I think many people, including Grace, didn't get the point of the movie at all: In the end, the "unreal" K was the one who had a "real" life (he felt real snowflakes) and the "real" daughter of Rachel nevertheless had an "unreal" life (she only felt her simulated snowflakes). Living is life, it doesn't matter what your origin is.
Master you are correct. Grace doesn't "get things" often. I now seem to watch her reviews in order to do the opposite of her suggestions. She is very good on all the behind the business stuff though. She's a little immature.
I couldn't disagree more Grace... The last reveal was not cruel in anyway, K didn't die because he had nothing left, he died because he felt it was for the right cause. Him dying in the way he did was to show how much humanity that the Replicants have, how they are much more "human" than the people hunting them down.
being human isn't determined by other people recognizing you as a human, instead, being a human comes from inside of you, this is why I hated the message that this movie had, they killed the best character for nothing
Grace, its seems to me that whenever a film goes somewhere you don’t “want”, it to go you consider it bad filmmaking. With that reasoning the work of Shakespeare must be pure trash....
Replicants aren't robots, They're artificially grown organic humanoids engineered with enhanced physical abilities, and implanted with a series of memories to hone a particular personality. Replicants are physical beings, not machines. Joi on the otherhand, is artifical intelligence with a digital projection. The whole question is whether unnaturally created slaves can evolve beyond the bondage of their programming and be free conscious "souls" of their own autonomous cognizance, will, volition, and morality. The most interesting thing is that our heroes and the villians actually share the same beliefs, but don't share the excusivity of each others' solution or the means thereof.
callofdutyguy9 Replicants are most likely a mutated product of artifical gene synthesis upon a cross section of various re-engineered human dna signatures to create a sort of subhuman worker class, physically more durable to harsh conditions, with brain activity limiting their creative, empathic, or emotional abilities to abstract or analyze the specific memory programming designed to inform their service traits. Their capacity for existential angst or artistic rationality is supposedly severely neutered, and therfore so is their will for free domain of conscience. They're humanoids manufactured for servitude, but not exactly human. And just as the mixed genetics of a mule is not exactly a horse nor a donkey, it seems the genetically manipulated not-quite-human replicants also share the trait of the mule in being born sterile.
Hahaha look at what kinds of people call others brainwashed ...funny how you're the trendy ones now, huh? And your thoughts are totally your own, hence the same arguments/insults/one-liners and methods and overall mentality... Now, that's eye-rolling... But go ahead and judge others and accuse them of hypocrisy and everything else. Never ever take a long look into the mirror, the reality checks hurt ;/
Wrong about Joi too. Their relationship is played as a very convincing bio-digital relationship with a tragic end. But when K sees the Joi advert he realises that she was just fulfilling her programming. Which is a tragedy.
A thousand times yes, I couldn't agree more! And frankly, seeing Joi's affection and love as simply "programming" and not actual genuine feelings can be argued as the real objectification of replicants and AIs by humans which is what they're fighting so hard against. The point that they have bonafide miracles to offer the world including genuine feelings is one of the major themes here.
Hmm. To be fair the whole point of the advertisement "says what you want to hear" is a commentary on what men want, since that's what will be advertised to them. How people would rather have someone with no individuality than a real person. The reason it would've been better if there were male Joi's too is because it would've been a commentary on human desire which is the same in this regard instead of just "men are dogs." Women would also choose an objectified version of a man, one which does and says what they want. Not for sexual desire, moreso for support, but an artificial support. I think it would've been much more interesting to show both sides of the coins instead of just shitting on men.
I think the movie was definitely objectifying, but that it was self-aware about its objectification. It was intentional. They were trying to show how replicants and AI are treated as though they are objects - loving holographic girlfriends (Joi), obeying blade runners (K), etc. - and while they might be actual synthetic creations, they still have their own thoughts and feelings (that may or may not be real). So the objectification in the movie doesn't bother me as much because it seems to comment on itself. Joi was physically objectified because that's what she was created for. Yet we still doubt throughout the film how much of her love for K is real or synthetic. It all ties into the core theme of the film, and that's why I was able to shrug off some of my qualms about that.
5:26 it was never explicitly stated that Deckard was only brought to the Tyrell corporation to impregnate Rachel. That’s just something that Jarrad Leto says in an attempt to get in Deckards head
Grace! This is not the first time I want to write to you, but this time I am)) Grace, that moment about sacrificing K's life after he gets that he is not the one. That made the movie for me. Look, he thought that he is special and that was his driver. And tha couse of this speciality was the way he was given birth, right? So, after his internal break K dicides to make himself special by his sacrifice. And indeed he bacame special, but not through his birth right, but througth his own choicies and risk. This is a ton of sense. Not plot weakness. Great part!
He didn't think he was special. He was TOLD he was special by Joi and wanted to believe it so badly that he ignored any red flags saying otherwise. It's a parallel to his relationship with Joi herself. He knows she tells him everything he wants to hear but chooses to believe it because he has nothing else. The final act is K admitting this to himself and coming to terms with himself and his place in the world. He's an inverted Roy Batty, a being that has all the lifespan and time in the world but who hasn't actually experienced life. Once he does, he dies content in the exact same pose. It's also worth noting that he's far more Deckard's child than his biological daugter.
They give him a conscience and the ability to question so he's a better blade runner. Remember the question from the first film "Have you ever tried a human by mistake?" That's why he needs the ability to analyse and question what he's doing.
It was firmly established in my view that - having earlier been sucked into thinking a relationship with Joi was (to an extent) real - he later realized he'd been emotionally duped. This was when, late in the movie, Agent K chances upon her colossal-sized motion poster. That Joi had the same line "That's a day!" and referred to guys as "Joe". He realized beyond all doubt, at that moment, how hollow it all was. She was just a construct (as was he).
I think grace is annoyed because she predicted that Ryan Gosling was Rachael and Deckard's child and then they pulled the rug out from under her. It almost made me laugh watching her throw a tantrum. Personally I thought it was a clever bait and switch. Wanting the guy with the gun to be the savior seems painfully traditional and formulaic and using Luke Skywalker as a character template shows a lack of maturity on your behalf which I think comes from being a comic book fan and its over use of formulas and stereotypes. Rather than get mad at the movie I think you should be mad at yourself for trying to impose such an unoriginal formula on movie that was much better for not adhering to a lead character stereotype and a linear storyline. Having Ryan Gosling as the replicant messiah would have been painfully formulaic compared to cleaver twist they actually had in the movie and I disagree completely about the girl in the bubble not having what it took to be the replicant messiah. She seemed highly intelligent, had some valuable skills and connections and she was also not on the run. There are way to many movie these days that go down all to predictable line and thank god Blade Runner 2049 did not do that!
your obsession with diversity and feminism sometimes prevent you from appreciating a good film, not every film has to address every single political issue. I am telling you this as a very liberal person myself. I absolutely adored this film, and it was the best cinematic experience I have had in years. It's just that I feel many of your criticisms and opinions are not specific for each movie.
So what! A Naked Statue can be considered as art to some. There were a lot more naked statues of men In ancient Rome and Greece and still preserved and appreciated by many today.
While I could end up agreeing with that take (haven't reached that part of the video yet), I gotta ask, genuinely: Would you see it like this nowadays, 6 years later? I mean, I'd understand both yes and no, obviously, but I'm curious regarding the explanation/reason behind either.
I have to disagreed with you on this one Grace, i thought the ending was perfect. it was so unexpected. Even more so was the fact the one thing Wallace wanted so much was there all along...
One directorial choice that made the ending perfect was to allow K to die without trying to mimic Rob Batty's classic speech, but to die in a poignant silence instead.
I kinda like the idea that the main character wasn't the jessus figure since it so played out and kinda cool the main character can be a no one that gets caught up in a situation instead of a 'choosen one'
+KunaiDragon Yes, for me it was a major relief that they didn't make Ryan Gosling into a Jesus figure - instead he was a Joseph figure, meant to find/protect the messiah. Reminded me of Clive Owen in Children Of Men.
Grace Logic •Laments that Agent K never uses his android strength •Proceed to talk about him breaking someones spine and running through a concrete wall 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Grace seem to invested to much to K character... So that when the plot twist reveal she just taken out of the movie. I just saw the movie. Its a great story and meaning behind it.
Cyberpunk is a sub-genre of science fiction that features advanced science and technology in an urban, dystopian future. On one side you have powerful mega-corporations and private security forces, and on the other you have the dark and gritty underworld of illegal trade, gangs, drugs, and vice. In between all of this is politics, corruption, and social upheaval. Blade Runner started the cyberpunk genre in film and Neuromancer in literature. While Mad Max is set in a dystopian future, it lacks all the other elements of cyberpunk and Blade Runner is actually the example of Cyber Punk that has influenced all films that follow it in the genre.
Not every movement fighting for freedom is full exclusively of good people Grace - it is quite possible the Replicants only want the 'Replicant Messiah' to use a symbolic figurehead; a living standard with no command or leadership responsibilities and probably no choice in how she is used. Few indeed are the battles between good and evil - their is usually evil aplenty on both sides of any given conflict. As for K, the point is not that he was somehow forced to die for this cause, but he chose to fight for it freely, knowing he might die. Throughout the early portion of the movie he was doing the dirty work for other people with no choice in the matter at all, later he was confused and adrift. This is the first moment of truly unfettered, personal agency he has experienced. The first fully free choice he has made for his own reasons, and in no small part he wasn't fighting for some abstract ideal of Replicant liberation. He was fighting to reunite Deckard with his daughter, standing up in defence of the type of family he was denied. He is also still mourning the death of Joii (and for all that she was an AI, the movie goes out of its way to establish her humanity and make it clear that her death at the hands of Luv amounted to murder), and likely seeking revenge, and while that motivation may be somewhat ignoble, it is also still his own. It is no coincidence that the moment he decides to go after Deckard and kill Luv comes after he has seen a (deeply objectifying - that criticism is 100% valid) advertisement for the Joii programme, a version of Joii with blank, soul less eyes that convey that, while this programme may wear her face, the essence of the Joii he knew is lost forever. K is still a hero, though a flawed one. He represents the nobility of choices freely made, even when those choices end in one's own death, and as a Replicant formerly denied the right to choose, this all the more important to his character
7:25 WTF are you talking about. She's in hiding and a blade runner who is tasked to kill her is not aware that she is the child and you think she should say " hey stop freaking out. I'm the child you are supposed to kill. You're not special. You are just a toaster who can cry."
Your complaint about lack of diversification is a little bit absurd to me. Sure, color is a little underrepresented in this film, but is color all that is important? There are people from all over the world in this film, have a look for yourself, almost every primary and secondary cast member is from different countries.
The movie doesn't actually say that Deckard and Rachael were brought together just to bring forth a Replicant through procreating - Wallace suggests as much to mess with Deckard, but the movie never makes it clear whether Wallace knows something specific with regard to this or is just playing mind games with Deckard in a bid to manipulate him or out of simple sadism - in classic Bladerunner style, it is all left open to interpretation.
I thought the point with the Joi character is that you don't know if it was real or not. Is she just an extremely convincing but ultimately unfeeling AI, or did she really care for him? When he sees the 50 foot naked version of her it's the same program, but was the one he cared for a unique individual? Or was he just fooling himself? If you love someone (romantically) is it real or are you just fulfilling the parameters of your evolutionary programming to make more humans? That to me at least seemed to be the point; what's the difference between us and them, if any?
It was not meant to be an action movie. The first one was slow paced too. I think K is real despite how the movie ended. K ended up evolving close to being real. In the first portion he was emotionless or showed little emotion. As his character develop, he started to lie make mistakes, treated his hologram as a real person who became real herself. In the end he accepted his fate and even smiled for the first time. Might been born a replicant but he ended up having a soul after all especially when he decided to save Deckard to be with his daughter..
With the Joi situation, I think one of the points is that it was real for K. Regardless of the facts of the situation, Joi was really the only entity that meant anything to him, and the loss of her effected him as such.
But there is no 'real person' as Grace puts it involved - two Replicants and an AI. Grace seems to be under the impression that the prostitute is human.
Artificial intelligence is usually taken to refer to machine intelligence, whereas Replicants are examples of synthetic biology, and so don't fall under the usual definition of the term.
I don't think the "real child" girl was supposed to be an actual leader. I think she was sort of an idea of a figure to the replicants because to them, she proved they were more than machines, whereas to her, she just wanted to live.
Sex scene? I must have seen a special edited version where that was left out. All I saw was a scene that implied it led to sex off camera, and then the morning after.
Wow- research any? she doesn’t understand that there are 3 nexus models and that is why they don’t auto-obey-Wallace’s models are the only ones that auto-obey (k is nexus 8 model)
Do you really have to cast people based on their color to tick the diversity box. You should cast actors based how well they fit the role no matter what color or race they are.
It's not about casting based on race. It's that people involved in making the movies don't even think about diversifying the worlds or adding those perspectives in the preproduction stage, even though it's a very important part of world-building. Instead they create it from a narrow view that ends up alienating a large part of the viewing public. It's a perpetual trend that results in very little, if any, representation on screen and fewer decent roles for those actors who really have a lot to offer. Lennie James for example, who played the guy who ran the orphanage in the movie, is arguably a better actor than anyone in that film, but he has yet to have a leading role in a series or film. "Ticking a diversity box" is exactly what we see in this film, and what Grace is arguing is not that simple. For example, the film takes place in future Los Angeles, where there is currently a 47.5% Hispanic population, a population that has been growing steadily over the past 40 years, compared to a 29.4% population of whites. In a broader sense, we currently live in a world that's about 60% Asian (there was absolutely no representation on screen), 20% black, and just 6.5% white. In this film we're looking into a future where there are very few, if any, people of color with no explanation as to why, and it is jarring when in reality we're moving in the direction of a majority multiethnic society. It's important for Hollywood to reflect this in order to create more original stories, and better films since those ideas and perspectives have been neglected for so long, and the industry is currently starved for good original ideas.
+CHRIS KING I found the male robot prostitute in A.I. more implausible than the robot teddy bear - although that might have something to do with Jude Law being so bland, lol. I'm glad they didn't take that route in Blade Runner 2049, because it made the boss-seducing-K scene more believable.
Movie raises questions and urges a viewer to apply an effort to find a personal answer. It applies to objectification as well. Movie doesn't state in any capacity that objectification is good/bad or even exists.
replicants are not robots....they are like that lab burger, they are made of the same as human or somenthin simillaar but in the lab and mad max is not cyberpunk... you need to read neuromancer to know what cyberpunk is
I think the fact that K really is a replicant, makes his arc complete. When he decides to save Deckard without any other reason than thinking "its the right choice", he truly shows that he is more human than anybody else. He sacrifices himself voluntarily for the bigger purpose. Because i cant say it any better, i will copy paste a comment here, that i read under another Blade Runner 2049-related video. The original writer of this comment is named zombinedotrar. This comment maybe helps some people to appreciate this movie more. "In summary, 2049 is about dreams and delusions. K wants desperately to be special, Joi tells him this constantly, and he instantly assumes all the evidence points to him because it's his dream. He becomes deluded and forces himself into the situation even as it destroys him. He thinks this is what it means to be human, to grapple with one's humanity. He is torn between two sides telling him what his identity is and should be - the LAPD who informs his identity as that of a slave, and the resistance which informs his identity as that of a free replicant. When his delusion is shattered by meeting the pink Joi, he chooses to follow his own path and not let anyone tell him who he is or what he should do. He makes the most human decision and takes his life into his own hands. He saves Deckard for the same reason Roy did. He wanted someone to remember him, for his final decision that fully validates him as human to not be in vain. No one else gave him his identity, only he did, and his sacrifice ensured forever that he was by every metric a human being, even if the world would ultimately forget him."
As much as you are a lovely individual Grace, I can't help but disagree with most of your criticisms. Then again I should have been a little worried when you mentioned you liked the Theatrical cut of the original over "The Final Cut." For a start, the Theatrical version omits the unicorn dream sequence which renders the rest of the film as unintelligible.
Well, they had more asian people on the original than in this one. It's not even about diversity itself, but it feels kinda off to see a LA SO MERGED into oriental aesthetics without any asian character being part of this. If JOI and Wallace were played by asian actors, it would have made more sense.
It was also good to see Barkhad Abdi in a role, even a small role. I have had a chance to see him in a movie since Eye in the Sky. I loved this movie and it exceeded all expectations I had.
I never believed that Deckard is a replicant and have the complete opposite opinion from Ridley Scott! The movie wouldn't make any sense if Deckard is a replicant! That battle at the end will lose all of its meaning because the whole point of it is that the android Roy Batty becomes more human than the human himself and decided to spare Deckard because he as a machine started to value life right before his death! The message of the film will lose it's meaning if Deckard is a replicant! You can talk about unicorns all day but the fact is that was added years later in an blatant attempt from Scott to make the film to feel deeper and more ambiguous.
You have to stop thinking about them as robots. They're bioengineered, organic, they have DNA. In that regard it's not really surprising that they are able to procreate.
The movie presented Joi's death as a real loss (to K), but later the movie revealed that it was all smoke and mirrors. This reveal was the real loss. This is when K realized *everything* he wanted was false, including a loving relationship. Her death was real to him, so it had to be presented as real to us, so that when the third act reveal came we would feel his despair.
I liked the movie but I felt it could be a lot shorter. Many unnecessary scenes and is 2:45 hours long, but I believe did have a great message and was really beautiful
+Yousef A. Absolutely. There should've been a tighter two-hour version for the cinema audience, and later an extended version for those watching at home. No way was I sitting for 163 minutes in one sitting.
Did it bother anybody that the hologram girl (Joi) is more convincing than the digital 'Rachel'? IMO the digitized RDJ & Kurt Russel was more convincing
She didn't get the first movie. She didn't get the second one. She's still trying to push her agenda (feminist or whatever thing it is) into every movie. Get over it.
Grace, most of the time I agree with you but I have to argue with this one. I think the double twist makes 'K' a better character, because for once, it's not a special 'prophecy' hero, not born with a 'destiny', not the 'Chosen one' but a GREAT HERO nonetheless. K has been thrown into his 'journey' completely by chance, and been played as an 'expendable' by both sides, yet he is a True Hero. I really love this character and his story arc.
Wow, Grace. I just saw the film and loved it, a lot. Watched 2 minutes of this review and bailed out. Why ruin this happy day? Maybe I'll watch this review later, or maybe not.
The movie does not promote objectification of women. In fact, it's quite the opposite in my opinion. It shows a future that is run by women. K's boss is a women. Wallace's assassin is a women. The special hybrid/replicant/human child/whatever you want to call her is a women.
+Beyond the Trailer This was the most intriguing ending I've ever seen in a movie theater: Absolute silence of people, sitting introspective, without any comment, digesting the emotional load of what they just watched ... After that, everyone left in silence, perplexed ... Truly impressive.
I found the movie lovely to look at but bland and sterile. And yes, I noticed the objectification of women and the female form, which gave the movie a dated feel.
I love the tragedy of K, what he sought after made him human. When K realize he wasn’t the child, I felt his disappointment and pain. K’s struggle to rescue Deckard, showed his determination and compassion. K’s death...made me remember him, he was more human than human.
I think Villeneuve is aware of the objectification of women and I think that's the point. Even though we are making progress, our advancement of technology (sexbots??) is diminishing that progress. So, I think it's more of an exploration of objectification of women that actively objectifying women.
Not really a fan of Zimmer's 2-note scores, although the minimalism worked for 'The Dark Knight.' We were supposed to have Johan Johansen (Arrival) music work, but he unfortunately died unexpectedly.
And the point of replicants is for "objectification" in a way. They are meant to serve their creators. Also you bring up Gosling being able to question orders, the replicants are given memories so they can come up with emotional responses.
7:14 why would she have told him that is was her memory?? We had already established thatit was illegal to implant real memories, and K, a replicant who must obey orders, works for the LAPD!! Would have been a terrible idea for the master memory creator to admit to an LAPD officer that they had illegally ruined his life
Yes, Agent k was used by others...but maybe we're all just a piece of the puzzle; fated to play our part before passing the baton to others and slipping away. To have been here - even for just a moment - and having a small part to play in the tapestry of life can (arguably) give you catharsis when the time for your end comes. Part of what it means to be a human.
Also- not to be a Smitty, but just to say that there was also the scene where Luv was negotiating the sale of the male versions of Joi before she was interrupted by K's visit. So that was indeed established. :)
The whole point of this film is not about diversity. Nobody cares. Also, Grace completely lacks understanding the film was supposed to be ambiguous. They did not 100% prove that Officer K wasn't the son. Hence, all of her points in the first two thirds of this video are completely refutable.
Its a beautiful film but i thought it was too white. So in LA 2049 there are no Asians, brown or black ppl? And I guess the future can only advertise to straight men. If you cant find a taco or Korean bbq than the future is a horrible place. Poor Sean Young. I did not like the third act.
So was Deckard a replicant or not? In the beginning you imply they didnt give a definitive answer, but for a replicant messiah to exist, wouldnt he have to be one? Or was Deckard human and the kid is just half-messiah?
I think this movie is one of the best movies i saw in a long time, but when it comes to Villeneuve, i think sicario was much better as a complete movie
Grace reveals why it's a good job that movie audiences don't write movies - her neater, more satisfying version would have killed the poetry. The ending is similar to Akira Kurosawa's "Ikiru."
For me it was no brainer that Deckard was human, Tyrell intially thought for the equation to create life in replicants he would need a joining of human DNA, so he introduced Raphael into his life. Not to mentioned Deckard really aged and had no super replicant strength. :D And I for one am glad it was not another "I'm your father" scene to a son, Star Wars has run that scenario to death..
Grace didnt watch the original BladeRunner obsviously....she said Gosling seemed too human..welll ummm replicants are not robots..they act very human like with emotions and feeling..they are made of flesh not circuits. The newest models like Gosling and Love were basically the same as the old ones with the exception that they follow orders which turned out to not be true, proving they are not emotionless robots..Grace cmon!!! You cant tell a replicant from a human basically unless you test them..so I dont understnd why she is saying he is too much of a human...thats what replicants portray all the time.
I think many people, including Grace, didn't get the point of the movie at all: In the end, the "unreal" K was the one who had a "real" life (he felt real snowflakes) and the "real" daughter of Rachel nevertheless had an "unreal" life (she only felt her simulated snowflakes). Living is life, it doesn't matter what your origin is.
You are welcome my friend!
Good observation
Master you are correct. Grace doesn't "get things" often. I now seem to watch her reviews in order to do the opposite of her suggestions. She is very good on all the behind the business stuff though. She's a little immature.
Such an awesome observation. Didn't see that the first time.
nice. that's a good one.
I couldn't disagree more Grace... The last reveal was not cruel in anyway, K didn't die because he had nothing left, he died because he felt it was for the right cause. Him dying in the way he did was to show how much humanity that the Replicants have, how they are much more "human" than the people hunting them down.
I don't think he's dead. He can heal, with time.
I thought that the movie was clear that he died on the steps in the snow. It showed his last breath but I could be wrong.
Blade Runner is NOT Spartacus meets The Matrix! They fu%$ed up a beautiful thing...
The last track in the soundtrack is "tears in the rain" so I think he's probably dead
being human isn't determined by other people recognizing you as a human, instead, being a human comes from inside of you, this is why I hated the message that this movie had, they killed the best character for nothing
Grace, its seems to me that whenever a film goes somewhere you don’t “want”, it to go you consider it bad filmmaking. With that reasoning the work of Shakespeare must be pure trash....
Replicants aren't robots, They're artificially grown organic humanoids engineered with enhanced physical abilities, and implanted with a series of memories to hone a particular personality. Replicants are physical beings, not machines. Joi on the otherhand, is artifical intelligence with a digital projection. The whole question is whether unnaturally created slaves can evolve beyond the bondage of their programming and be free conscious "souls" of their own autonomous cognizance, will, volition, and morality.
The most interesting thing is that our heroes and the villians actually share the same beliefs, but don't share the excusivity of each others' solution or the means thereof.
Well put octagonproplex.
*whether
MrShaun42088
Yup 👌
They are Humans, with all due respect you make the replicants sound like they are an entirely different species.
callofdutyguy9
Replicants are most likely a mutated product of artifical gene synthesis upon a cross section of various re-engineered human dna signatures to create a sort of subhuman worker class, physically more durable to harsh conditions, with brain activity limiting their creative, empathic, or emotional abilities to abstract or analyze the specific memory programming designed to inform their service traits. Their capacity for existential angst or artistic rationality is supposedly severely neutered, and therfore so is their will for free domain of conscience. They're humanoids manufactured for servitude, but not exactly human. And just as the mixed genetics of a mule is not exactly a horse nor a donkey, it seems the genetically manipulated not-quite-human replicants also share the trait of the mule in being born sterile.
There were NO bad performances in this film. Everyone knocked it out of the park.
Grace has the most odd criticisms of all-time
Vegeta Sama Agree and with the added eye rolling SJW ranting un-subbed.
it's called feminism
She has sadly been brainwashed by the liberals and it affects everything in her life.
Lol
Hahaha look at what kinds of people call others brainwashed ...funny how you're the trendy ones now, huh? And your thoughts are totally your own, hence the same arguments/insults/one-liners and methods and overall mentality...
Now, that's eye-rolling...
But go ahead and judge others and accuse them of hypocrisy and everything else. Never ever take a long look into the mirror, the reality checks hurt ;/
Wrong about Joi too. Their relationship is played as a very convincing bio-digital relationship with a tragic end. But when K sees the Joi advert he realises that she was just fulfilling her programming. Which is a tragedy.
Yes, and that is what drives him to go against his own programming
@M PG you nailed it.
And it's brought home so brutally to K when the billboard calls him 'Joe', or 'a good Joe', or something, I don't remember the exact line.
M PG You're a good Joe for pointing that out.
Exactly!
It wasn't objectification of a woman, it was personification of AI.
A thousand times yes, I couldn't agree more! And frankly, seeing Joi's affection and love as simply "programming" and not actual genuine feelings can be argued as the real objectification of replicants and AIs by humans which is what they're fighting so hard against. The point that they have bonafide miracles to offer the world including genuine feelings is one of the major themes here.
complains about objectification then suggests Robin Wright should have raped Gosling lmao
fucking hell Grace is an idiot
Hmm. To be fair the whole point of the advertisement "says what you want to hear" is a commentary on what men want, since that's what will be advertised to them. How people would rather have someone with no individuality than a real person. The reason it would've been better if there were male Joi's too is because it would've been a commentary on human desire which is the same in this regard instead of just "men are dogs." Women would also choose an objectified version of a man, one which does and says what they want. Not for sexual desire, moreso for support, but an artificial support. I think it would've been much more interesting to show both sides of the coins instead of just shitting on men.
I think the movie was definitely objectifying, but that it was self-aware about its objectification. It was intentional. They were trying to show how replicants and AI are treated as though they are objects - loving holographic girlfriends (Joi), obeying blade runners (K), etc. - and while they might be actual synthetic creations, they still have their own thoughts and feelings (that may or may not be real).
So the objectification in the movie doesn't bother me as much because it seems to comment on itself. Joi was physically objectified because that's what she was created for. Yet we still doubt throughout the film how much of her love for K is real or synthetic. It all ties into the core theme of the film, and that's why I was able to shrug off some of my qualms about that.
5:26 it was never explicitly stated that Deckard was only brought to the Tyrell corporation to impregnate Rachel. That’s just something that Jarrad Leto says in an attempt to get in Deckards head
its possible but not confirmed
But if you think about it, that's the only thing that makes sense seeing as Rachel was able to have a child, unlike other replicants.
Not really theres other ways it can go.The point of the first an this one is that you will never have all the answers an its just for you to decide.
or Rachel is human and Deckard is a Replicant. Engineered to work together for children.
Grace! This is not the first time I want to write to you, but this time I am)) Grace, that moment about sacrificing K's life after he gets that he is not the one. That made the movie for me. Look, he thought that he is special and that was his driver. And tha couse of this speciality was the way he was given birth, right? So, after his internal break K dicides to make himself special by his sacrifice. And indeed he bacame special, but not through his birth right, but througth his own choicies and risk. This is a ton of sense. Not plot weakness. Great part!
Анэстэси Холдинг Well said! I thought the same!
Yes 👊🏻
K lives and is at least partially human. Replicantness and humaness are recursive.
He didn't think he was special. He was TOLD he was special by Joi and wanted to believe it so badly that he ignored any red flags saying otherwise.
It's a parallel to his relationship with Joi herself. He knows she tells him everything he wants to hear but chooses to believe it because he has nothing else.
The final act is K admitting this to himself and coming to terms with himself and his place in the world. He's an inverted Roy Batty, a being that has all the lifespan and time in the world but who hasn't actually experienced life. Once he does, he dies content in the exact same pose.
It's also worth noting that he's far more Deckard's child than his biological daugter.
It was, it was perfect and poetic.
They give him a conscience and the ability to question so he's a better blade runner. Remember the question from the first film "Have you ever tried a human by mistake?" That's why he needs the ability to analyse and question what he's doing.
i think it was have you ever retired a human by mistake cuzz retirement is what they called killing replicants
+Blindman I agree. Being able to question things is part and parcel with having logic. It makes him a more intelligent artificial intelligence.
It was firmly established in my view that - having earlier been sucked into thinking a relationship with Joi was (to an extent) real - he later realized he'd been emotionally duped. This was when, late in the movie, Agent K chances upon her colossal-sized motion poster. That Joi had the same line "That's a day!" and referred to guys as "Joe". He realized beyond all doubt, at that moment, how hollow it all was. She was just a construct (as was he).
I think grace is annoyed because she predicted that Ryan Gosling was Rachael and Deckard's child and then they pulled the rug out from under her. It almost made me laugh watching her throw a tantrum. Personally I thought it was a clever bait and switch. Wanting the guy with the gun to be the savior seems painfully traditional and formulaic and using Luke Skywalker as a character template shows a lack of maturity on your behalf which I think comes from being a comic book fan and its over use of formulas and stereotypes. Rather than get mad at the movie I think you should be mad at yourself for trying to impose such an unoriginal formula on movie that was much better for not adhering to a lead character stereotype and a linear storyline. Having Ryan Gosling as the replicant messiah would have been painfully formulaic compared to cleaver twist they actually had in the movie and I disagree completely about the girl in the bubble not having what it took to be the replicant messiah. She seemed highly intelligent, had some valuable skills and connections and she was also not on the run. There are way to many movie these days that go down all to predictable line and thank god Blade Runner 2049 did not do that!
Fyi, Mackenzie Davis' character is also a replicant. Ie. Not real
your obsession with diversity and feminism sometimes prevent you from appreciating a good film, not every film has to address every single political issue. I am telling you this as a very liberal person myself. I absolutely adored this film, and it was the best cinematic experience I have had in years. It's just that I feel many of your criticisms and opinions are not specific for each movie.
Exactly. There might have been male versions of JOI but that was not the focus of the story.
No, it's sexism! Because...statues of boobs...in fucking Las Vegas (where K found Deckard). And giant sex ads...which are a cyberpunk cliche now.
So what! A Naked Statue can be considered as art to some. There were a lot more naked statues of men In ancient Rome and Greece and still preserved and appreciated by many today.
Thank you for making the point better then I
While I could end up agreeing with that take (haven't reached that part of the video yet), I gotta ask, genuinely:
Would you see it like this nowadays, 6 years later?
I mean, I'd understand both yes and no, obviously, but I'm curious regarding the explanation/reason behind either.
I usually see Grace's points, but damn not with this movie
I have to disagreed with you on this one Grace, i thought the ending was perfect. it was so unexpected. Even more so was the fact the one thing Wallace wanted so much was there all along...
One directorial choice that made the ending perfect was to allow K to die without trying to mimic Rob Batty's classic speech, but to die in a poignant silence instead.
26:07 Are you serious!? Did we watch the same movie? Jared Leto and Harrison Ford was awesome in this film
I'm reading oscar buzz for Harrison ford
I just saw it, they didn't do much acting, nothing that stood out. Leto was hardly in it.
GAME OVER "WE HAVE EVERY PIXEL COVERED" soo? Are you impatient for the 3rd movie?
same... would be cool af
GAME OVER "WE HAVE EVERY PIXEL COVERED" the actress playing joi was actually good and to think she is the most artificial one in the movie.
I kinda like the idea that the main character wasn't the jessus figure since it so played out and kinda cool the main character can be a no one that gets caught up in a situation instead of a 'choosen one'
+KunaiDragon Yes, for me it was a major relief that they didn't make Ryan Gosling into a Jesus figure - instead he was a Joseph figure, meant to find/protect the messiah. Reminded me of Clive Owen in Children Of Men.
Star Wars had a similar thing going with Rey in The Last Jedi…. Too bad Rise of Skywalker ruined that 😂
Grace Logic
•Laments that Agent K never uses his android strength
•Proceed to talk about him breaking someones spine and running through a concrete wall
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I respectfully disagree with your Harrison and Leto viewpoints.
All 3 were artificial in the 'sex scene'
Yeap HaleysTusk
HaleysTusk It was quite uncomfortable, felt very sympathetic to K in that moment
It was an awesome scene Kenny C
I think the saddest scene was when Joi is killed and K is just lying there and you can't really tell, but you can feel his heart break.
Plasti Adicto Definitely, I'm not taking away from it, it's just a very sad scene for K
I'm surprised you didn't mention how great Luv's actress was....she was truly scary
Grace seem to invested to much to K character... So that when the plot twist reveal she just taken out of the movie. I just saw the movie. Its a great story and meaning behind it.
Cyberpunk is a sub-genre of science fiction that features advanced science and technology in an urban, dystopian future. On one side you have powerful mega-corporations and private security forces, and on the other you have the dark and gritty underworld of illegal trade, gangs, drugs, and vice. In between all of this is politics, corruption, and social upheaval.
Blade Runner started the cyberpunk genre in film and Neuromancer in literature. While Mad Max is set in a dystopian future, it lacks all the other elements of cyberpunk and Blade Runner is actually the example of Cyber Punk that has influenced all films that follow it in the genre.
Not every movement fighting for freedom is full exclusively of good people Grace - it is quite possible the Replicants only want the 'Replicant Messiah' to use a symbolic figurehead; a living standard with no command or leadership responsibilities and probably no choice in how she is used. Few indeed are the battles between good and evil - their is usually evil aplenty on both sides of any given conflict.
As for K, the point is not that he was somehow forced to die for this cause, but he chose to fight for it freely, knowing he might die. Throughout the early portion of the movie he was doing the dirty work for other people with no choice in the matter at all, later he was confused and adrift. This is the first moment of truly unfettered, personal agency he has experienced. The first fully free choice he has made for his own reasons, and in no small part he wasn't fighting for some abstract ideal of Replicant liberation. He was fighting to reunite Deckard with his daughter, standing up in defence of the type of family he was denied. He is also still mourning the death of Joii (and for all that she was an AI, the movie goes out of its way to establish her humanity and make it clear that her death at the hands of Luv amounted to murder), and likely seeking revenge, and while that motivation may be somewhat ignoble, it is also still his own. It is no coincidence that the moment he decides to go after Deckard and kill Luv comes after he has seen a (deeply objectifying - that criticism is 100% valid) advertisement for the Joii programme, a version of Joii with blank, soul less eyes that convey that, while this programme may wear her face, the essence of the Joii he knew is lost forever. K is still a hero, though a flawed one. He represents the nobility of choices freely made, even when those choices end in one's own death, and as a Replicant formerly denied the right to choose, this all the more important to his character
7:25 WTF are you talking about. She's in hiding and a blade runner who is tasked to kill her is not aware that she is the child and you think she should say " hey stop freaking out. I'm the child you are supposed to kill. You're not special. You are just a toaster who can cry."
Your complaint about lack of diversification is a little bit absurd to me. Sure, color is a little underrepresented in this film, but is color all that is important? There are people from all over the world in this film, have a look for yourself, almost every primary and secondary cast member is from different countries.
Absurd is to se a LA so merged into oriental aesthetics and yet, everyone is white.
They should have put more asian people on this movie.
The movie doesn't actually say that Deckard and Rachael were brought together just to bring forth a Replicant through procreating - Wallace suggests as much to mess with Deckard, but the movie never makes it clear whether Wallace knows something specific with regard to this or is just playing mind games with Deckard in a bid to manipulate him or out of simple sadism - in classic Bladerunner style, it is all left open to interpretation.
Gregory Greenwood-Nimmo Where did Grace got that implication.
@@genebijou3772 I'm not sure she watched the same movie to be honest
The film didn't show a ¨male version of Joi¨ because it wasn't needed, period.
Joi’s death hurt me more than most human deaths in movies this year 😂
The ending gave me the Blues...The BladeRunner BLUES(No Vangelis).
I thought the point with the Joi character is that you don't know if it was real or not. Is she just an extremely convincing but ultimately unfeeling AI, or did she really care for him?
When he sees the 50 foot naked version of her it's the same program, but was the one he cared for a unique individual? Or was he just fooling himself?
If you love someone (romantically) is it real or are you just fulfilling the parameters of your evolutionary programming to make more humans?
That to me at least seemed to be the point; what's the difference between us and them, if any?
Michael Buick Good analogy, you're a good joe.
It was not meant to be an action movie. The first one was slow paced too. I think K is real despite how the movie ended. K ended up evolving close to being real. In the first portion he was emotionless or showed little emotion. As his character develop, he started to lie make mistakes, treated his hologram as a real person who became real herself. In the end he accepted his fate and even smiled for the first time. Might been born a replicant but he ended up having a soul after all especially when he decided to save Deckard to be with his daughter..
joi and k’s relationship was real to k
I loved this movie.... Man it blew me away... I have not seen a movie this good in a long time... AND THAT SCORE!!!!
With the Joi situation, I think one of the points is that it was real for K. Regardless of the facts of the situation, Joi was really the only entity that meant anything to him, and the loss of her effected him as such.
Both K and the prostitute are Replicants Grace; both are engineered, synthetic biology. The only AI in the scene is the Joii character.
"both are engineered, synthetic biology" --- and thus "artificial" as in "not natural" and thus a replica of the "real" thing.
But there is no 'real person' as Grace puts it involved - two Replicants and an AI. Grace seems to be under the impression that the prostitute is human.
Gotcha. Okay.
Replicants are AI
Artificial intelligence is usually taken to refer to machine intelligence, whereas Replicants are examples of synthetic biology, and so don't fall under the usual definition of the term.
Now I’m believing my friend who said that Grace is not a good reviewer lol. She didn’t get the point of the blade runner 2049
I don't think the "real child" girl was supposed to be an actual leader. I think she was sort of an idea of a figure to the replicants because to them, she proved they were more than machines, whereas to her, she just wanted to live.
The sex scene reminded me of HER and that scene with Phoenix and Scar Jo when a third woman appeared to emulate a real encounter
Those scenes were hard to relate to and hard to sit through
Thank you for bringing HER up. I didn't find the scene anywhere near as original or historic as Grace mentioned because of HER.
Hi there Grace! I think you may have forgotten that somewhere over the beginning of the film a woman is trying to buy a male replicant.
Sex scene? I must have seen a special edited version where that was left out. All I saw was a scene that implied it led to sex off camera, and then the morning after.
Exactly. That's why it was good. We didn't have to suffer through it.
In the face of the fabulous new all you think about is the sex scene? You can't hold the film with a broom.
Wow- research any? she doesn’t understand that there are 3 nexus models and that is why they don’t auto-obey-Wallace’s models are the only ones that auto-obey (k is nexus 8 model)
Do you really have to cast people based on their color to tick the diversity box. You should cast actors based how well they fit the role no matter what color or race they are.
Rhylie Agree with you.
Right? If only hollywood followed that rule we would have much more black people in leading roles
You do realize when you say that what you're really saying is: "I think white people are better actors than people of color".
Farcryfan93 👍
It's not about casting based on race. It's that people involved in making the movies don't even think about diversifying the worlds or adding those perspectives in the preproduction stage, even though it's a very important part of world-building. Instead they create it from a narrow view that ends up alienating a large part of the viewing public. It's a perpetual trend that results in very little, if any, representation on screen and fewer decent roles for those actors who really have a lot to offer. Lennie James for example, who played the guy who ran the orphanage in the movie, is arguably a better actor than anyone in that film, but he has yet to have a leading role in a series or film. "Ticking a diversity box" is exactly what we see in this film, and what Grace is arguing is not that simple. For example, the film takes place in future Los Angeles, where there is currently a 47.5% Hispanic population, a population that has been growing steadily over the past 40 years, compared to a 29.4% population of whites. In a broader sense, we currently live in a world that's about 60% Asian (there was absolutely no representation on screen), 20% black, and just 6.5% white. In this film we're looking into a future where there are very few, if any, people of color with no explanation as to why, and it is jarring when in reality we're moving in the direction of a majority multiethnic society. It's important for Hollywood to reflect this in order to create more original stories, and better films since those ideas and perspectives have been neglected for so long, and the industry is currently starved for good original ideas.
You know, they had a male version prostitute in the Spielberg film A.I. He could change emotions with a twitch of his head.
CHRIS KING and it's also called Joe (what do you know)
+CHRIS KING I found the male robot prostitute in A.I. more implausible than the robot teddy bear - although that might have something to do with Jude Law being so bland, lol. I'm glad they didn't take that route in Blade Runner 2049, because it made the boss-seducing-K scene more believable.
Movie raises questions and urges a viewer to apply an effort to find a personal answer. It applies to objectification as well. Movie doesn't state in any capacity that objectification is good/bad or even exists.
replicants are not robots....they are like that lab burger, they are made of the same as human or somenthin simillaar but in the lab
and mad max is not cyberpunk... you need to read neuromancer to know what cyberpunk is
🤔🤔😥😥
Yeah, I always get mad when they say they're robots, androids or machines. they are genetically engineered humans, designed humans!
Replicants are a futuristic version of 3D printed humans.
Neuromancer and Blade Runner are basicly single-handedly responsible for the creation of cyber-punk
Exactly!!
I think the fact that K really is a replicant, makes his arc complete. When he decides to save Deckard without any other reason than thinking "its the right choice", he truly shows that he is more human than anybody else. He sacrifices himself voluntarily for the bigger purpose. Because i cant say it any better, i will copy paste a comment here, that i read under another Blade Runner 2049-related video. The original writer of this comment is named zombinedotrar. This comment maybe helps some people to appreciate this movie more.
"In summary, 2049 is about dreams and delusions. K wants desperately to be special, Joi tells him this constantly, and he instantly assumes all the evidence points to him because it's his dream. He becomes deluded and forces himself into the situation even as it destroys him. He thinks this is what it means to be human, to grapple with one's humanity. He is torn between two sides telling him what his identity is and should be - the LAPD who informs his identity as that of a slave, and the resistance which informs his identity as that of a free replicant. When his delusion is shattered by meeting the pink Joi, he chooses to follow his own path and not let anyone tell him who he is or what he should do. He makes the most human decision and takes his life into his own hands. He saves Deckard for the same reason Roy did. He wanted someone to remember him, for his final decision that fully validates him as human to not be in vain. No one else gave him his identity, only he did, and his sacrifice ensured forever that he was by every metric a human being, even if the world would ultimately forget him."
As much as you are a lovely individual Grace, I can't help but disagree with most of your criticisms. Then again I should have been a little worried when you mentioned you liked the Theatrical cut of the original over "The Final Cut." For a start, the Theatrical version omits the unicorn dream sequence which renders the rest of the film as unintelligible.
Lack of diversity? How many as you put it “people of color” are in the original blade runner? How many are in 2049?
Well, they had more asian people on the original than in this one.
It's not even about diversity itself, but it feels kinda off to see a LA SO MERGED into oriental aesthetics without any asian character being part of this.
If JOI and Wallace were played by asian actors, it would have made more sense.
It was also good to see Barkhad Abdi in a role, even a small role. I have had a chance to see him in a movie since Eye in the Sky.
I loved this movie and it exceeded all expectations I had.
Seems Grace went to the Simpsons school of witness protection.
In Grace's reviews, the characters are not allowed to wonder out loud or make mistakes
Ryan gosling really was great and yeah I did feel so bad at the end for him with the twist
I never believed that Deckard is a replicant and have the complete opposite opinion from Ridley Scott! The movie wouldn't make any sense if Deckard is a replicant!
That battle at the end will lose all of its meaning because the whole point of it is that the android Roy Batty becomes more human than the human himself and decided to spare Deckard because he as a machine started to value life right before his death! The message of the film will lose it's meaning if Deckard is a replicant!
You can talk about unicorns all day but the fact is that was added years later in an blatant attempt from Scott to make the film to feel deeper and more ambiguous.
stareatglare oh yeah Deckard was 100 percent human in the book with all his flaws
One of the best reviews Grace!.. almost 2am and the nostalgia brought me here
You have to stop thinking about them as robots. They're bioengineered, organic, they have DNA. In that regard it's not really surprising that they are able to procreate.
That's actually a big problem with the movie. It's not surprising that they can procreate, then what's the big deal when they do?
The movie presented Joi's death as a real loss (to K), but later the movie revealed that it was all smoke and mirrors. This reveal was the real loss. This is when K realized *everything* he wanted was false, including a loving relationship. Her death was real to him, so it had to be presented as real to us, so that when the third act reveal came we would feel his despair.
Blade runner 2049 greatness
Objectification, you are describing one of the MAJOR themes with replicants in Blade Runner 2049
I liked the movie but I felt it could be a lot shorter. Many unnecessary scenes and is 2:45 hours long, but I believe did have a great message and was really beautiful
+Yousef A. Absolutely. There should've been a tighter two-hour version for the cinema audience, and later an extended version for those watching at home. No way was I sitting for 163 minutes in one sitting.
Did it bother anybody that the hologram girl (Joi) is more convincing than the digital 'Rachel'? IMO the digitized RDJ & Kurt Russel was more convincing
Geez really Grace play the feminist card on this awesome movie?? Face palm.
She didn't get the first movie. She didn't get the second one. She's still trying to push her agenda (feminist or whatever thing it is) into every movie.
Get over it.
Future yep im so over Grace doing this constantly. its ruined her content
First point you make the "why can he question his orders"... Because he fundamentally is human.
Grace, most of the time I agree with you but I have to argue with this one. I think the double twist makes 'K' a better character, because for once, it's not a special 'prophecy' hero, not born with a 'destiny', not the 'Chosen one' but a GREAT HERO nonetheless. K has been thrown into his 'journey' completely by chance, and been played as an 'expendable' by both sides, yet he is a True Hero. I really love this character and his story arc.
It's one of those awkward moments when it's crystal clear Grace missed the point of the movie.
7:10 great comparison of losing Joy to losing progress in a video game 👏🏿
20:01 - I Guess that is your fantasy, Grace...
Wow, Grace. I just saw the film and loved it, a lot. Watched 2 minutes of this review and bailed out. Why ruin this happy day? Maybe I'll watch this review later, or maybe not.
Your love of the movie is clouding your judgment.
The movie does not promote objectification of women. In fact, it's quite the opposite in my opinion. It shows a future that is run by women. K's boss is a women. Wallace's assassin is a women. The special hybrid/replicant/human child/whatever you want to call her is a women.
Poor Ryan, all he wanted was to hope he was real. And he was left to fade away, staring into the white sky...
Grace disliking this film makes the film better. Thanks, Grace.
Vinsu Karma
*vomits*
But is she "open bobs" cute?
Was I the only one who saw the “reveal” coming long before it happened?
+Beyond the Trailer This was the most intriguing ending I've ever seen in a movie theater: Absolute silence of people, sitting introspective, without any comment, digesting the emotional load of what they just watched ... After that, everyone left in silence, perplexed ... Truly impressive.
One thing I found amusing is the extreme anger the replicants exhibited , very extreme in their bursts
I found the movie lovely to look at but bland and sterile. And yes, I noticed the objectification of women and the female form, which gave the movie a dated feel.
I think JOI was meant to be a pleasing woman to everyone, she adapts to your thing, obviously in that universe there's a woman version for it
But doesn't that speaks for itself? How this is still a male-dominated society with women being objectified and only there to please the men?
At home I thought about the ending and got it, the girl looking at k's memories knew they were real because they were hers.
officialpartychannel or they were NOT real because she designed them. She is designer of dreams after all.
They were real, she said the memories were lived, he thought she meant by him, but she recognised them as her own, why she started crying
"That sick lady who somehow has an accent" ..Lol
I love the tragedy of K, what he sought after made him human. When K realize he wasn’t the child, I felt his disappointment and pain. K’s struggle to rescue Deckard, showed his determination and compassion. K’s death...made me remember him, he was more human than human.
I think Villeneuve is aware of the objectification of women and I think that's the point. Even though we are making progress, our advancement of technology (sexbots??) is diminishing that progress. So, I think it's more of an exploration of objectification of women that actively objectifying women.
Not really a fan of Zimmer's 2-note scores, although the minimalism worked for 'The Dark Knight.' We were supposed to have Johan Johansen (Arrival) music work, but he unfortunately died unexpectedly.
And the point of replicants is for "objectification" in a way. They are meant to serve their creators. Also you bring up Gosling being able to question orders, the replicants are given memories so they can come up with emotional responses.
7:14 why would she have told him that is was her memory?? We had already established thatit was illegal to implant real memories, and K, a replicant who must obey orders, works for the LAPD!! Would have been a terrible idea for the master memory creator to admit to an LAPD officer that they had illegally ruined his life
21:28 - Very good point. But the script was sooooo bad
I'm pretty sure Leto's character was just messing with Deckard
Yes, Agent k was used by others...but maybe we're all just a piece of the puzzle; fated to play our part before passing the baton to others and slipping away. To have been here - even for just a moment - and having a small part to play in the tapestry of life can (arguably) give you catharsis when the time for your end comes. Part of what it means to be a human.
Joi reminded me of Samantha from her
Grace I don't believe the replicant Messiah is sick. She has been place in that situation to keep her from being discovered.
Also- not to be a Smitty, but just to say that there was also the scene where Luv was negotiating the sale of the male versions of Joi before she was interrupted by K's visit. So that was indeed established. :)
The whole point of this film is not about diversity. Nobody cares. Also, Grace completely lacks understanding the film was supposed to be ambiguous. They did not 100% prove that Officer K wasn't the son. Hence, all of her points in the first two thirds of this video are completely refutable.
Its a beautiful film but i thought it was too white. So in LA 2049 there are no Asians, brown or black ppl? And I guess the future can only advertise to straight men. If you cant find a taco or Korean bbq than the future is a horrible place. Poor Sean Young. I did not like the third act.
So was Deckard a replicant or not? In the beginning you imply they didnt give a definitive answer, but for a replicant messiah to exist, wouldnt he have to be one? Or was Deckard human and the kid is just half-messiah?
They imply he is in the movie.
I think this movie is one of the best movies i saw in a long time, but when it comes to Villeneuve, i think sicario was much better as a complete movie
Grace reveals why it's a good job that movie audiences don't write movies - her neater, more satisfying version would have killed the poetry. The ending is similar to Akira Kurosawa's "Ikiru."
For me it was no brainer that Deckard was human, Tyrell intially thought for the equation to create life in replicants he would need a joining of human DNA, so he introduced Raphael into his life. Not to mentioned Deckard really aged and had no super replicant strength. :D And I for one am glad it was not another "I'm your father" scene to a son, Star Wars has run that scenario to death..
Grace didnt watch the original BladeRunner obsviously....she said Gosling seemed too human..welll ummm replicants are not robots..they act very human like with emotions and feeling..they are made of flesh not circuits. The newest models like Gosling and Love were basically the same as the old ones with the exception that they follow orders which turned out to not be true, proving they are not emotionless robots..Grace cmon!!! You cant tell a replicant from a human basically unless you test them..so I dont understnd why she is saying he is too much of a human...thats what replicants portray all the time.
I realized K wasn't the miracle baby when the prostitute picked up the wooden horse and said it was from a memory.