This is STILL one of my favourite movies. I watched it in cinema all alone and when I walked out of the mall it was raining. There's something surreal about that feeling that I remembered to this day.
I felt a similar experience, but i was with my girlfriend and there was some other people in theater, but when we left the mall it was also raining with neon like lights at the landscape. I remember felling surreal for finally have watched a blade runner sequel after being fan of the first one for so many years, and how mindboggling the whole movie is.
@@denroy3nah I disagree. First of all it's a sequel so you're already wrong. Second it's a really worthy and thought provoking continuation of the original story.
@@denroy3original is meh and has "greedo shot first" level director meddling. 2049 is a masterpiece of film and BR is the cult success that needed to be told by respectful people.
Something I find interesting that I've seen nobody discuss was what a Sapper is. In classic military conflict a sapper is one that tunnels under walls of a castle or a trench and places explosives [or something else like piers of wood and a fire to destroy them] to 'tear down the wall'. Bautistas character is meant to knock down the wall that other characters in the film talk about. He is the first significant step for K to in other words become human. As if the idea of something metaphysical like a miracle is necessary to take steps to humanity. I.E. something that is so out of line of what you KNOW to be or be possible made manifest directly in your vision, keeping with the themes of eyes in the first film mainly, and lesser so in 2047. But 2047 also deals with touch, what you feel. And feeling anything might be enough to make you human.
Found myself tearing up at several points along the way... and, ultimately understanding it better than I had after watching the three shorts and feature three times each. Thank you!
Luv is trying and trying and trying to be the best one... to feel like she deserves love. Or to feel secure in approval. Imo, this hits so hard because there's a type of parent that cultivates this in their children. And some religions work this angle shamelessly. So I cried there, and also at the very simple, you're special.
It's good to see a creator skip the all too common trend of bombarding the viewer with background music. Listening to a voice alone is more impactful when the spoken word takes center stage with no distractions. Audiobooks speak to this as we keep up with multi-layered narratives unfolding over hours and hours. Those of us who enjoy excellent long form studies like this will stick around (probably more than once if we're passionate about the topic) and we don't need a synthwave beat to keep us engaged.
Not to mention makes it easier to understand what’s being said for those of us with some amount of hearing damage. Nicer to hear what’s being spoken than have to rely on subtitles.
I can barely put into words how highly I regard this film and its philosophy on life. Not many movies present such deep questions and even fewer have the balls to attempt to answer them. I'm thinking films like Barry Lyndon and Grand Budapest Hotel. Stories that reflect on what a life is, what's important, and why it's important. I'm sure if you asked 20 people they'd all have a unique list of what films do that for them, but BR2049 is probably the top of it for me.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Contemporaneous At THREE HOURS AND FIVE MINUTES, people were walking out of the theatres. At least when it came out. It was sort of like a longer, more drawn-out re-telling of Candide by Voltaire, without all the stately British puffery. It also only tripled it's eleven million dollar budget.
@@c3bhm I agree it's got a lot of good positive philosophy. And importantly, each person is going to find something different in fiction that represents them. I've heard so many people talk about the film Secret Life of Walter Mitty a lot when it comes to 'guiding principles' but personally? I hate it lol. I'd love to see a poll with cross-sections of the population asked what movie represents their views best in this sense (if I could find a genius who could word the question properly). Generations, regions, ethnicity, I'm sure you'd get some interesting answers when juxtaposing people on this.
Worked as a prison guard for the better part of 8 years. I can say with 100% certainty that some people have a LOT less empathy than the replicants presented in these movies.
@@lonew2657 People who are imprisoned may choose to not act as human beings And that just makes it all the more striking when inmates choose to rise above, to retain their humanity This is especially true in the cases where the inmates know that they are not guilty, e.g. Navalny
That scene of the giant hologram Joi calling him Joe broke the internet. Because it's not just about whether Joi or K is real. This isn't just about can synthetic humans be special. This scene makes the viewer question if they, or anyone is really special. Remember, this scene takes place right after Joi is destroyed and tries to say "I love you". Just like K, the viewer thinks she and K are different .But the scene with the hologram destroys that illusion the second she calls him Joe. Because the cold truth is, waaaay deep down, every married couple wonders where's the line where they can be replaced. An illiness? Old age? A job layoff (every guy I knew in a relationship before the Great Recession wasn't after it)? So what's the point of anything? I guess you have to ultimately find your own reason to feel special. K does this at the end. When Deckard asks why K did all this, he doesn't answer. He lived his life his way proving that, while not unique, he could still act like someone who was. And that's what this is all about. It's your actions define you. Was K just another replicant that could be replaced and maybe that replacement does the same thing he did. Hard to say. But the point is he made the choice to sacrifice himself to do the right thing.
Can I ask you why this is the case, what’s the purpose of it? Knowing that the time you have is very finite and you can easily be replaced what’s the purpose? Life just sounds like a giant game.
@@dream8870 Your comment reminded me of Auld Lang Syne - a German version of the song I heard years ago. Nehmt Abschied Brüder Schließt den Kreis Das Leben ist ein Spiel Und wer es recht zu spielen weiß, gelangt ans große Ziel Say goodbye to btothers close the circle life is a game And who knows how to play gets to the big goal I don't know, but this song gives me always Matrix vibes. As if we were trapped in MBs "Spiel des Lebens" (The checkered game of life).
Ask yourself exactly the same questions about your own life. What's the purpose of it ( your life ) . . . Genuinely, pragmatically, the answer is there is no purpose. There is no "purpose" to the universe, it is all a random fluctuation, and ALL of human existence is a nothing occupying the SMALLEST possible fraction of the length of time that has passed but REALLY nothing when compared to the length of the future. And IN that vanishingly small 100 to 300 000 years of humanity worth of the past, you won't be alive even for a fraction of it, not even one thousandth of it . . . However, living your life to your own rules, and trying to make other people happy, trying to be happy on average, this can be a self valued PERSONAL purpose . . . There literally isn't any point thinking too hard about it. There isn't any "point" to the Universe, or our lives, or even human existence so we MAKE ourselves a point.@@dream8870
Yes, I've always thought, "Is Decker a replicant?" was the wrong question. The deep question that resonates is pondering whether or not there's any actual difference between human and replicant.
That’s the point of the first movie. Deckard, who is human, acts with basically no humanity when hunting the replicants, who have a craving and lust for life. They are more human than the human. Deckard rediscovering humanity is the point of the movie
@@nickentrosI do not think dekard was human cause he and k and love seem to be unaffected in Vegas by radiation as to where others on the team have breathing apparatuses when thy go to kidnap K And deckard.
@@clemfandango5908 We don't know where the bomb dropped in vegas. The electronics and stuff worked where Deckard was staying so i'm assuming he lived in a pretty unaffected area.
If Deckard is a replicant, I think it adds nothing to the story---except a host of nearly impossible questions to answer. If replicants are regarded as so dangerous that all replicants, even one as harmless as Rachel, must be hunted down and "retired," then by what ridiculous stretch is Deckard, a replicant, allowed to roam free and carry a badge and a weapon? If he's a replicant, then why is he so weak? And on and on. I think if Deckard were a replicant, the logic of the story collapses.
@@tagoldich I tend to agree that Deckard is human, but I also rebel against stating that firmly. Without going into full Blade Runner exegesis mode, I find the open question adds to, rather than subtracts from, the philosophical angles. That said, Scott's insistence that Deckard is a replicant really detracts from my respect for his intelligence, and leaves me wondering if he even understood the story he got on screen. Blade Runner is incredibly and subtly subversive. It loses some punch if the alienation and antipathy flowing from capitalism and its structures aren't acting on any humans in the film.
I came here to say that- so thank you again! Great video analysis; a lot of new elements that I hadn’t picked up on… (eg “Joe”). Really great job, mate!
It will continue getting attention for a long time to come. It's already a cult classic on par with Ridley Scott's original (and, like Ridley's own extensive, quality filmography, Villeneuve’s filmography will guarantee ongoing advertising for the sequel as well).
Joi is a test of K's humanity, of the viewer's humanity. If you are heartbroken by her demise, you bear grace, you are humane. If her plight makes you a better person, then she is worthy, she is important, and regardless of whether she functions upon programming, she makes people better by evoking love and empathy. To me, this is incredibly human.
So true. Also, I feel that this review and many others do not recognize the growth of the Joi character. Joi follows her programming, sure, but she also genuinely learns, and adapts. In my opinion, Joi is to this film what the replicants are to the original.
I say this as often as I can. I haven't yet seen any reviewers use the rain to connect her story directly to tears in the rain. We see her physically adapt to the environments she encounters in the emulator, and I don't see why so many having a hard time accepting that unique experiential learning made her a unique iteration of the larger JOI program. Even without the tears in the rain connection to the first time we see her having unique experience. A scene bathed in green, which is connected with individual life in the rest of 2049 itself. That said, her name is also a category of porn that couldn't have been missed in the creative process. Even if I beleve what I just said about K's JOI, I think she also serves as a symbol for propaganda, questions of control, and our fear that consumer economics is reducing us all to a narrow and replicable set of concepts. As well, I do think we should keep open the question of whether she actually rose against her programming, whether our decision to imbue her specifically with meaning actually makes her an individual or she remains figment of the imagination, and what our decision to imbue her with autonomy actually means to her own autonomy to define herself. JOI may be the richest character ever created. As a movie I still prefer the original bladerunner, but JOI is the blockbuster question mark.
BR2049 is really about making people feel comfortable with home appliances. It's propaganda from tech companies to soften us up to the idea that we have more in common with toasters then we do with our neighbours. The people up in Silicon Valley want you in love with your computer and not your girlfriend.
I agree. After all, how many of us haven't wondered if the way we act and think is just programming, pathways in our brain we can't change or conditioning in our childhood we can't break. Does that matter? Does that make us less human? In my opinion the simple desire to want to be human and be real is the beginning of free will, and Joi's tragedy is that she was killed before she achieved the same freedom as K, and all her memories and experiences that made her *her* are gone, like tears in the rain.
I loved both movies. My view on the "Reality Matters", is somewhat different, now that I am closer to the end than the beginning. I would be happy with Joi. A simulation of companionship and kindness is better than none at all.
Great take, I agree with the majority of your observations, I disagree that K was using Joi as a distraction like Instagram, I see it as a yearning and reaching for a human life, a striving for humanity. And the relationship in the beginning may have been like you say, but I see growth in both, as you said when she risks mortality by being disconnected so they can't make her talk, and at the end when she is destroyed she also in a sense sacrifices herself. I think the evolution of the 2 "artificial" life forms show us the melancholy/ sadness of life and death.
There are a lot of layers to Joi. While I think she's real and special, and that there is real love between K and Joi, I think it's also unmistakable that her name is the acronym for a specific kind of pornography, and there's zero way that a major motion picture was made without that association being known to Villeneuve. I think we should absolutely use her character to think about consent, control, surveillance, propaganda, and parasocial relationships. My motto in watching both Blade Runner and 2049 is "every interpretation, all the time." Instead of choosing one narratively coherent thread of meaning, looking for every coherent meaning and setting them up in conversation yields much more.
Joi is the only being of any kind that doesn't treat him like an object or tool. She constantly tries to empower him by treating him as if he was human. The interesting thing is, we don't know for sure if it's just her behavioural programming or an evolving AI. Even K isn't sure as he tells her that she doesn't have to say things like "I'm so happy when I'm with you". He just wants a companion who is true to his/her self. He knows she's not real and it doesn't matter that she isn't physical. When they have their intimate moment using Mariette, we get more of an impression that Joi is evolving into something more than a simple software program. It is never made clear if this is the standard behaviour of programs of her kind.
With Joi ( literally designed to be a 'jerk off instruction' AI), K continually gave her free will, and had no intention of controlling her. He treated her as if she was real, and her programming adapted. I thought that their relationship was sweet, and that in a way, he was able to help her break her programming, just as he was able to break his own programming. When she sacrificed herself, she demonstrated selflessness, as a key aspect of sentient consciousness. When he sees the ad for Joi after his Joi has 'died', he does not see his Joi in her, because his version of her was unique to him. He is clearly grieving for his loss and cared about her. To them, their love and affection for each other was real, even if they were both technically artificial life forms. This point is also driven home by Deckard, when he asserts "I know what is real!"
@@Kaiyanwang82 that’s what JOI stands for. That is clearly her obvious designed purpose. She is a porn bot that is designed to fulfill people’s fantasies. Not sure how anyone could conclude anything else from her adverts.
@Kaiyanwang82 I'm not certain the JOI porn connection was originally intended, but I also see a 0% chance that this was never brought to Villeneuve's attention. And the connection is symbollically perfect, as JOI's association with porn is explicit in the movie and her lack of corporeal form means that basically all she could do is offer instructions... except when she hangs her form on a replicant which transfers concerns about the commodification of sex and flesh to the replicant woman. Basically, there's no way to say there's no meaning there.
People keep believing that Joi developed a personality because the story would be too scary and dark otherwise. The thought of where we could be led by something that tells us literally EVERYTHING WE WANT TO HEAR is simply unbearable.
Amazing video! Thanks for showing me new things about this movie. It was especially interesting to see that the poem of the baseline test was in the book that Joy read to Kay.
Thank you for this. I saw another commenter stating they work in a prison and someone else commenting if we can expect humans in captivity to ach human. I also work in a prison, and while I'm free to leave at certain times I'm as much a human in captivity and just as free to change myself as we were yesterday. In order to change we must destroy who we were and the illusion of our present. That's why this analysis moved me too, because it helps me accept my reality.
I always thought an element of Joys character opened the question of A.I. As sentiency and another level of the existential pondering. Her “version” by her own experiences surely leaves this open, much in the same way replicants were.
I also liked this aspect, especially because all I ever hear his how sad it is that Joy was just programmed to say and act a certain way. But the reality is that K was also programmed too. There is a very real possibility that she did love him, even if she was programmed to.
This film as a stand alone is one of my all time favorites, as a sequel it vaults into the unprecedented. The shear keen insight into culture and social conditioning is piercingly adroit. Couple that with the profound exploration of what it is to be human and the core contemplation of the nature of human awareness is unparalleled in my opinion. When you add to that, the fact that is is an extension of the initial expression of the original film in the form of a sequel... it occupies cinematic rarified air for me. Truly unparalleled. Thank you Mr. Scott for the gift of this study of human psychology and social conditioning. I shared it with my 17 year old son, who after three days returned to me and asked to watch it again after the notions it stirred in him had settled a bit. He was gobsmacked by the implications it brought up socially and psychologically.
Blade Runner has been my favorite movie since I first saw it. I cannot fully express the feeling I felt when I walked out of that theater after watching 2049. Overjoyed. Relieved. Satisfied. It was like winning the Superbowl, except better. I was 99% sure that they were going to f it up and leave me feeling disappointed and feed my cynicism at the decline of art and civilization. I was instead filled with inspiration and wonder. It TRULY is the greatest sequel of all time. The writers understood the original. They showed mad respect for the philosophy, the mood, the vision of the future, the music, fashion, cinematography... EVERYTHING. Most of all, they evolved the allegory to a deeper level without corralling it to some narrow interpretation, but leaving the vision open to personal wonder. A masterpiece.
When K`s flying car is shot down and crashes JOI seems to be really worried about him. He was unconscious at this time, he couldn't see or hear her ... so why did she still act as if she cared about him if she didn't ? Makes no sense if she was just an APP. This complexity and answering questions by raising even more questions is exactly why i love this movie so much. Blade Runner 2049 is a perfect sequel, a perfect continuation of the first movies story. Ps.: I believe that JOI is what some people want SIRI to be. Think about how sad this is. 😢
I remember watching this film for the first time in the cinema and I was just amazed by the detail of every scene and debating in my mind what makes us different from one another, truly a classic.
I really really love this movie, from a philosophical perspective. From a narrative perspective. And from a cinematic perspective. My favorite genre… cyberpunk ❤
I don't know. This might in fact be my favorite movie of all time. I cannot recall a more beautiful cinematic experience than seeing this in the theater for the first time. Of course, it tanked. But we get 10 sequels for Fast and the Furious. I do not understand my brethren.
It is often said that the true test of how good a movie is, is when you leave the theatre discussing it, or that you'd still be discussing it long after it was released and done with. Happened with this one, keeps happening with the original.
Thank you for this incredibly intelligent and illuminating exploration of this amazing film. When I first watched it I had hoped that 2049 would not tarnish my love of the original but it is arguably even deeper, smarter and more beautiful than the original.
Blade Runner: What does it mean to be human? Blade Runner 2049: What does it mean to have a soul? 2049 extends and expands the question. A perfect sequel.
BR2049 gets better with every watch. While the entire film is very visually stunning and pleasing, the scene where K visits Dr. Ana Stelline ("The Child") is one of the best scenes in the film. "I can't help your future, but I can give you good memories to think back on and...smile...If feels authentic, and if you have authentic memories, you'll have real human responses...wouldn't you agree?"
thank you for making this video, I've seen the film a few times. I loved it but didn't pick up on half of what you mentioned here. Definitely needs another watch now
Perhaps Wallace knows full well that it is inevitable that the units will develop emotions, and the baseline test is their way of ensuring the units will feel shame and accept their retirement.
This film left me sitting in the theater for a while after it was over. The rest of the evening I just kept thinking about life - meaning, purpose, love, the difficult and complex nature of reality etc. I ended up writing a summation after having seen it a second time: There was no real decoy. It was purely on paper. K/Joe is utterly, completely, unequivocally unremarkable, thus his name, Joe... as in Average Joe. Joi does not possess a soul. She is completely fake. She is the other side of the Replicant coin and is made solely to please and coddle her owner/lover. Her entire branding scheme is that she'll be anything you want. Joi is K's fleeting dream of being special -- to be human... or as he put it, "to have a soul" -- so she always reinforced this to him. In her final moment she made sure to tell Joe that she loved him... Just before Luv crushed her emanator. Wallace posed a question about whether Deckard was moved by love or by programming. To me there's no doubt whatsoever Deckard is fully human. The original movie is about a bad man finding his humanity through the grace of a machine. Wallace's question is not a literal "Are you human or machine?" question, but pondering what the difference is; if love is just neurochemistry, and if we are products of biological programming or something higher, like a soul. The ultimate takeaway is that it really doesn't matter. What matters is what we choose to do with our lives. We find and create our own meaning and purpose. In summary, 2049 is about dreams and delusions. K wants desperately to feel special so Joi tells him this constantly and he quickly 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. Then upon meeting Freysa, K comes to learn that in fact he is not special after all. Not born but manufactured. 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 K comes across the giant pink Joi on the bridge, she says to him "You look like a good Joe". He then realizes that not even the name his Joi gave him was special. Her feelings for him were never real... just programming. K, at this point an emotionally broken Replicant, it is in this moment that 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 of all and takes his life into his own hands. He saves Deckard for the same reason Roy did in the first Blade Runner. 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. And this is why I love Blade Runner 2049 so much. It resonated the deepest parts of my being. And the music score. *Chef's kiss*
I actually saw the original Blade Runner in the theater when it was released. It did all right but was pretty much a box-office disappointment. It was nominated for the Hugo award at the World Science Fiction Convention. Since it was competing with Star Treck II, The Dark Crystal, a film about an E.T. and and another one about a Road Warrior staring an unknown Australian actor named Mel Gibson, it was not expected to win. None of the major people associated with the film bothered to attend. They sent a lowly third assistant director who was an SF fan who was going to attend anyway. After Blade Runner won the Hugo we were treated to the site of a dazed young man wandering the halls, going from party to party, clinging to a rocket model on a pedestal. I had a nice, if surreal conversation with him while keeping his beer glass filled. The thing is, the appreciation and reputation of the first movie grew slowly over time. Even a year after it's release, it won the Hugo award despite the supposedly unbeatable competition. I think the same thing is happening to Blade Rummer 2049. It is also going to be considered a classic in a couple of decades.
I love how much symbolism and thought they put into the film. For instance they spend a lot of time mentioning eyes. Mariette tells K to look under her eyes for her serial number, Wallace is blind and has no puples, the soulless ads have black, empty eyes and "her eyes were green". They are all commentary about the souls of these people. Specifically the last one "Her eye's were green" is more a commentary about her not having the same soul, she is a different person than the person Dekard knew. Wallace and the ads have no eyes, they have no soul, and Mariette is making an allusion to her having a soul, regardless of if she is a replacent, he literally and physically has to look into her eyes.
Great video. It was heartbreaking to see Joe realize the lie of Joi. Gosling was exceptional in this movie. I've loved the original BR more than you know and I think Denis Villeneuve crafted a sequel better than it had any right to be. He's not a lightweight director as evidenced by his movie Enemy.
God, thank you for recognising that Joi's love isn't real. That's like the whole crux of the theme, and it just isn't the same if Joi's love was somehow genuine.
The only bad interpretation is to shut down a line of questions that the movie leaves open. Joi is named after a category of porn, so we're definitely meant to consider a range of topics including the simulation of intimacy which is her designed purpose. But she's also very directly tied to "tears in the rain", the greatest meditation on individuality and moral value ever written. Collapsing her into answers misses half the theme whichever way you take.
Glad to see this movie get so much love. I was so enthralled by this when I saw it, I felt it was a beautiful masterpiece. Afterward I found the opposite opinion was prevailing among the viewership, at least the vocal part. I agree with another's comment, that it will only get better with time and upon reflection. I loved the original Blade Runner, I didn't think it needed a sequel but I did enjoy the sequel nearly as much or as much as the original.
Great analysis. Who is to say, we as humans, are not some form of AI technology? We have a CPU (brain) and Sensors to interact with the physical environment (smell, touch, taste, sight, hearing)
I really enjoyed watching this. It helped answer a lot of questions I always thought about. Only part I don’t like is …… I have to join “Crunchyroll“ in order to see those animated versions. Now I got to try to find some kid who has a User & password that he’ll loan me so I can watch the 13 episodes. 😅
I do love videos like this, but I always find the "is Joi's love real or not?" speculation to be both hilarious and sad. How do you know if a real life human's love is real? How often has someone said "I love you" and it was a huge lie? A human can pretend to love someone or fall out of love with someone for any reason, or no reason. I think an argument could be made that Joi's love is more pure than a human's love, because she would never do or say anything to hurt or betray K, because she can't. Honestly? I'm more convinced a dog's love is more pure than a human's love most of the time.
It’s definitely a conversation because the comparison isn’t exactly right in my view. I find it much easier to believe that a dog has emotions (and therefore their “love”means something to me) than ChatGPT. And to me, that’s the more accurate comparison. If someone creates a version of ChatGPT programmed to say “I love you” (and I’m sure someone has), it would have virtually no value to me but hook it up to a hologram and it might be fairly convincing. Enough to cure loneliness for some but I doubt it could ever be as fulfilling as a relationship with a human where yes, they could lie, fall out of love, etc. I don’t think it’s a question of how “pure” the love is- it’s a question of whether or not your mind will accept it as real. In my reading of the movie, K never fully accepted it as real. To him, it was closer to the AI chat bot idea- “it makes me feel less lonely but I know she isnt a real person.”
@@OneTakeVidsI, personally, would not want a virtual girlfriend because physical contact is important to me, but I've done some research into the v-girl trend and some people report having great conversations with their AI girlfriend to where they can allow themselves to buy into it. If it works for them I'm certainly not going to tell them they shouldn't like it. convenient
@@julius-stark fair enough! I think we’re so early in the tech, it’s hard to say for certain the long term psychological impact of such a relationship. I’ll admit I come at with skepticism, but as you said, I wouldn’t tell someone to stop or give them a hard time. I would be in a favor of a more general conversation about it though
@@OneTakeVids K is a ChatGPT in a synthetic meat bag, though, by the movies own premise they're both are products of same developer. IMO simply disregarding her as just a "ChatGPT" is missing the point of the movie, as you then should disregard replicants the same. Joi to 2049 is what replicants were to the original.
@@dushas9871 well that’s not the movie’s complete premise. You’ve left out 2 key parts: 1. Replicant have brains near identical to a human’s if not more powerful VS all we know about Joi is that she’s a computer program. If all we knew is 1 then I’d say, replicants most likely have “real” consciousness (at least as real as ours). And jury is out on Joi, we don’t know enough. 2. We unequivocally see Replicants deviate from their programming and fight for their freedom. Not surprising since they actually have brains and minds like our’s. We never see Joi break from her programming… she was programmed to love and support K. That’s all we ever see her do. Is it possible that despite these points Joi is “real”? Sure, but IMO that’s not in the movie with certainty vs replicant consciousness which is. And I’d also say it’s a point the movie doesn’t focus on, it seems to focus more on undercutting the sense that she’s real (e.g. while they’re making love it cuts to the billboard reminding you it isn’t really love, she was programmed to be whatever K wants)
TY for making this in depth analysis. One of the best i could find on YT on this subject. For me the movie is clearly split into two parts: the main story in which K is searching for the replicant child and also has to come to terms with his own humanity in the process, and the relationship K has with his virtual GF. The creators of the movie want us to realise the dangers of rampant AI development and how easily it can be used to manipulate us into a sense of normality when in fact it is just a set of code and programs meant to distract us from a real life. I found every scene in which he interacted with the hologram very cringe and disturbing and that just shows how well this movie was crafted. I can understand the appeal of an artificial person as companion to lonely people, but i think in he end you are better off alone than having a perverse relationship with a computer program designed to keep you calm an docile. In the end K learn the bitter truth that he is just another mark 9 replicant, but he does find a sliver of empathy within himself to help Dekard reunite with his daughter. He redeems himself as a human, right before his bitter end.
I feel embarrassed. I was very excited to see 2049. But until I saw this video, I did I understand their complexities for both movies. I guess I liked the light shows. Thank you for making these movies far more meaningful for me.
Seeing Joi fall in love with K was the first time that really made me think about if our current AI can form human emotions. Like was she really in love with him, or was she programmed to be? This is where the technology is headed, and i think it will keep people from forming real human bonds. Whether they are programmed to love you, become sentient, its real enough for the user. Thankfully, this would be less destructive to the world than a rogue AI supercomputer like Skynet. But it will create a world of introverts instead lol. So pick your poison. Overall this was a great video, i enjoyed it!
I find the juxtaposition between illusions and reality interesting considering humans capacity for creating illusions. It would be interesting to see a story explore how humans can often act in ways we ascribe to ai while ai can sometimes act in ways we ascribe to humans (beyond what has been in this and similar media like ex machina of course)
The warmth and empathy of humans is nurtured as a child. People who lose the good memories of their childhood (trauma, damage) all question their own existence and humanity.
What it is to be Human isn’t just a matter to be known, it’s also about to be felt. A felt knowing. “The felt source … wellspring of life’s ceaseless vitality.” ~ Mark Vernon
I will say this, watch the Final Cut. I watched the directors cut and it was a big mistake because I honestly didn’t even like it the first time but loved 2049. Finally went back to rewatch it and enjoyed it so muc
Watch those scenes again, because this is important. K and Luv *never* lie in them. The writing here is extremely clever. The replicants say things and Joshi assumes things, but the replicants never lie. Luv predicts that she is going to tell Wallace that Joshi attacked her first and she killed her in self defense. And that's *exactly* what happens. Luv provokes Joshi into attacking her first by making Joshi believe she's capable of lying. But she pulls this off without ever telling a literal lie because Luv is a genius and Joshi is a master at self deception. K takes advantage of the fact Joshi trusts him, and then Joshi takes advantage of Joshi's paranoia. In both cases Joshi is undone by her own flaws, which the replicants are smart enough to exploit successfully. All without telling a single lie.
I don't think Roy saved Deckard out of empathy, he did it purely to defy his creator (human) and to show that replicants are more than just tools. Think about it this way, Roy is a advanced combat model built for one reason and one reason alone: to kill. But in the end, Roy choose to save a life instead of take a life which fundamentally defied his purpose, he is his own master and he decided his own fate. Roy won the battle, Deckard lost, human lost.
We are hundreds of years away from true AI. We won’t be having that debate any time soon. Nothing we have is AI and its use of the name is a misuse of the term.
Ai is a distilled reflection of man’s psychology, but cold and efficient as it can be made to be. The only way AGI can be invented, programmed, and operate towards a goal that doesn’t lead to the destruction of humanity is if man takes the time to meet and know himself, completely, despite fear, pain, and suffering. For however many centuries, people have sought to change external factors in order to make their life better or in the pursuit of a goal. Failing to realize a system is only a reflection of our thinking, or in some cases the thinking of the ones who write the rules regarding any given system. In order for radical change of the world to occur, human beings must first undergo a radical transformation of one’s self. To become whole, and transcend suffering. Psychological projection of the shadow, ignorance of yourself and your potential and what you have to offer the world, and the fear of pain, suffering, and the unknown are the causes of all human conflict, and the causes for the majority of suffering that occurs unnecessarily every day.
I have only seen two major motion pictures that I consider to be pointless. Bladerunner 2024 might be one of them. Regardless, the movie dies when Deckard shows up and they have a super hero battle for no reason.
![Blade Runner 2049 - Empathy Propaganda [Video Essay]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WTKmaJa3Ci0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blade Runner 2049 - Empathy Propaganda [Video Essay]](/img/tr.png)
This is STILL one of my favourite movies. I watched it in cinema all alone and when I walked out of the mall it was raining. There's something surreal about that feeling that I remembered to this day.
I felt a similar experience, but i was with my girlfriend and there was some other people in theater, but when we left the mall it was also raining with neon like lights at the landscape. I remember felling surreal for finally have watched a blade runner sequel after being fan of the first one for so many years, and how mindboggling the whole movie is.
It's a cheap take in the original.
@@fernandomaron87yeah me too. Girlfriend and the rain. She wasn't into the movie but idgaf I loved it.
@@denroy3nah I disagree. First of all it's a sequel so you're already wrong.
Second it's a really worthy and thought provoking continuation of the original story.
@@denroy3original is meh and has "greedo shot first" level director meddling. 2049 is a masterpiece of film and BR is the cult success that needed to be told by respectful people.
Something I find interesting that I've seen nobody discuss was what a Sapper is. In classic military conflict a sapper is one that tunnels under walls of a castle or a trench and places explosives [or something else like piers of wood and a fire to destroy them] to 'tear down the wall'. Bautistas character is meant to knock down the wall that other characters in the film talk about. He is the first significant step for K to in other words become human. As if the idea of something metaphysical like a miracle is necessary to take steps to humanity. I.E. something that is so out of line of what you KNOW to be or be possible made manifest directly in your vision, keeping with the themes of eyes in the first film mainly, and lesser so in 2047. But 2047 also deals with touch, what you feel. And feeling anything might be enough to make you human.
Thank you! Great detail and metaphor I didn’t pick up on - Dennis V is just incredible.
If u played warcraft u know what it is
It’s pretty significant, then, that during his fight with K they also literally knock down a wall.
Kinda strange because he was actually a combat medic in the movie
I completely missed that
2049 is so badass. Ryan Gosling killed it.
Or did he... retire it?
@@kubrickenigma7977 hahah. Very nice.
Your Ken was crap 💩
Shut up Phil. You're dead. XD
Agree 💯
Found myself tearing up at several points along the way... and, ultimately understanding it better than I had after watching the three shorts and feature three times each. Thank you!
Luv is trying and trying and trying to be the best one... to feel like she deserves love. Or to feel secure in approval.
Imo, this hits so hard because there's a type of parent that cultivates this in their children. And some religions work this angle shamelessly.
So I cried there, and also at the very simple, you're special.
It's good to see a creator skip the all too common trend of bombarding the viewer with background music. Listening to a voice alone is more impactful when the spoken word takes center stage with no distractions. Audiobooks speak to this as we keep up with multi-layered narratives unfolding over hours and hours.
Those of us who enjoy excellent long form studies like this will stick around (probably more than once if we're passionate about the topic) and we don't need a synthwave beat to keep us engaged.
Not to mention makes it easier to understand what’s being said for those of us with some amount of hearing damage. Nicer to hear what’s being spoken than have to rely on subtitles.
I like the fact he talks like a normal person and not some Ai or forced narrator voice.
" " OneTake " " Definitely Had Things He
Wanted To Say That He Deemed Worth
Listening To . . . Which I Did . . . Indeed .
I can barely put into words how highly I regard this film and its philosophy on life. Not many movies present such deep questions and even fewer have the balls to attempt to answer them. I'm thinking films like Barry Lyndon and Grand Budapest Hotel. Stories that reflect on what a life is, what's important, and why it's important.
I'm sure if you asked 20 people they'd all have a unique list of what films do that for them, but BR2049 is probably the top of it for me.
Cloud Atlas has a lot of flaws, but it's also pretty great in many ways.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Contemporaneous
At THREE HOURS AND FIVE MINUTES, people were walking out of the theatres. At least when it came out. It was sort of like a longer, more drawn-out re-telling of Candide by Voltaire, without all the stately British puffery. It also only tripled it's eleven million dollar budget.
@@c3bhm I agree it's got a lot of good positive philosophy. And importantly, each person is going to find something different in fiction that represents them. I've heard so many people talk about the film Secret Life of Walter Mitty a lot when it comes to 'guiding principles' but personally? I hate it lol.
I'd love to see a poll with cross-sections of the population asked what movie represents their views best in this sense (if I could find a genius who could word the question properly). Generations, regions, ethnicity, I'm sure you'd get some interesting answers when juxtaposing people on this.
I think this is one of the best sequels ever. Quite possibly, even the best one.
It's boring as hell and drawn out for no reason. Aside from the cinematography being good, the actual plot and scenes are dull as hell
Worked as a prison guard for the better part of 8 years. I can say with 100% certainty that some people have a LOT less empathy than the replicants presented in these movies.
How do you know they arent replicants....
Some "people" have no internal life, and can't understand that others do have an internal life.
When you place people in cages do you really expect them to act like human beings?
Yeah, we expect human beings to act like human beings. That is WHY we have placed them in a cage to begin with.@@lonew2657
@@lonew2657 People who are imprisoned may choose to not act as human beings
And that just makes it all the more striking when inmates choose to rise above, to retain their humanity
This is especially true in the cases where the inmates know that they are not guilty, e.g. Navalny
That scene of the giant hologram Joi calling him Joe broke the internet. Because it's not just about whether Joi or K is real. This isn't just about can synthetic humans be special.
This scene makes the viewer question if they, or anyone is really special. Remember, this scene takes place right after Joi is destroyed and tries to say "I love you". Just like K, the viewer thinks she and K are different .But the scene with the hologram destroys that illusion the second she calls him Joe.
Because the cold truth is, waaaay deep down, every married couple wonders where's the line where they can be replaced. An illiness? Old age? A job layoff (every guy I knew in a relationship before the Great Recession wasn't after it)?
So what's the point of anything? I guess you have to ultimately find your own reason to feel special. K does this at the end. When Deckard asks why K did all this, he doesn't answer. He lived his life his way proving that, while not unique, he could still act like someone who was.
And that's what this is all about. It's your actions define you. Was K just another replicant that could be replaced and maybe that replacement does the same thing he did. Hard to say. But the point is he made the choice to sacrifice himself to do the right thing.
Awesome comment
Can I ask you why this is the case, what’s the purpose of it? Knowing that the time you have is very finite and you can easily be replaced what’s the purpose? Life just sounds like a giant game.
@@dream8870 Your comment reminded me of Auld Lang Syne - a German version of the song I heard years ago.
Nehmt Abschied Brüder
Schließt den Kreis
Das Leben ist ein Spiel
Und wer es recht zu spielen weiß,
gelangt ans große Ziel
Say goodbye to btothers
close the circle
life is a game
And who knows how to play
gets to the big goal
I don't know, but this song gives me always Matrix vibes.
As if we were trapped in MBs "Spiel des Lebens" (The checkered game of life).
What the hell kinda metaphysical comment is this 😆
Ask yourself exactly the same questions about your own life.
What's the purpose of it ( your life ) . . . Genuinely, pragmatically, the answer is there is no purpose. There is no "purpose" to the universe, it is all a random fluctuation, and ALL of human existence is a nothing occupying the SMALLEST possible fraction of the length of time that has passed but REALLY nothing when compared to the length of the future.
And IN that vanishingly small 100 to 300 000 years of humanity worth of the past, you won't be alive even for a fraction of it, not even one thousandth of it . . .
However, living your life to your own rules, and trying to make other people happy, trying to be happy on average, this can be a self valued PERSONAL purpose . . .
There literally isn't any point thinking too hard about it.
There isn't any "point" to the Universe, or our lives, or even human existence so we MAKE ourselves a point.@@dream8870
Yes, I've always thought, "Is Decker a replicant?" was the wrong question. The deep question that resonates is pondering whether or not there's any actual difference between human and replicant.
That’s the point of the first movie. Deckard, who is human, acts with basically no humanity when hunting the replicants, who have a craving and lust for life. They are more human than the human. Deckard rediscovering humanity is the point of the movie
@@nickentrosI do not think dekard was human cause he and k and love seem to be unaffected in Vegas by radiation as to where others on the team have breathing apparatuses when thy go to kidnap K And deckard.
@@clemfandango5908 We don't know where the bomb dropped in vegas. The electronics and stuff worked where Deckard was staying so i'm assuming he lived in a pretty unaffected area.
If Deckard is a replicant, I think it adds nothing to the story---except a host of nearly impossible questions to answer. If replicants are regarded as so dangerous that all replicants, even one as harmless as Rachel, must be hunted down and "retired," then by what ridiculous stretch is Deckard, a replicant, allowed to roam free and carry a badge and a weapon? If he's a replicant, then why is he so weak? And on and on. I think if Deckard were a replicant, the logic of the story collapses.
@@tagoldich I tend to agree that Deckard is human, but I also rebel against stating that firmly. Without going into full Blade Runner exegesis mode, I find the open question adds to, rather than subtracts from, the philosophical angles.
That said, Scott's insistence that Deckard is a replicant really detracts from my respect for his intelligence, and leaves me wondering if he even understood the story he got on screen. Blade Runner is incredibly and subtly subversive. It loses some punch if the alienation and antipathy flowing from capitalism and its structures aren't acting on any humans in the film.
One of the better analysis videos of 2049, thank you for the effort and perfect delivery!
Thank you Joe! 🙏
I came here to say that- so thank you again! Great video analysis; a lot of new elements that I hadn’t picked up on… (eg “Joe”).
Really great job, mate!
@@OneTakeVidsYes! You did a great great job on explaining this movie!
Good to see this movie still getting attention!
It deserved so much better box office success
Why wouldn't it fast and furious has a franchise and people think the Rock is a great actor 😂
It will continue getting attention for a long time to come. It's already a cult classic on par with Ridley Scott's original (and, like Ridley's own extensive, quality filmography, Villeneuve’s filmography will guarantee ongoing advertising for the sequel as well).
Why? Unnecessary and unasked for.
For al it's flaws, it was still the best movie of that decade
That is a great analysis. Made me think about it in a new way. Thank you for putting this together!
Thank you for the kind words!
Joi is a test of K's humanity, of the viewer's humanity. If you are heartbroken by her demise, you bear grace, you are humane. If her plight makes you a better person, then she is worthy, she is important, and regardless of whether she functions upon programming, she makes people better by evoking love and empathy. To me, this is incredibly human.
So true. Also, I feel that this review and many others do not recognize the growth of the Joi character. Joi follows her programming, sure, but she also genuinely learns, and adapts. In my opinion, Joi is to this film what the replicants are to the original.
I say this as often as I can. I haven't yet seen any reviewers use the rain to connect her story directly to tears in the rain. We see her physically adapt to the environments she encounters in the emulator, and I don't see why so many having a hard time accepting that unique experiential learning made her a unique iteration of the larger JOI program. Even without the tears in the rain connection to the first time we see her having unique experience. A scene bathed in green, which is connected with individual life in the rest of 2049 itself.
That said, her name is also a category of porn that couldn't have been missed in the creative process. Even if I beleve what I just said about K's JOI, I think she also serves as a symbol for propaganda, questions of control, and our fear that consumer economics is reducing us all to a narrow and replicable set of concepts. As well, I do think we should keep open the question of whether she actually rose against her programming, whether our decision to imbue her specifically with meaning actually makes her an individual or she remains figment of the imagination, and what our decision to imbue her with autonomy actually means to her own autonomy to define herself.
JOI may be the richest character ever created. As a movie I still prefer the original bladerunner, but JOI is the blockbuster question mark.
@@maxwellschmidt235Awesome thoughts! I didn't consider the rain part and equate it to the line from Roy, that made me think!
BR2049 is really about making people feel comfortable with home appliances. It's propaganda from tech companies to soften us up to the idea that we have more in common with toasters then we do with our neighbours. The people up in Silicon Valley want you in love with your computer and not your girlfriend.
I agree. After all, how many of us haven't wondered if the way we act and think is just programming, pathways in our brain we can't change or conditioning in our childhood we can't break. Does that matter? Does that make us less human? In my opinion the simple desire to want to be human and be real is the beginning of free will, and Joi's tragedy is that she was killed before she achieved the same freedom as K, and all her memories and experiences that made her *her* are gone, like tears in the rain.
A most excellent analysis. Thorough and accurate. Superb presentation.
Great insights. I appreciate your work on these long form vids.
Thank you!🙏
I loved both movies.
My view on the "Reality Matters", is somewhat different, now that I am closer to the end than the beginning.
I would be happy with Joi. A simulation of companionship and kindness is better than none at all.
Great take, I agree with the majority of your observations, I disagree that K was using Joi as a distraction like Instagram, I see it as a yearning and reaching for a human life, a striving for humanity. And the relationship in the beginning may have been like you say, but I see growth in both, as you said when she risks mortality by being disconnected so they can't make her talk, and at the end when she is destroyed she also in a sense sacrifices herself. I think the evolution of the 2 "artificial" life forms show us the melancholy/ sadness of life and death.
There are a lot of layers to Joi. While I think she's real and special, and that there is real love between K and Joi, I think it's also unmistakable that her name is the acronym for a specific kind of pornography, and there's zero way that a major motion picture was made without that association being known to Villeneuve. I think we should absolutely use her character to think about consent, control, surveillance, propaganda, and parasocial relationships. My motto in watching both Blade Runner and 2049 is "every interpretation, all the time." Instead of choosing one narratively coherent thread of meaning, looking for every coherent meaning and setting them up in conversation yields much more.
Joi is the only being of any kind that doesn't treat him like an object or tool. She constantly tries to empower him by treating him as if he was human. The interesting thing is, we don't know for sure if it's just her behavioural programming or an evolving AI. Even K isn't sure as he tells her that she doesn't have to say things like "I'm so happy when I'm with you". He just wants a companion who is true to his/her self. He knows she's not real and it doesn't matter that she isn't physical. When they have their intimate moment using Mariette, we get more of an impression that Joi is evolving into something more than a simple software program. It is never made clear if this is the standard behaviour of programs of her kind.
With Joi ( literally designed to be a 'jerk off instruction' AI), K continually gave her free will, and had no intention of controlling her. He treated her as if she was real, and her programming adapted. I thought that their relationship was sweet, and that in a way, he was able to help her break her programming, just as he was able to break his own programming.
When she sacrificed herself, she demonstrated selflessness, as a key aspect of sentient consciousness. When he sees the ad for Joi after his Joi has 'died', he does not see his Joi in her, because his version of her was unique to him. He is clearly grieving for his loss and cared about her. To them, their love and affection for each other was real, even if they were both technically artificial life forms.
This point is also driven home by Deckard, when he asserts "I know what is real!"
Could you show me where is said officially and not on /tv/ that JOI means that? Thanks.
@@Kaiyanwang82 that’s what JOI stands for. That is clearly her obvious designed purpose. She is a porn bot that is designed to fulfill people’s fantasies. Not sure how anyone could conclude anything else from her adverts.
@Kaiyanwang82 I'm not certain the JOI porn connection was originally intended, but I also see a 0% chance that this was never brought to Villeneuve's attention. And the connection is symbollically perfect, as JOI's association with porn is explicit in the movie and her lack of corporeal form means that basically all she could do is offer instructions... except when she hangs her form on a replicant which transfers concerns about the commodification of sex and flesh to the replicant woman. Basically, there's no way to say there's no meaning there.
@@maxwellschmidt235 You should get out of /tv/. You kids read chan memes and think they should be taken literally.
People keep believing that Joi developed a personality because the story would be too scary and dark otherwise. The thought of where we could be led by something that tells us literally EVERYTHING WE WANT TO HEAR is simply unbearable.
Amazing video! Thanks for showing me new things about this movie. It was especially interesting to see that the poem of the baseline test was in the book that Joy read to Kay.
I’ve watched this movie a few dozen times. It’s such a great movie to get blazed to and get lost in. I watch it a hand full of times a year.
Thank you for this. I saw another commenter stating they work in a prison and someone else commenting if we can expect humans in captivity to ach human. I also work in a prison, and while I'm free to leave at certain times I'm as much a human in captivity and just as free to change myself as we were yesterday. In order to change we must destroy who we were and the illusion of our present. That's why this analysis moved me too, because it helps me accept my reality.
I always thought an element of Joys character opened the question of A.I. As sentiency and another level of the existential pondering. Her “version” by her own experiences surely leaves this open, much in the same way replicants were.
I also liked this aspect, especially because all I ever hear his how sad it is that Joy was just programmed to say and act a certain way. But the reality is that K was also programmed too. There is a very real possibility that she did love him, even if she was programmed to.
This film as a stand alone is one of my all time favorites, as a sequel it vaults into the unprecedented.
The shear keen insight into culture and social conditioning is piercingly adroit. Couple that with the profound exploration of what it is to be human and the core contemplation of the nature of human awareness is unparalleled in my opinion. When you add to that, the fact that is is an extension of the initial expression of the original film in the form of a sequel... it occupies cinematic rarified air for me. Truly unparalleled. Thank you Mr. Scott for the gift of this study of human psychology and social conditioning.
I shared it with my 17 year old son, who after three days returned to me and asked to watch it again after the notions it stirred in him had settled a bit. He was gobsmacked by the implications it brought up socially and psychologically.
Blade Runner has been my favorite movie since I first saw it.
I cannot fully express the feeling I felt when I walked out of that theater after watching 2049. Overjoyed. Relieved. Satisfied. It was like winning the Superbowl, except better. I was 99% sure that they were going to f it up and leave me feeling disappointed and feed my cynicism at the decline of art and civilization. I was instead filled with inspiration and wonder. It TRULY is the greatest sequel of all time. The writers understood the original. They showed mad respect for the philosophy, the mood, the vision of the future, the music, fashion, cinematography... EVERYTHING.
Most of all, they evolved the allegory to a deeper level without corralling it to some narrow interpretation, but leaving the vision open to personal wonder.
A masterpiece.
2 0 4 9 Beautifully E L E V A T E S
The Blade Runner World To Cosmic //
// Philisophical // Metaphysical Heights .
Very interesting material, and very well told. I'll definitely take a look at what else you have.
When K`s flying car is shot down and crashes JOI seems to be really worried about him. He was unconscious at this time, he couldn't see or hear her ... so why did she still act as if she cared about him if she didn't ? Makes no sense if she was just an APP. This complexity and answering questions by raising even more questions is exactly why i love this movie so much. Blade Runner 2049 is a perfect sequel, a perfect continuation of the first movies story.
Ps.: I believe that JOI is what some people want SIRI to be. Think about how sad this is. 😢
Wonderful video essay. It does Justice to the powerful, memorable, amazing movie that 2049 is!!!
Thank you for the kind words! 🙏
If you have not seen this film in 4K disc you are missing out. The 4K restoration and audio is absolutely fantastic.
WOW! Brilliant synopsis! :)
I remember watching this film for the first time in the cinema and I was just amazed by the detail of every scene and debating in my mind what makes us different from one another, truly a classic.
I really really love this movie, from a philosophical perspective. From a narrative perspective. And from a cinematic perspective. My favorite genre… cyberpunk ❤
I love warching this movie to fall asleep. Always makes me fall asleep without fail, and for that, its one of my favorites
For me it's Ad Astra so quiet but beautifully shot.
Great analysis. The double entendre of the J.O.I. acronym was brilliant and apropos . Look it up. lol.
I don't know. This might in fact be my favorite movie of all time. I cannot recall a more beautiful cinematic experience than seeing this in the theater for the first time.
Of course, it tanked. But we get 10 sequels for Fast and the Furious. I do not understand my brethren.
Was very disappointed this movie didn’t perform better, I want more smart scifi 😔
Movies don’t need to supply all the answers. Provoking discussion for years afterwards is a job well done.
It is often said that the true test of how good a movie is, is when you leave the theatre discussing it, or that you'd still be discussing it long after it was released and done with. Happened with this one, keeps happening with the original.
Awesome analysis of one of my favorite movies. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve watched it.
How did you not almost fall asleep it just drolls on with more and more boring scenes
@@drunkhusband6257 One man's paradise can be another man's prison. One man's floor sometimes is another man's ceiling.
The sci-fi book ‘Friday’ by Heinlein has a good discussion of replicants vs humans.
Blade Runner was my favorite movie growing up, you did a great job m8 \m/
Wow, this was one of the best essays I've seen. Awesome job! I love this film so much and this helped me appreciate it on a whole other level...
Me Too . I Mildly Disagreed With A Few
Points Yet ❤ Loved ❤ The Whole
- Presentation .
One of the best sequels of all time
Thank you for this incredibly intelligent and illuminating exploration of this amazing film. When I first watched it I had hoped that 2049 would not tarnish my love of the original but it is arguably even deeper, smarter and more beautiful than the original.
Blade Runner: What does it mean to be human?
Blade Runner 2049: What does it mean to have a soul?
2049 extends and expands the question. A perfect sequel.
It is wild that Jared Leto is still making movies
Agreed
He is part of the in crown in hollyweird 👿
BR2049 gets better with every watch. While the entire film is very visually stunning and pleasing, the scene where K visits Dr. Ana Stelline ("The Child") is one of the best scenes in the film. "I can't help your future, but I can give you good memories to think back on and...smile...If feels authentic, and if you have authentic memories, you'll have real human responses...wouldn't you agree?"
Phenomenal; and so very reflective of what we are going through now.
Thank you so much. Words can'T describe what you moved inside of me with this Video.
Thank you for the kind words 🙏
thank you for making this video, I've seen the film a few times. I loved it but didn't pick up on half of what you mentioned here. Definitely needs another watch now
Perhaps Wallace knows full well that it is inevitable that the units will develop emotions, and the baseline test is their way of ensuring the units will feel shame and accept their retirement.
This film left me sitting in the theater for a while after it was over. The rest of the evening I just kept thinking about life - meaning, purpose, love, the difficult and complex nature of reality etc. I ended up writing a summation after having seen it a second time:
There was no real decoy. It was purely on paper. K/Joe is utterly, completely, unequivocally unremarkable, thus his name, Joe... as in Average Joe. Joi does not possess a soul. She is completely fake. She is the other side of the Replicant coin and is made solely to please and coddle her owner/lover. Her entire branding scheme is that she'll be anything you want. Joi is K's fleeting dream of being special -- to be human... or as he put it, "to have a soul" -- so she always reinforced this to him. In her final moment she made sure to tell Joe that she loved him... Just before Luv crushed her emanator.
Wallace posed a question about whether Deckard was moved by love or by programming. To me there's no doubt whatsoever Deckard is fully human. The original movie is about a bad man finding his humanity through the grace of a machine. Wallace's question is not a literal "Are you human or machine?" question, but pondering what the difference is; if love is just neurochemistry, and if we are products of biological programming or something higher, like a soul. The ultimate takeaway is that it really doesn't matter. What matters is what we choose to do with our lives. We find and create our own meaning and purpose.
In summary, 2049 is about dreams and delusions. K wants desperately to feel special so Joi tells him this constantly and he quickly 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. Then upon meeting Freysa, K comes to learn that in fact he is not special after all. Not born but manufactured. 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 K comes across the giant pink Joi on the bridge, she says to him "You look like a good Joe". He then realizes that not even the name his Joi gave him was special. Her feelings for him were never real... just programming. K, at this point an emotionally broken Replicant, it is in this moment that 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 of all and takes his life into his own hands. He saves Deckard for the same reason Roy did in the first Blade Runner. 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.
And this is why I love Blade Runner 2049 so much. It resonated the deepest parts of my being. And the music score. *Chef's kiss*
I love vidéo essays like this. Very well put together.
Damn.. I've seen so many videos on why this is a good or bad movie, but this might be the first one I've seen on what it's about. Well done! 👏👏👏
This movie was a goddamn masterpiece
Great video bro really in depth
"Remember her eyes were green." Beautiful close out ;)
(Rachael's eyes weren't green)
Yes BROWN
Ryan gosling put on a masterclass in acting
I didn't think much of him as an actor until I watched him in Nice Guys. He knows what he's doing.
I actually saw the original Blade Runner in the theater when it was released. It did all right but was pretty much a box-office disappointment. It was nominated for the Hugo award at the World Science Fiction Convention. Since it was competing with Star Treck II, The Dark Crystal, a film about an E.T. and and another one about a Road Warrior staring an unknown Australian actor named Mel Gibson, it was not expected to win. None of the major people associated with the film bothered to attend. They sent a lowly third assistant director who was an SF fan who was going to attend anyway. After Blade Runner won the Hugo we were treated to the site of a dazed young man wandering the halls, going from party to party, clinging to a rocket model on a pedestal. I had a nice, if surreal conversation with him while keeping his beer glass filled.
The thing is, the appreciation and reputation of the first movie grew slowly over time. Even a year after it's release, it won the Hugo award despite the supposedly unbeatable competition. I think the same thing is happening to Blade Rummer 2049. It is also going to be considered a classic in a couple of decades.
Loved the in depth analysis of the movie. I appreciate the movie more now
I love how much symbolism and thought they put into the film. For instance they spend a lot of time mentioning eyes. Mariette tells K to look under her eyes for her serial number, Wallace is blind and has no puples, the soulless ads have black, empty eyes and "her eyes were green". They are all commentary about the souls of these people. Specifically the last one "Her eye's were green" is more a commentary about her not having the same soul, she is a different person than the person Dekard knew. Wallace and the ads have no eyes, they have no soul, and Mariette is making an allusion to her having a soul, regardless of if she is a replacent, he literally and physically has to look into her eyes.
Great video. It was heartbreaking to see Joe realize the lie of Joi. Gosling was exceptional in this movie.
I've loved the original BR more than you know and I think Denis Villeneuve crafted a sequel better than it had any right to be. He's not a lightweight director as evidenced by his movie Enemy.
God, thank you for recognising that Joi's love isn't real. That's like the whole crux of the theme, and it just isn't the same if Joi's love was somehow genuine.
The only bad interpretation is to shut down a line of questions that the movie leaves open. Joi is named after a category of porn, so we're definitely meant to consider a range of topics including the simulation of intimacy which is her designed purpose. But she's also very directly tied to "tears in the rain", the greatest meditation on individuality and moral value ever written. Collapsing her into answers misses half the theme whichever way you take.
Glad to see this movie get so much love. I was so enthralled by this when I saw it, I felt it was a beautiful masterpiece. Afterward I found the opposite opinion was prevailing among the viewership, at least the vocal part. I agree with another's comment, that it will only get better with time and upon reflection. I loved the original Blade Runner, I didn't think it needed a sequel but I did enjoy the sequel nearly as much or as much as the original.
Oh sweet! 👍🏻
Thank you Gil. 🙏🏻
Thank you for the support!
@@OneTakeVids 👊🏻
I love the original, but I like 2049 even more!
Just watched it again for the hundredth time as it doesn't get old. I love Luv. This movie is great.
One of the greatest video essays. ❤
Wow thank you! 🙏
Great analysis. Who is to say, we as humans, are not some form of AI technology? We have a CPU (brain) and Sensors to interact with the physical environment (smell, touch, taste, sight, hearing)
Good video. Nice perspectives.
K was ordered by Joshi to keep a secret, therefore ordering hin to be able to lie.
I really enjoyed watching this. It helped answer a lot of questions I always thought about. Only part I don’t like is …… I have to join “Crunchyroll“ in order to see those animated versions. Now I got to try to find some kid who has a User & password that he’ll loan me so I can watch the 13 episodes. 😅
Torrent
2049 nailed it, and just like the original, it will take years, decades, for it to grow and be truly appreciated.
Blade runner 2049 is the masterpiece we need but we don't deserve 😭
I do love videos like this, but I always find the "is Joi's love real or not?" speculation to be both hilarious and sad. How do you know if a real life human's love is real? How often has someone said "I love you" and it was a huge lie? A human can pretend to love someone or fall out of love with someone for any reason, or no reason. I think an argument could be made that Joi's love is more pure than a human's love, because she would never do or say anything to hurt or betray K, because she can't.
Honestly? I'm more convinced a dog's love is more pure than a human's love most of the time.
It’s definitely a conversation because the comparison isn’t exactly right in my view. I find it much easier to believe that a dog has emotions (and therefore their “love”means something to me) than ChatGPT. And to me, that’s the more accurate comparison. If someone creates a version of ChatGPT programmed to say “I love you” (and I’m sure someone has), it would have virtually no value to me but hook it up to a hologram and it might be fairly convincing. Enough to cure loneliness for some but I doubt it could ever be as fulfilling as a relationship with a human where yes, they could lie, fall out of love, etc.
I don’t think it’s a question of how “pure” the love is- it’s a question of whether or not your mind will accept it as real. In my reading of the movie, K never fully accepted it as real. To him, it was closer to the AI chat bot idea- “it makes me feel less lonely but I know she isnt a real person.”
@@OneTakeVidsI, personally, would not want a virtual girlfriend because physical contact is important to me, but I've done some research into the v-girl trend and some people report having great conversations with their AI girlfriend to where they can allow themselves to buy into it. If it works for them I'm certainly not going to tell them they shouldn't like it.
convenient
@@julius-stark fair enough! I think we’re so early in the tech, it’s hard to say for certain the long term psychological impact of such a relationship. I’ll admit I come at with skepticism, but as you said, I wouldn’t tell someone to stop or give them a hard time. I would be in a favor of a more general conversation about it though
@@OneTakeVids K is a ChatGPT in a synthetic meat bag, though, by the movies own premise they're both are products of same developer. IMO simply disregarding her as just a "ChatGPT" is missing the point of the movie, as you then should disregard replicants the same. Joi to 2049 is what replicants were to the original.
@@dushas9871 well that’s not the movie’s complete premise. You’ve left out 2 key parts:
1. Replicant have brains near identical to a human’s if not more powerful VS all we know about Joi is that she’s a computer program.
If all we knew is 1 then I’d say, replicants most likely have “real” consciousness (at least as real as ours). And jury is out on Joi, we don’t know enough.
2. We unequivocally see Replicants deviate from their programming and fight for their freedom. Not surprising since they actually have brains and minds like our’s. We never see Joi break from her programming… she was programmed to love and support K. That’s all we ever see her do.
Is it possible that despite these points Joi is “real”? Sure, but IMO that’s not in the movie with certainty vs replicant consciousness which is. And I’d also say it’s a point the movie doesn’t focus on, it seems to focus more on undercutting the sense that she’s real (e.g. while they’re making love it cuts to the billboard reminding you it isn’t really love, she was programmed to be whatever K wants)
TY for making this in depth analysis. One of the best i could find on YT on this subject.
For me the movie is clearly split into two parts: the main story in which K is searching for the replicant child and also has to come to terms with his own humanity in the process, and the relationship K has with his virtual GF.
The creators of the movie want us to realise the dangers of rampant AI development and how easily it can be used to manipulate us into a sense of normality when in fact it is just a set of code and programs meant to distract us from a real life.
I found every scene in which he interacted with the hologram very cringe and disturbing and that just shows how well this movie was crafted. I can understand the appeal of an artificial person as companion to lonely people, but i think in he end you are better off alone than having a perverse relationship with a computer program designed to keep you calm an docile.
In the end K learn the bitter truth that he is just another mark 9 replicant, but he does find a sliver of empathy within himself to help Dekard reunite with his daughter. He redeems himself as a human, right before his bitter end.
If Deckard is a replicant, why isn't he as strong as a replicant. In the original, he got his a$$ kicked during the movie.
The correct phrase is "significantly disciplined"
You are one of very few commentators who really get PKD - in particular that character arc of regaining empathy to become human
I feel embarrassed. I was very excited to see 2049. But until I saw this video, I did I understand their complexities for both movies. I guess I liked the light shows. Thank you for making these movies far more meaningful for me.
Seeing Joi fall in love with K was the first time that really made me think about if our current AI can form human emotions. Like was she really in love with him, or was she programmed to be? This is where the technology is headed, and i think it will keep people from forming real human bonds. Whether they are programmed to love you, become sentient, its real enough for the user. Thankfully, this would be less destructive to the world than a rogue AI supercomputer like Skynet. But it will create a world of introverts instead lol. So pick your poison. Overall this was a great video, i enjoyed it!
ya know why i like this movie because when K finds out he's not special he's so angry. Which is all of us then he finds purpose and does his duty.
K wasn't angry when he found out he wasn't special, he was angry when he found out that he is, did you even watch the movie?
Wow, what a great review. Thank you.
I find the juxtaposition between illusions and reality interesting considering humans capacity for creating illusions. It would be interesting to see a story explore how humans can often act in ways we ascribe to ai while ai can sometimes act in ways we ascribe to humans (beyond what has been in this and similar media like ex machina of course)
The question of Deckard's authenticity is asked and answered in the book, but Ridley Scott decided to answer it differently.
2049 is a modern classic. It becomes more relevant every day.
This movie just gets better with every watch.
I like this essay a lot. Just like the film. :)
*This was a great analysis.*
The warmth and empathy of humans is nurtured as a child.
People who lose the good memories of their childhood (trauma, damage) all question their own existence and humanity.
What it is to be Human isn’t just a matter to be known, it’s also about to be felt. A felt knowing.
“The felt source … wellspring of life’s ceaseless vitality.” ~ Mark Vernon
Nice video, it’s funny I have seen this movie at least twice, but videos like this it’s like I didn’t see it lol.
It’s still one of my top favorites movies of all time
Staying with brown …
Good content bro.
Greetings from good old Germany. ✨🦉💫
Grüße! Vielen Dank für die netten Worte!
Hope Google Translate didn't botch that :)
Well, this all jibes with Ray Bradbury's quote, "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it."
I will say this, watch the Final Cut. I watched the directors cut and it was a big mistake because I honestly didn’t even like it the first time but loved 2049. Finally went back to rewatch it and enjoyed it so muc
Brilliant commentary. A top ten all time movie for me. Blade Runner being number 1
Wow nice dive into the material.
Amazing, thank you. This film is a masterpiece.
Outstanding analysis!
Watch those scenes again, because this is important. K and Luv *never* lie in them. The writing here is extremely clever. The replicants say things and Joshi assumes things, but the replicants never lie.
Luv predicts that she is going to tell Wallace that Joshi attacked her first and she killed her in self defense. And that's *exactly* what happens. Luv provokes Joshi into attacking her first by making Joshi believe she's capable of lying. But she pulls this off without ever telling a literal lie because Luv is a genius and Joshi is a master at self deception.
K takes advantage of the fact Joshi trusts him, and then Joshi takes advantage of Joshi's paranoia. In both cases Joshi is undone by her own flaws, which the replicants are smart enough to exploit successfully. All without telling a single lie.
*Luv takes advantage of Joshi's paranoia.
I don't think Roy saved Deckard out of empathy, he did it purely to defy his creator (human) and to show that replicants are more than just tools. Think about it this way, Roy is a advanced combat model built for one reason and one reason alone: to kill. But in the end, Roy choose to save a life instead of take a life which fundamentally defied his purpose, he is his own master and he decided his own fate. Roy won the battle, Deckard lost, human lost.
We are hundreds of years away from true AI. We won’t be having that debate any time soon. Nothing we have is AI and its use of the name is a misuse of the term.
Ai is a distilled reflection of man’s psychology, but cold and efficient as it can be made to be.
The only way AGI can be invented, programmed, and operate towards a goal that doesn’t lead to the destruction of humanity is if man takes the time to meet and know himself, completely, despite fear, pain, and suffering.
For however many centuries, people have sought to change external factors in order to make their life better or in the pursuit of a goal.
Failing to realize a system is only a reflection of our thinking, or in some cases the thinking of the ones who write the rules regarding any given system.
In order for radical change of the world to occur, human beings must first undergo a radical transformation of one’s self. To become whole, and transcend suffering.
Psychological projection of the shadow, ignorance of yourself and your potential and what you have to offer the world, and the fear of pain, suffering, and the unknown are the causes of all human conflict, and the causes for the majority of suffering that occurs unnecessarily every day.
I have only seen two major motion pictures that I consider to be pointless. Bladerunner 2024 might be one of them.
Regardless, the movie dies when Deckard shows up and they have a super hero battle for no reason.