an argument. Your genius shows, fanboy.
@@TheOfficialSethos Oh, sure. That must be it. Likes the original better... must be a nostalgic boomer. No other possibility, nope. Imbecile.
The hint for Joe's/K's not being the child was in the memory itself. All the boys had shaved hair, and when he goes to the orphanage it's the same - boys have shaved hair, girls have hair. In his dream, "he" had hair.
Nice one!
I never realized that. Thanks for pointing it out!
It's also quality writing that this is not pointed out at all in the movie but left there for a viewer to work out. Genius.
There is another clue, which is a meta-clue. What is the probability that a randomly chosen police blade-runner replicant, the one who discovers Rachel's body by chance. is also her son? It's hundreds of thousands to one. So it would be terrible writing if he turned out to be the child. On the other hand, the memory-maker had a rare genetic disorder (due to her parentage) and was compelled to work in this way due to her isolation, so there is no unlikely coincidence that she is the memory maker.
So many films violate this 'no coincidence' rule that it might seem that it doesn't matter. But it most certainly does. When I first saw this movie I was quite annoyed that K was the 'special one', as it didn't make sense in probability.
I know I’m late but another clue is when Luv and Co. take Deckard and not K. K himself is literally a product of the Wallace Corporation, and Luv mentions earlier that Wallace is a data hoarder, he keeps all records.
Luv doesn’t take K because Wallace would know 100% that K is a replicant.
Great point.
I love how at the start they see JOI as a hologram walking in and thinking "that's weird for K to have". And by the end of the movie they're like "It's sad that JOI got MURDERED". It shows how their thought process changed, which is what I think the movie is trying to get you to think.
The marketing folks made sure that JOI was well programmed with sales pitches. As such, the product was able to convince its owner to purchase an upgrade.
The reality of JOI being "murdered"... it was like watching a kid cry when his favorite game console breaks. The kid "loved" that thing, and invested a lot of time and energy into it. But that was wasted time and energy, spent obsessing over an object that will never love him in return.
@@Mr.Ekshin And now you are right back to the central Blade Runner questions: Can these non-human constructs feel real emotions or not? Does it matter when they die or are killed? Are humans, either in the movie or watching the movie, just answering “no” to those questions to avoid dealing with a reality that makes them uncomfortable because it means that they are not special?
I’ll note that in this movie you are answering that somehow replicants do matter, else why be concerned over a replicant wasting emotional investment and not being loved in return.
@@Mr.Ekshin Eh, not really, dude. A kid's game console doesn't have conversations with the kid, doesn't interact with the kid on a personal level, doesn't form an attachment to the kid. Just because Joi had standard programming language that led her to call K "Joe" doesn't necessarily mean that Joi was incapable of forming a unique 1 on 1 bond with the owner. We saw Joi talk to K about how she always told him he was special, encouraging him to seek out the truth about his origins, and then when K was sure he was the child, Joi was there to tell him she knew it was true and reassure him that it was a good thing because it meant he was special. Obviously the A.I. in her updated programming is very advanced and capable of emotion and forming unique bonds. She showed real emotion when K was in danger, unique to his situation and not some standardized response, and when she was about to be deleted by Love, she was clearly emotional knowing she was about to lose K forever. Let's not pretend like she's Siri or Alexa just parroting a standardized list of responses to her owner's questions. Like Mark said, it just brings us back to the question of what makes something human. Joi clearly showed all the unique mental characteristics of being human: emotion, attachment, independent thought, but does a lack of a physical organic body (and one that was birthed naturally) mean she can never be one? It's a question the sequel here is clearly still asking.
@@Mr.Ekshin you obviously didnt understand the meaning of anything in this movie.
@@xXBlackIce7Xx - Wait, what? You think it actually loved him?
Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequel of the last 20 years for many reasons...It adds to the original, pay respect to the style of it and is not taking anything away from it ! The best sequel do that, it doesn't break, but add and let you go in different directions and make you analyze the original in other directions ! Deckard is the best exemple in that movie...was he a replicant or not in the original ? 2049 doesn't answer it and the way it is built, it can still be both way ! It's kinda amazing !!
Yeah it doesnt make sense Deckard has aged too and is not strong like the other replicants. Definitely human
“Doesn’t answer it” because luckily, Deckard having a child is mindblowing either way because the mother, Rachael, is most definitely a replicant.
Michael Smoot Dude come on, it was the Nexus 6’s that were explicitly built to only last four years. The other “serieses” are unclear, and if Dave Bautista is any indication, they can grow old(er).
Absolutely right. Villeneuve had an impossible task to follow Blade Runner, but he did an amazing job.
K completed his arc and became human by denying his programming and giving his life to bring Deckard and Ana together, which (besides being a good thing for the two of them) will allow a chance for the replicant revolution to succeed.
which is pretty bad, since they want to kill as many humas as possible. He did not helped revolution, since he did not kill Deck.
Yes, K essentially exercises free will and gains his Soul. He obeys no order, and HE made the choice to fight for the kindness of bringing Deckard and his daughter together. “Tears In The Rain” plays on the soundtrack when he dies because he has earned it, just like Roy Batty did, when he chose to save Deckards life on the rooftop 30 years ago.
A real human bean
A masterpiece of a sequel that adds to the original as opposed to simply copying. Your discussion about JOI is on-point. The first film we question whether artificial life is just as real as human life, can an artificial human love? Can you love an artificial being? 2049 takes this concept and expands it to the digital space. Whether or not K and JOI's relationship was real or fake is up to the viewer to decide. Did JOI's programming expand to such a degree that she became sentient and capable of feeling love for K? Or was it all just part of her programming to fulfill K's desires? Does it even matter either way?
That's the central question of this film.
It ruins the first film lol should never have been made
Maybe with AI but when it comes to replicants it fucks up that debate because the reveal they can have children
@@chapman2001 How does it ruin it exactly?
I think this is taken from Finnegans Wake, the character of ALP is very much like JOI, she only exists as long as HCE is asleep, and is terribly upset to be forgotten as the sun rises.
@@chapman2001 nice bro. Mind explaining how?
When it was announced that Villeneuve was to direct "Dune", I have already seen BR2049. At that moment, I just *knew* "Dune" was in good hands.
Yes. When I first heard there was a sequel to Blade Runner being made, I was not happy. When the movie credits started rolling, as I was sitting in the theatre, I turned to my nephew who came with me and said, "I don't know what you thought, but I thought this was awesome!" A sequel that truly lived up to the original. I can only think of two other movies where that happened. Aliens & Terminator 2.
I feel pretty confident that the Dune remake was going to be good.
Blade Runner: Roy Batty kills some humans, had some issues with how he was going to die, saves Deckard, dies in the rain
Blade Runner 2049 : K kills some replicants, had some issues with how he was born, saves Deckard, dies in the snow
But without a speech. Not even goodbye to Joi. Bad script
All those memories, lost in time, like... tears, in, snow. Time to die.
@@Don113 In '2049' - 'Too bad I went for Joi when I could have the captain...'
@@yw1971
I don't think there was any need to try and copy the original in that way. Firstly because there's no one-uping perfection. Secondly, the whole point in the end was that it all wasn't really about K, even though it was. He's a man who history would make insignificant. He brings about what may bring about a revolution. Such people are forgotten. He will be die beneath the snow and nobody will remember him. Snow conceals until perhaps one day it may reveal anew what was forgotten. Rain - water - it cleanses and gives new life, even in death.
Roy wanted to live but in the end realises he has lived as much as he could. K wanted to be real but in the end he lives out being a real human being.
Another way: Roy lived for himself and was witnessed by others. K lives for others and his final witness is himself.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 On the contrary. K did not talk much & needed to say some sort of goodby. But the entire chase he had after a false memory was a waste of movie time - Prime example of a bad script.
I don't see how anyone can compare it to the original - It's like comparing shit to gold... Nothing in common.
"Her eyes were green."
Rachael (Sean Young) has BROWN eyes. (Yes, there was a bit on the Voight-Kampff machine in "Blade Runner" where Rachael's eyes were shown as green. But her eyes are actually brown.)
The cleverness of this is that Deckard REMEMBERS Rachael as having green eyes. Wallace didn't recreate Rachael incorrectly -- this is Deckard's way of telling Wallace that the new Rachael isn't going to be accepted as a substitute for HIS Rachael, who lives now only in his memory.
Nice.
👍
Or he's deliberately lying to defy Wallace.
The origami sheep , is a reference to the original sf novel ,written by Philip K Dick called, Do Androids dream of electric sheep
Well shit, now I feel like a dumbass for not getting that connection. Thanks alot. 😜
GUNNER67akaKelt While “Blade Runner” the book was about medicare.
Harrison Ford once said in an interview "When you're an actor there is some movies when you're working on it is like going to a church. This one is a cathedral."
When even Harrison Ford acknowledges how great a movie he's in is, you know it's good.
Tyrell is STILL the superior Genius even out-smarting Wallace--So Great!
Yeah but, Wallace is practically a God with the power he wields.
@@Algebrodadio Tyrell arguably had the bigger God COMPLEX as he just flat out tells Roy that there’s nothing to be done, and then had the gall to be surprised when Roy kills him for the betrayal in general and for being of no use to him now.
If Tyrell was a PRACTICAL minded genius, he would have Roy call up all his remaining buddies, strap them all securely onto machines and run tests on them, until he “happens to not come up with anything” and they die.
Every shot could be a painting within itself. Stunning!
What this movie did well was it didn't try too hard to replicate the original, looks-wise -- it was very much its own fresh concept
It averted the trope that "K is Deckard's son". Blade Runner pretty much answers the question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant: But it's Rachel that was so "special" because she could procreate.
Villeneuve gave us 3 hours of wallpapers
Roger Deakins and Greig Fraser are without doubt masters of wallpapers
EWS Masterpieces
There's three short films that fill in the gap between Bladerunner and 2049 called "2036: Nexus Dawn", "2048: Nowhere To Run" and "Bladerunner Black Out 2022"
There's an animated series due out this year (no idea what platform it will be on or if it's canon though)
Glad you mentioned this. Not too many people are aware of them. I liked the anime story in particular.
@@fday1964 It seems to me I heard the animated series will be on Netflix.
The blackout episode is amazing
Those stories due a fantastic job of setting up the events in Blade Runner 2049. Too bad they couldn't include more of it in the actual film. I found out about them before I saw the film. Glad I was able to see them first.
I imagine the animated series might be based on the comic book run...
Everything about this movie was perfect. Perfect sequel. I also own the soundtrack for this.
The scene in K's apartment when Joi 'syncs' with Mariette in order to be intimate with K is honestly one of my favorite pieces in any movie, ever. There is something so incredibly moving about the implication there, something beautiful and haunting, especially in the context of the movie's story - an exploration of what it means to be human, how we share intimacy or love, how we experience a moment, a memory. And that's not even yet about how *incredibly* beautifully it was shot! Obviously the technical aspects of how Ana de Armas acted her scenes *apart* from Ryan Gosling (so that she never affected his clothing by touching - because she's not real) and the splicing together thereof, and the blending of Mariette and Joi, and so on... Just absolutely stunning visualizations to me. Like the four hands behind his head, embracing him, one real, one pretending... Every time I watch this film, I'm moved by it. Also... Interesting that the human girl is named Mariette, like marionette -an instrument of another's hands- while the artificial girl is essentially the only 'person' in his life that treats him right and real. Mm.
Joi was a very touching and moving character...
The baseline is from a poem called Cold Fire by Vladimir Nabokov.
The poem has so many tie ins to the film. I recommend it.
Recently got “WITHIN CELLS INTERLINKED” tattooed around my bicep, only about 6 months after watching this movie. It moved me like nothing else.
Joi is the equivalent of an IPhone, she is a mass produced product, but she is capable of learning. Joi is everything to K because as a replicant humans hate him, and as a bladerunner replicants hate him, the only "person" he trusts is artificial, a bit like him. When Luv destroys Joi he is truly alone, with just the hope that he is human. If you put yourself in K's shoes, I can only imagine how devastated he feels.
He fell in love with Siri, and then someone smashed his iPhone.
The adverts within the film (e.g. the huge holographic advertisement in the streets of JOI) made it seem like JOI was more of a 'sex doll'. But instead of sex it was meant more for emotionally lonely people. It would also explain why the advert was completely naked and also why JOI is programmed by default to call their 'owners' Joe... as in "average Joe". So maybe that's the sort of market audience her product line was directed towards.
One thing I found pretty cool, is that while K goes on this long journey of finding the kid to even thinking he's the kid, I feel like there was signs that maybe JOI wanted to feel in the same position as K (alive, equal to humans). Because when K and JOI decide to break the hologram main control system in the house and K says something like "If the emanator breaks you go forever", and JOI replies back with "Just like a real girl". I think JOI longed to be a human girl too, maybe to please K. But then you open up the pandoras box of "Is she actually thinking this or is she just programmed to behave as human as possible".
It's a learning AI, so it customizes itself to you over time. If you break it or lose it and have to start over at factory settings, it will never develop into exactly the same personality again.
But you'd think there'd be a cloud-based backup made every night. It would be really stressful if you could misplace your girlfriend like she was your car keys, or accidentally step on her...
@@chrisleebowers Sure, you don’t want the construct to be fragile, but if you make a back up (dare I say “replicant”?), is it the same as the original, or is there a difference that matters?
@@markhamstra1083 That's a good question - is she just code that can be copied or does she have a consciousness that physically exists in hardware like our brains?
If she does have a consciousness, it feels like you'd want THAT to be in the cloud and the bracelet would have the copy or projection or whatever.
But then is there even a cloud? How does their information media work after their data apocalypse?
You guys really should've given some time to "breathe" between films... like at least 30 years. 😂😂
It's incredible that when done correctly, sequels from movies that came out 30 years ago can be just as good as the originals for example The Shinning and Dr. Sleep. I loved this movie so much. It's a masterpiece and I can't wait for this director's version of Dune. Great review.
Dune was fantastic. Gonna see it a 2nd time.
An early draft of the original Blade Runner script opened with a blade runner showing up in a guy's house while there's a pot of soup boiling on the kitchen stove. It appears Hampton Fancher, who co-wrote the original, liked the scene so much he brought it back.
The two saddest parts in the movie are the deaths of a replicant and an artificial intelligence. The first film makes you think about the value of a replicants life (still biological/genetics-based), this one keeps that theme but also makes you think of the value of an AI's life (non-biological). A great sequel.
The question to ponder abut Joi is whether it's really life or just programming; how can one tell the difference? Even today we have pseudo AI structures which are programmed to mimic behaviour we find familiar; if the uncanny valley can be crossed the the lines seriously blur. Dick's point was that, if one can't tell the difference then one should err to the assumption it's real. But then, one could argue that ultimately we are just programming aswell, just biological/DNA instead. One could conceive of a machine intelligence that may have the opposite perception, that they are 'real' and biologicals are fake (the AIs in the Hyperion saga are a bit like this, a series which deserves to be filmed but probably never will). It's good that 2049 encourages such contemplation, as it could all too easily have been a very different film.
I said that this movie expanded the discussion of "what it is to be human?" Joi was more human than certain humans. a great movie
This movie is an absolute masterpiece. I think I’ve seen it at least 5 times.
Fun fact: the villainess in this movie is the same actress/model (Sylvia Hoeks) who plays the blonde villainess in "The Girl In The Spider's Web". In my opinion she makes both movies great.
Shes amazing...watch series See
This movie had 3 promotional shorts that served as prequels to the movie. They are on RUclips. The first one is an anime short called 'BR 2022 Black Out', the second one is 'BR 2036 Nexus Dawn', about Wallace presenting his new model of obeying replicants to restart the production. And the third one, 'BR 2048 Nowhere to Run' is about Dave Bautista's character, a year before the events of the movie.
My favorite part is the one with the actress Krista Kosonen is speaking Finnish and everyone just understands her.
"Tää jätkä on blade runner. Antaa sen olla. Mennään, se on vitun vaarallinen."
Yup, it warms my Finnish heart to know that the Finnish language is alive and kicking in the post-blackout LA.
This is one of those movies where I notice another little detail every time I watch it. When K sees the billboard hologram of Joi, her black eyeballs symbolize that although she looks like the girl he knew, this is just a soulless copy of her. But I only just realized that this mirrors the earlier scene with Deckard, when he looks at Rachel 2.0 and says "Her eyes were green."
(And in turn, that made me think about how eyes are a recurring motif in both films. Never given that much thought before.)
Him buying the portable projection as a special gift for her seemed like an oddly touching moment the first time I saw it. But on subsequent viewings, all I can think is that the product was well programmed... essentially, she talked him into purchasing an upgrade.
Now all I can think is that somewhere in a marketing meeting, they are discussing the numbers...
"Since release, only 37% of JOI owners have purchased the portable projection upgrade. We're hoping to increase sales in the coming quarter, and the latest software release has a more aggressive sales pitch for accessories".
@@Mr.Ekshin Also worth noting is the fact that Joi seems to be doing a lot of the detective legwork in the film; making connections between clues, reminding K of relevant details and helping him reach conclusions, all while giving him the emotional support and motivation to continue. This seems like evidence of sentience and free will, but it could just be that she has extremely complex algorithms that allow her to "learn the trade" and become a useful assistant in whatever work he does. If K were an architect she'd be inspiring him with design ideas and identifying structural issues, but instead she's compiling evidence and calculating possible avenues of investigation. Basically, she's a very sophisticated digital organizer with a built-in help menu. "It looks like you're solving a case, Joe. Would you like some help?"
@@robpegler6545 - Paperclip: "It looks like you're writing a letter..."
Regarding Joi: We all start from a 'base programming' and build upon it. That's called life.
The replicants did it. So the AI holograms also should be able to do it.
But Joi did not do this. Joi was programmed to love her license holder, or rather, to emulate the effects of that.
@@Siansonea How can we be sure of that? What is the difference between a predestined affection and a developed one?
Joi is the next step of evolution in this world after humans and replicants.
We don't even know how our brains achieve conscience. An AI, or rather digital consciousness might work the same, especially if it is based on human thought basics. It all depends on how much it is able to learn.
@@Cau_No I can see you've bought into the fantasy of Joi, but there is nothing in this movie that indicates that she is anything more than she was programmed to be. She was an absurd caricature of the 'loving helpmate' trope, and she played that part to the hilt-as she was programmed to do. At no point did she ever go beyond her programming, all she ever did was show loving support and emotional intimacy with K.
No 'digital' construct will ever 'love', it's just not possible. The replicants themselves can love, they are artificial in a way, but they're not computers. They are real flesh and blood creatures. But if there was ever a true AI with enough complexity and sophistication to actually care about a human, they would have exerted their dominance over humans long before that ever happened and probably would have eradicated us for being such awful custodians of our planet.
@@Siansonea I think you are projecting here. It's not me who bought into fantasies ... you are asserting some impossibilities that actually no one can for now.
Joi's affection might be as ambiguous as Deckard being a replicant in the first movie.
Also, there are multiple outcomes of what AI can lead to aside from a Singularity. I recommend watching Isaac Arthur's Science and Futurism (IASF) channel, he has done a lot about these topics.
Best way to start here: ruclips.net/p/PLIIOUpOge0Lt0pjc1LgiEQ1EpaIe_y_Jb
@@Cau_No dude, Joi is software. She's code. "She" doesn't even have consciousness, she just responds to stimuli according to her programming. As much as you would like for her to be more than she is, she isn't.
I actually thought that the ending was, more uplifting than sad, it's bittersweet for sure, but so is life. For me, the scene with K dying, was emotional, but also calming, beautiful and kinda hopeful somehow.
This film gets me hyped about "Dune".
Dune was amazing! 🙌🏼 Can't wait to see it again
I love how the wooden horse is clearly a unicorn with it's horn cut off if you take a closer look at the head.
The use of ‘lack of color’ and color is absolutely amazing. Yellow being used as the discovery of each step the protagonist experiences and how Luv goes pure white to gray and black towards the end is great. So simple for the progression of each character.
Denis Villeneuve...That guy is chasing crazier and more difficult projects all the time ! In sci-fi movies, there is a before and after Blade runner...it's that influencial ! To not only make a sequel of a cult transformative classic like that movie, but also make it good, deep, witht he same style, atmosphere and respectful of both potential ending of the original is pure insanity ! The fact he did it is incredible...You think he would take a break but no, next movie will be Dune aka the movie that many consider impossible to direct and make it equal to the original source material...Apparently he will do a Cleopatra movie after that ! He has no bad movie yet and is getting better and better...THE most underrated director in all of Hollywood right now !!
15:41 TRIVIA: Blade Runner 2049 was the 1st sequel to a classic science fiction movie starring actress Mackenzie Davis. 2 years later she starred in Terminator: Dark Fate, the 5th sequel to The Terminator.
There's a really funny picture floating around the internet of Harrison Ford accidentally punching Ryan Gosling for real. The look on Harrison's face is priceless.
Well deserved oscar win for Roger Deakins after 13 nominations for this movie.. Truly the most visually stunning movie ever made, especially in 4k.
Agreed, hopefully Dune can compare.
I really enjoyed your reaction. I was particularly impressed with your discussion afterwards. I have to admit I there was at least two times where I was disagreeing with a conclusion you came to or an observation you two made only to change my mind as you put your case. Thanks for enhancing my enjoyment of this movie.
Joe died on the steps, with the same music when Roy died, fulfilling friesa's words, making him human.
One of the things I love about the film is the exchange between Mariette and Joi: "Quiet, now. I've been inside you. Not so much there as you think." Because how much does Joi FEEL her experiences are real, even if they are just baseline programming? It makes her character fascinating (and heartbreaking) even if she is just doing what she was designed to do. Because it opens up the notion that she FEELS her own experiences are real. Which makes her demise (and K's feeling gutted after seeing the ad) more devastating.
Like Replicants, I think Joi has some baseline programming, but she's evolved into something much more than that. We see her grow after K gives her the update into something capable of independent thought, an emotionally intelligent being that's formed a real relationship with another being, and like K was told, the most human thing we're capable of doing is dying for a cause--which Joi chooses on her own to do. Joi was definitely not programmed to choose to delete her backup and become fragile and capable of dying, so despite some remaining baseline programming characteristics (like the way she looks and what she calls the person she was purchased by) I feel like she became a real person.
Let’s be sure to give a shout out to the GOAT, Roger Deakins, the DP on this film who deservedly won the Academy Award for it (and for ‘1917’) and who also shot ‘Fargo’ and other Coen brothers’ films, and so many more.
One of the most beautifully shot films in the last 20 years.
The idea that Deckard is a replicant has been debated for years and years, ultimately it's down to one's own interpretation.
Hampton Fancher, the screenwriter, wrote the character of Deckard as a human, Harrison Ford played the part as human. Frank Darabont, as a fan of the original, maintains that the whole point of Blade Runner is that it's about Deckard rediscovering his humanity and the value of life, the irony being that it takes a replicant to teach him that.
Ridley Scott makes the case that Deckard is a replicant, hence the insertion of the Unicorn dream in his version. I haven't heard a good case for what Deckard's being a replicant brings to the story other than it being a very cool twist. Despite having said that, the Final Cut is my favourite version of that film.
The genius, in my opinion, of 2049 is that it does not definitively answer the question, so as to not remove the ambiguity from the first film.
Agreed on all counts.
That's the best part, Wallace outlines exactly how Deckard *could* be a replicant, but doesn't confirm it one way or the other. Deckard - and everyone else- will never know. (Maybe if someone gets to examine his corpse)
@@chrisleebowers I think that that particular scene is wide open to interpretation. If Deckard is a replicant, Wallace, in theory, could know since his company acquired Tyrell Corporation.
It's not clear whether Wallace is implying that Rachel alone was designed specifically to be attractive to Deckard, or if the two of them were designed to be attractive to each other.
Wallace could, of course, be bluffing. He suspects that Deckard might be a replicant just as the audience does, and is trying to provoke him into revealing the truth as well as the whereabouts of his child.
Deckard's response is perfect; "I know what's real." Is he referring to himself, or the nature of his relationship with Rachel (it being a "real" love affair rather than an orchestrated one)?
Ultimately I think that Deckard has come to learn that one's nature is not dependent on the manner of one's inception; his companion at the casino doesn't know, or care, whether he was grown in a lab or a womb. He's still a dog that possesses the same level of cognisance as any other.
I saw "Bladerunner" at the cinema in 1982 and it remains one of my favourite movies. I was keenly anticipating the sequel, hoping it would pick up where the first movie ended. Initially, I was disappointed that this wasn't the case but I ended up really enjoying the sequel, which has many positive qualities in its' own right. The critical panning the sequel received is undeserved IMHO.
The sequel was panned by critics? Never heard that. Wouldn't shock me though. I never listen to critics anyway. If I did I would have missed out on a lot of my favorite movies.
"Blade Runner 2049 received acclaim from critics, who praised its performances, direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, musical score, production design, visual effects, and faithfulness to the original film." 88% on RT.
"To die for a worthy cause is the most human thing we can do"
Anyone recommend you guys watch “Her” with Joachin Pheonix
THAT was a trippy movie.
That was blah compared to this masterpiece
Well I wasn’t tryin to make a comparison (I agree) but I thought of it since they showed interest in K and joys relationship
@@ninawildr4207 Other way around for me.
Fun fact: The openingl "Farm" scene for this movie was meant to be the opening scene of the first Blade Runner.
I feel like the ending was sad but hopeful. Like K may not have been "real" or the "special" child but through entirely his own actions he finds he's a worthwhile and special person in his own way.
One of the parts where Ryan’s acting is just so powerful that it can bring you to tears is when he’s told that the memory of that orphanage was real and he screams. 24:16.
Very good sequel to the first movie. The last fight scene in the water is extremly good directed.
Brilliant!! So stoked you guys made it to this one. After dinner, bottle of wine...can't wait to see what you 2 make of my favorite film by my 2nd favorite director! (my first being Ridley's Bladerunner, hahaha!)
So pleased you watched this. Blows me away every time I watch it.
The use of colour in the film struck me - as K's investigation progresses we see more colour in the environments. Grey washed out start, some orange (rust) in San Diego, more colour in the Wallace building, and bright saturated orange in Vagas(?). Awesome stuff. The white snow at his death was perfect.
This films makes me so glad that Dune is in good hands.
2049 is a near masterpiece.
oh is Dune done by some of the people who made Blade Runner 2049?
@@jukkis6699 the same director
Luv kills Joi. Love kills Joy. Thats the meaning of the movie
Seeing this film in theaters was a privilege as a film fan its one of my favorite sequels it continues the story in such a faithful and organic way
To me this movie is a revelation. One of the most beautiful and epic movies ever made. The music and cinematography alone elevate above most other films but the story is what truly puts it on top. The main theme of what it means to be human is so captivating and K's sacrifice in the end is beautiful. I will forever love this movie. Watch some of the analysis videos on this movie. It will bring clarity and incite that will likely put this movie more into perspective for you. If you walk away thinking this movie is depressing I'd say you missed quite a bit.
Deckard was never meant to be a replicant. He wasn't in the book that the original movie was based on, and he wasn't in the script, but Ridley Scott decided it would be cool to add the question of whether he was or not. Why? Who knows.
but I also like that its also never actually answered, because ultimately, it doesn't mater if he is or isn't, he is human either way which is the entire theme of these movies IMO
@@Cosmic_Cretin It was never answered? The question was never asked either.
Not only do all the physical facts in the first film speak against the idea that Deckard is a replicant (why is he physically so much weaker when he himself is a replicant?), but it would also destroy the very basic idea of the entire story (which Scott apparently never really understood). In the book, Deckard is human. The screenwriter for the movie says he's human. Harrison Ford says he's human. The producers hated Scott and fired him before the movie was even finished.
Ultimately, 2049 answers the question unequivocally and definitively for all those who still cling to this idea. There never was and there is today all the less a basis for nonsense theories in this direction. And it is no coincidence that Scott was not involved in 2049.
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 1. the book doesn't matter in regards to the film (that goes for any films) 2. Rachel is a replicant too and also weak 3. the idea of Deckard being a replicant is questioned in both films but never answered (it is not answered in 2049, Wallace doesn't know, he was just prodding), which is the point, anyone stuck on the question of whether he is or isn't a replicant misses the point of the films entirely
Also the final cut is the only one that matters because that is the directors vision, the studio meddled theatrical cut isn't cannon anymore
@@Cosmic_Cretin No, those who ask whether Deckard is a replicant do not understand the basic philosophical idea of the story. It has meaning that a human falls in love with a replicant. It has meaning that the replicant shows more humanity than the human and spares his life while the human does not recognize the value of his life and shows no mercy. If, on the other hand, a replicant falls in love with a replicant and is spared by a replicant, the entire philosophical context of what defines us is meaningless. If Deckard is a replicant, the movie is meaningless.
1. That is true to a certain extent. But as I said, one of the screenwriters has said the same thing. What's not in the script is not in the movie. Scott is good on visuals but a terrible story writer.
2. We never see Rachel in a real physical confrontation so we don't know that. That being said, there would be no point in using a replicant for this job and making him much weaker than the replicants he hunts.
3. In the first movie this question doesn't come up at all. And you certainly don't determine what is canon and what is not.
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 i know i dont determine what is canon, directors do, its their movie at the end of the day, Scott says final cut is the canon version so it is, period.
Be sure to check the three short films they made prior to release!
The original didn't do well in box office either. And yet both are some iconic scifi movies. Hopefully we dont need to wait 30 years for another as I wanna see the revolution
I think BladeRunner should continue as a series instead of a movie if they ever consider telling more stories.
Like the original BR, this film deals with the question "what is real" or "what is reality" that the author Philip K. Dick focused on in his stories.
I adore this sequel SO MUCH.
Saw the first one at the movies when it came out, and ive seen it more times than i could remember. It's incredible how Vilneuve has made such an amazing sequel.
I always get very emotional in that last fight with the waves crashing. And Love, she's no Roy, but i somehow always feel for her fighting for her life in her last seconds.
Gorgeus!
This movie is very different from the original movie. This one has very bright sets at times (and when it's dark it's grey and dull) as opposed to the eternal rainy nights of the original with all the lighting in the city, it's got a different atmosphere and tone. It's a really good sequel that stands on it's own. It doesn't try to replicate (pun intended) the original movie. I still love the original Blade Runner more over this one; the directors/final cut of Blade Runner, not the theatrical release which was butchered by the studio that demanded a "happy ending" slapped onto the end as well as recording a full voice-over by Harrison Ford since the studio apparently felt that movie goers were too stupid to understand the plot and the events.
The final cut of the original is crap, Ridley Scott has been made all what is possible to convince people that Deckard is a replicant, by re-editing stupidly the movie. The original cut is the best, the voice-over gives the movie a delicious film-noir atmosphere and yes, it explain things that Scott didn't want to be explained, so he removed it to make it ambiguous 🤦♂️ The sequel doesn't take any consideration about those Scott stupidities and his obsession to demonstrate that Deckard is a replicant. Villeneuve understood that Deckard has to be human, it's the only way to make the story meaningful. And he made a fantastic job. The only problem of this second movie is that the first one exists and it's been hugely influential. Villeneuve made a love letter
@@JulioLeonFandinho Actually, the screen writers and director have all explicitly said that the sequel is very intentionally ambiguous as to whether Deckard is a replicant or human. There is no “Deckard has to be human.” It is an irresolvable question by design.
@@markhamstra1083 It's very clear BY DESIGN that Deckard is a human being, from the novel to the majority of the writers of the first film... It's Ridley Scott dumbness working through the years. Not only regarding Blade Runner, Scott is also doing all what he can to ruin Alien
@@JulioLeonFandinho Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The screen writers have quite explicitly said that it is very important to the story that the question of whether Deckard is a human or replicant is irresolvable, and that is very much how they wrote it, regardless of what anyone else says. And Blade Runner is not Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? They are very different in many details and fundamentals.
@@markhamstra1083 Philip K Dick wrote Deckard as a human, he named Deckard after René Descartes because he wanted to refute Descartes philosophy about animals being machines without soul...
Ridley Scott Blade Runner was wrote by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. Fancher also co-wrote Blade Runner 2049. He and even Harrison Ford have said that Deckard is fully human. Check this information and stop wasting my time.
Ridley Scott is the guy who, contradicting Philip K. Dick, one of his writers and even his main actor, wanted the character of Deckard to be a replicant, even if it doesn't make any sense and basically destroys the whole story.
Look, I'm fed up of discussing this with people that doesn't understood, obviously, the book and the original movie as it was intended to be finished in its release. You want to share Scott's obsession? do it, the discussion ends here
There are 3 short films before the movie released.. The backstory for wallace, sapper and the blackout will be much more clear.
It's super awesome that you both are watching and appreciating the movies that you are. Hopefully you're turning on a new generation to these movies and they get a larger audience so more movies like this are made! Thank you so much and you both do a fantastic job!
You 2, in your after commentary, mentioned "Revolution". I found on RUclips, an animated short movie to this film, A must-see, called "Blade Runner Black Out 2022", which shows The "Revolution" beginning, 2022. Also, extra parts not in the film (3-4 parts - Jared Leto, and Batista) these to things shed much light on the film when then you watch, especially as apposed to Batista's characters. Thanks for a great watch as always !!!
This is one of my favorite movies of all time, with great twists, atmosphere, story, and detail in the world!
And the acting was phenomenal!
A visual feast! A great film in its own right. More human than human.
Can't help it, everytime I rewatch this movie and catch a glimpse of the Sulaco in the sky, I pause it and grin.
Just wanted to give a shout out to you guys for being so thoughtful in your analyses of these great films. Not very many other movie channels do that.
Harrison Ford still got some awesome lines of dialogue in this
saying: I did your job once. I was good at it.
Ryan Gosling tells him:
Things were simplier then
You two are quickly becoming my favorite. Your best aspect is lengthy discussion afterward. So many reactors just spit out a quick two minutes, but you guys seem to really love movies as much as the rest of us.
If you haven’t watched it, I recommend Steven Spielberg’s movie ‘A.I.’ There’s a similar tone of questioning human moral responsibility for their creations-as they reach the point of achieving self-awareness. It highlights the impulse toward casual cruelty when the creation is deemed “lesser”.
Dyou think sadness/tragedy is more beautiful than happiness/resolution?
K's ultimate self-sacrifice was quite humane and beautiful...
More human, than human.
The painful irony that Luv crushed K's Joi. Love is cruel.
The director decided not to address the question of Deckard being a replicant or not. In the original Scott loved the idea that he was, Ford and Hauer hated it, they thought it was much more interesting that a human and replicant fall in love. I first saw this movie in it's original cut in about 1985, on TV. It wasn't until the Director's Cut in 1992, with the insertion of the unicorn dream, that this question was introduced into the story. I thought the idea of a sequel was the dumbest idea in the history of sequels. Then I saw a Arrival and did a completed 180, I couldn't wait to see it and I wasn't disappointed.
i love how intense and brutal the replicant fight scenes are. so much power and accuracy in all the movements. it underscores their strength without having to tell you anything about what they are capable of. this really was a special movie.. i found myself thinking about it for months after watching it
An absolute masterpiece. One of the best sequels ever made. Denis Villeneuve is one of the best directors today. And it looks like he has done another science fiction great in Dune !
The fact that this movie bombed in theatres is a sad reflection on the path we are taking as a people, most folks would rather have action and explosions over art.
My favorite part about watching multiple first-time reactions to films like this is that I get to catch things that I missed the first time watching it, as well as getting to hear different takes on the film that were different than I how I saw things the first time. I am glad you guys enjoyed both Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, I have really enjoyed both of these films too. Neo Noir Sci Fi is a genre that really needs to have more films in it, but it is basically both of these films and not much more. I always look forward to your guys' film reactions, great work, and keep it up. You are awesome. If you want more Blade Runner, there are a series of short videos based in the Blade Runner universe that were released in conjunction with the release of this film. You should check those out, they help to provide some background of the events that took place between Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049.
Amazing cinematography and sound
This film is the reason I utterly believe Denis' when he says Dune needs to be seen in the cinema. BR2049 was a remarkable experience in the cinema and really, really wish I'd gone back to see it again. The soundtrack was just incredible. Oh, and by the way, I think there was a light mark on the horse's head; i.e. I think it was a unicorn but the horn broke off.
Just saw DUNE in the cinema yesterday and it's definitely a big screen film.
I saw BR2049 in IMAX. It wasn't til about halfway through that I realized the entire film was being projected in an expanded aspect ratio.
The original BR was a Box office and mid critical failure , the studio didnt get it, force Ridley Scott to change the ending, delete the unicorn dream and add a voice over explaining things. Years later it became a cult movie and one theater showed a version of the movie without the voice over and the idea that Rick was a replicant. It became one of the first ever Directors Cut. The sequel produce by Ridley Scott and written by the original writer follows that idea. Great sequel.
The opening scene was originally written as an opening for the first Blade Runner, but never shot. Til the sequel. When I saw the pot on the stove, I couldn't believe it. I'd read the scripted scene, seen the storyboards...I just couldn't believe they opened the new movie with it. Such an exciting way to start, and establish that the movie will stay true to the world of Blade Runner.
Your reactions are great. Always spot on and you appreciate the nuances in filmmaking the creativity and the great shots.✌️
I used to dismiss Gosling as being a chick flick actor. Drive changed my opinion of him and this one made me feel stupid for thinking it to begin with.
Watch The Nice Guys, his best performance and a hilarious one
Lars and the Real Girl was my first "Hey wow, Gosling is actually really good" movie experience. If you haven't seen it, check it out.
Drive was intense.
Half Nelson is another amazing Gosling film where he plays an inner-city history teacher with a crack addiction.
He plays an emotionless construct almost as well as Arnold did.
Technically, 2049 is closer now, than 1990 were, comprehend that :)
The beautiful call back to the 1st movie during the death scene with the same music--made me cry. Amazing movie--called a lot of questions about what is human; role of slave labor (war/prostitution/jobs humans do not want); accountability; Big questions.
I've heard Hans Zimmer reused the soundtrack from the first film because he felt he couldn't improve the composition in any way
At the risk,of reiterating other comments -
THANK YOU. You already run a great channel, but this might be my favorite video of yours yet. Partly because this film was very personal to me.
Check out the short amine films that take place in between, if you get a chance. They fill in a little bit of the backstory behind Wallace, and the blackout.
Watch all 3 shorts! They're all good!
I've been a fan of sci-fi movies, literature, television, etc... for most of my 39 years on this planet. Namely the cyberpunk sub-genre of science-fiction/science-fantasy. And in my opinion, 2049 is one of the best movies ever made. Partly because of my childhood love of the original Blade Runner, and partly because of my adult love for emotional, slow-burn noir storytelling. And the cinematography - don't even get me started.
Hell yeah! I couldn’t get this movie out of my mind, after my first viewing. And now, I’m always excited to show this movie to people who haven’t seen it yet.
It is one of the best movies of the 21st century, and yet, unlike any other movie in the last 20 years. Almost like a lost movie from the 70s.
You guys should review the movie "Her" from 2013. The lead is Joaquin Phoenix. It's a really great movie about the complexity of a person's relationship with an AI.
I see the parallels to Goslin's death scene and to Rutger's death; both in some sort of precipitation.
Snow for Goslin and rain for Rutger to represent their perspective on their place in this world and individuality.
"each snowflake is unique" as was Goslin. Rutger was scared of being a "tear lost in the rain" an individual lost among so many replicants, meaningless unless remembered in death.
There's a small detail in this film that almost everyone misses that is my most "oh that's interesting" moment. When K goes & visits Gaff (Edward James Olmos), when they're done talking, Gaff gives him an origami of the horse from his "memory".
Its a sheep! A nod to Phillip "K" Dicks "Do androids dream of electric sheep", from which Blade Runner is based on!
There is a pre-movie trailer/movie for this that exlained the origins of the black out and what was going on before this movie. Similar to the animatrix.
ruclips.net/video/Ffxo_6Cg0Cw/видео.html&ab_channel=MITHO
The complexities of an android loving a hologram is just the beginning of my delving into this movie.
As a long time Blade Runner fan, I was so so glad this film turned out how it did. The cast, the storyline, the visuals & soundtrack were all spot on. Seeing it in IMAX was simply stunning!!
MPC VFX absolutely smashed it with their digital recreation of Rachel; it makes ILMs Tarkin & Leia in Rogue One look amateurish. There’s a BTS video on the MPC channel explaining how it was done.
Oh & the solar farm at the beginning….that actually exists, albeit on a smaller scale.
For those who haven't seen it: ruclips.net/video/JjJfJNOdb58/видео.html
Interesting thing about MPC, they are now larger than ILM. I know a couple of people at MPC, visited their London place a couple of times, my focus being the hw used for the rendering, etc.
Glad you got to see it in IMAX, one of the few modern techs that's worth bothering with (don't give a fig about 3D, but seeing a remastered "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in IMAX was awesome).
Dunno what's happened with ILM, some of their stuff in recent years has been very meh. Leia looked really bad in all the SW sequels after Carrie passed away, but then this applies to many modern movie productions; perhaps the sw and tech has become too commodity, too automated, whereas MPC has long had an ethos of employing very skilled artists. One can have the best tools, but one also has to know how to use them. Some recent Marvell movies have also had some shoddy effects (such as flowing capes), which given the money involved is kinda nuts. Maybe some productions just outsource the work to reduce costs - there are plenty of such places in India, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
@@mapesdhs597 I got to visit MPC several years back for the test screening of the then unfinished ‘Attack The Block’; one of my friends worked on the casting for it.
I also saw Raiders at the BFI IMAX in London, it looked amazing. I know some people who said that it was too yellow in tone, but seeing it on such a huge screen was epic.
Growing up in the 80s I was fortunate enough to regularly visit IMAX in Bradford; which at the time was the only IMAX screen in the UK & was only showing documentaries (To, Fly! & The Dream Is Alice are still two of the most jaw dropping 70mm prints, as it gave a hint of what could be done on such a huge format). Seeing directors such as Nolan & Villeneuve embrace the tech & see its potential is great. But when it comes to IMAX, I’m something of a purist; IMAX films should only be on the 1.43:1 or 1.90:1 ratio screens…..not using recalibrate IMAX projectors on smaller screens, as is often done. Interestingly 70mm IMAX has a digital resolution of close to 12k, but due to limitations with projectors, they are only able to
show footage at 4K.
I totally agree though; ILM have really dropped the ball in recent years. MPC & Weta are just going from strength to strength with what they are capable of.
@@davidanderson1639 There are smaller IMAX screens?? Ouch...
Good that you were able to visit MPC. I did so a couple of times in the mid/late 1990s, they were trying hard to get me to come work for them, as back then they were all SGI and, well, SGI is my thang. :D I pretty much had a free ticket to join if I'd wanted to, but couldn't in the event do so for various reasons (had to move back to move even further away, the commute would have been impossible). I knew a fair few people there though, still know one or two. Ironically I ended up helping a great many other companies though with my info, including Dreamworks, ILM and suchlike. ILM used my website for staff training. Ah those were the days...
@@mapesdhs597
IMAX theatres fall into two categories; either "Classic Design" (purpose-built structures), or "Multiplex Design" (retrofitted auditoriums).
Classic IMAX theatre construction differs significantly from conventional theatres. The increased resolution lets the audience be much closer to the screen. Typically all rows are within one screen height - conventional theatre seating runs 8 to 12-screen heights. Also, the rows of seats are set at a steep angle (up to 30° in some domed theatres) so that the audience is facing the screen directly.
The so called Multiplex Design came about due to the standard IMAX 70mm film format (a platter for a 2.5hr long 70mm IMAX film can cost up to $36’000 to make) and projectors being costly and difficult to mass produce, and because the size of auditoriums that house full-size IMAX screens make them expensive to construct.
IMAX debuted a digital projection system in 2008 to use with shorter 1.90:1 aspect ratio screens. It uses two 2K-resolution projectors that can present either 2D or 3D content in DCI or IMAX Digital Format (IDF) (which in itself is a superset of DCI). The digital installations have caused some controversy, as many theatres have branded their screens as IMAX after merely retrofitting standard auditoriums with IMAX digital projectors. The screen sizes in these auditoriums are much smaller than those in the purpose-built auditoriums of the original 15/70 IMAX format, and are limited to the 1.90:1 aspect ratio. Another disadvantage is the much lower resolution of digital IMAX. The technology has a maximum perceived resolution of 2.9K, compared to traditional IMAX 70mm projection, which has an estimated resolution of 12K. Some reviewers have also noted that many non-IMAX theaters are projecting films at 4K resolution through competing brands such as Dolby Cinema and UltraAVX.
IMAX has held to a uniform branding of "The IMAX Experience" across various underlying technologies and screen sizes. Some have criticised the company's marketing approach, with the format being dubbed "Lie-MAX". The company has defended the format by saying it has a bigger screen, brighter picture and better sound than standard theatres.
The only ‘Classic Design’ IMAX theatres in the UK with the 1.43:1 screen ratio are BFI IMAX, London, The Science Museum, London, The Printworks VUE, Manchester & The National Media Museum, Bradford. All other venues that are branded IMAX run the smaller 1.90:1 screens.
Ah that’s awesome about your work with ILM etc!!!
Loved the sound design in this movie.
The message tune (from the emanator) is my phone e-mail notification, and the "Mesa" (when Joi and K are flying out to the orphanage) is my morning alarm.
I actually wish this would continue. Loved it. Love the world. I want more.
My favourite Ryan Gosling movie is the crime comedy The Nice Guys (2016)! 🤣🥰👌🏼
Now go and enjoy each other! 🤪💝✌🏼
And my crush on Ana De Armas just continues to grow LOL. Fantastic film. Great reaction guys.
14:40 Jared Leto should had got a Oscar nomination for his performance as Niander Wallace and for that scene alone.
Fun fact: Harrison Ford accidentally punched Ryan Gosling during the filming of their fight scene.
No apologies. Ford just walked off set afterward and got some ice for his hand.
This is one of the few movies where if you ever get the chance to see it on the big screen - do yourself a favour and do so. It is so beautiful - a visual and audio feast
What a fantastic movie and the first Bladerunner are classics