Love the ending so much, it is so much nore compelling that K/Joe isnt the child. His arc of finding purpose without having to be "special" and choosing to save Deckard rather than following more orders proves his humanity.
Denis Villeneuve is my favourite modern director as he allows his audience to think rather than shove it in your face. He trusts his audience and that's a rare thing these days.
The thing I love about all his movies ( like Dune recently ), is that his movies are a 50% of storytelling and visual art. Half the movie is like a huge screensaver with artwork from the movie, and gives you time to reflect on the last scene before getting confronted with the next scene.
The first is a masterpiece. But I'll never hesitate or be embarrassed to call "2049" my favorite between the two. Same writers as the first, too. Also, as long as I live, the theatrical experience was flipping unforgettable.
I think Luv’s tears are more out of relief…as long as the latest model replicant can’t give birth, she remains “the best” in the eyes of Wallace. If you think of Joi as purely a Wallace companion app who tells you exactly what you want to hear, her dialogue with Joe throughout makes perfect, sad sense. The ad near the end where the billboard even says “you look like a good Joe”. She doesn’t pick Joe as K’s name because she thinks he’s special or it suits him. It’s because he wants to be special, she’s programmed to reinforce his desires and that’s her “default” go to. But what that does indicate is that even a replicant has human wants and desires to be loved and special.
I like your interpretation of Luv's tears a lot. It's part of her programming that she wants to be the best, so that makes logical sense. My view is that she's witnessed this sort of thing multiple times before, and her programming prevents her from intervening, which is heartbreaking to her.
Well, yes, you can say she truely loved him, and i think you'd be correct. But Joi was programmed to adapt to the needs of the user, so is that love a free choice? It's ambiguous, I think. @@TheJerbol
we also do many of the same things as humans. we change our behaviour to appease those around us especially those we care about. we have much less free will around these things than we think@@Retrostar619
Luv is Blade Runner's equivalent of Stephen from "Django Unchained" - by being the right hand slave of a powerful magnate, they have more power privilege than most free people. They have no interest in freeing "their people" or toppling the system built on slave labor because they *personally* enjoy such a high ranking position within that system. The emotions Luv and Stephen have toward their respective masters is equally complex.
Fun fact: the scene at the beginning with Sapper was actually written as the opening to the first movie, but they re-use/re-work it in this film and weave it into the story
Now that you’ve seen this one, I’d actually recommend going back and watching the Final Cut of the first one. You watched the theatrical cut last time, which is just downright terrible compared to 2049.
Yeah, downright terrible they watched that version, spoiled their very first experience of one of the best films ever. If they were recommended that version by someone that person should be shot, if they just decided they should have asked or done a vote.
I'd also recommend the Final Cut. There were also three shorts made as promotional material for 2049, and a spinoff series called Black Lotus, set between the original movie and 2049. I really enjoyed it
Ok slow down everybody it’s not downright terrible. The theatrical version was the way a lot of people knew the film for a long time. I think it’s good they saw it as it originally was, now they can watch The Final Cut and judge the changes to the film.
@@ghostsquirrel8739 Most people didn't see blade runner until the directors cut was released in the early 90s, and the final cut is just a cleaned up directors cut.
I would say that the reaction you had with this movie is the reaction people had with the first Blade Runner (director's cut). It's just that the original one is 40 years old and lot of the themes and issues have been recycled and dealt with in popular culture hundreds of times. But when the original BR came out, it was a refreshing new take on science fiction and humanity and technology. The reason the original one might not resonated with you is because the themes have been dealt with for 40 years in popular culture. Now BR 2049 dealt with artificial intelligence and dug deeper on what is to be a replicant in ways which is more contemporary and up to date. But 40 years ago, that's what the original Blade Runner was.
I had the same thoughts, The first blade runner has been so influential on not just movies, but so many other things we live in now. It can’t have the same impact now that it did or originally. I can remember seeing it when it came out and being mesmerized. Now it’s nostalgic to watch, but then it had impact!
One of my favourite plot points, that usually gets overlooked. Is the scene where the Rachael replacement meets Deckard, he says her eyes were green. Most people read that as the designers making a mistake, but it's actually Deckard removing that piece from the board. Which makes it all the more heartbreaking. Rachaels eyes are brown, it only looks green during the scene when she's taking the voight kampf test.
When they announced the sequel, I was seriously worried that they’d screw it up and ruin “Blade Runner” in the process. Fortunately, Villeneuve put together an awesome team of folks (esp. Roger Deakins) and demonstrated that we had nothing to worry about.
When the three replicant prostitutes approached him and one of them spoke and there was subtitles, it was Krista Kosonen, a famous actress over here in Finland and she was speaking Finnish. Everyone laughed in the theate when I saw it, it was so weird.
There is a ton of symbolism in this movie that gets lost, the tree I always felt represented life in the midst of darkness. I think Rachael represents the origins for the rest of the replicant race, a literal Eve, buried at the foundation of a tree, literally from her death springs the miracle of life. Wallace also calls his replicants "Angels" and that he wants "millions" of them without life spans... he literally represents a deity, creating an army of helpers "angels" that serve him and he gives them direction.
About the timeline: The original movie depicted a future where some things still existed, that did not survive into the real 2019 (Have you seen the neon adverts for PanAm, Atari, TDK …?) 2049 just did go further down that vision, basically creating an alternate history future. Some of the adverts in the market had "CCCP" written on them, which is cyrillic for USSR - which means, the Soviet Union still exists in Blade Runner as it did in 1982. Somehow it opened up without breaking down in 1991, and got some influential technology used in the food processing farms at the opening scene, where the writings were also in Russian. Which means, the Blade Runner world deviated from ours at some point in the 1980s.
20:18 In Peter and the Wolf, the motifs represent the different characters in the story, as you probably know. The motif that gets played for K is Peter's own motif, which Prokofiev intended to represent not just Peter, but humanity in general. It is the only motif that is played on multiple instruments (the strings) so it can display the relative complexity of humans versus the simpler animals who only get one instrument.
For me, the impact of the character Joi is to further blur the distinction between what is real and what is artificial. This is already there because of the replicants, Joi adds another layer to that. It is a world that seems so determined to create an artificial reality and destroy the actual reality, maybe purely just for the desire of having total control.
The test is measuring biometric responses to words. Throwing phrases like "How is like to hold the hand of the one you love" "Interlinked" to see if there is shift's in his biometrics. Making sure that the "product" is experiencing malfunction's that will make them "unfit"
I kind of agree with this, but going back to the original I look at it through the lens of -- instead of trying to provoke an emotional response -- trying to measure the comparative stability of the responses he's already having to the extent he's even allowed to have any
2:17 If you watch Blade Runner: Black Lotus, you learn that the CEO of Wallace corporation was getting politicians to make replicants production legal again.
Love your reaction. So glad you watched this. I love this film. It is amazing. Ridley Scott personally chose Denis Villeneuve to direct this film. Now you need to react to Sicario - another incredible film from Denis Villeneuve. (and the sequel, Sicario 2) There are 3 short films with the Blu-Ray release. They are very well made. One of them shows that Sapper was a very good man. That is why the Blade Runners found him.
Sicario is pretty mediocre honestly. Although when I say mediocre, it means mediocre for Villeneuve's standards. All his other movies are way above even the "very good" grade, so yeah, in comparison it does pale a lot. Watch any other of his films and you'll find them way more compelling from start to finish. Its an insanely good modern director to be fair! And I wish we had more directors like him. A true visionary! PS: Sicario 2 is not even by Villeneuve btw, so its actually quite worse than the first film and not recommended in general.
What few seem to realize is that Luv may not have a name, at all. He just calls her "luv" as one might say "sweetheart" or "my dear", and he even has no emotion in that. She seems to have just adopted it as a name. He doesn't care about her, she just pretends and deeply wishes that he did.
To me like a child trying to impress, listen to her when she confronts Madam in the police station listen to her voice when she says I'll tell Wallace that you tried to kill me
Looking forward to your _Blade Runner 2049_ reaction and I recommend for Hailey and Stella to react to _Arrival_ (also directed by Denis Villeneuve who did Dune and Blade Runner: 2049) along with _The Matrix_ films, _ET, Back to the Future, AVATAR_ (including _The Way of Water),_ _Total Recall_ (the 1990 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) and _Minority Report_ the latter two which just like _Blade Runner_ are film adaptations by Philip K. Dick.
I think that what you are actually seeing in the difference between BR and BR:2049 is the development of cinema over those 35 years. In that time cinema (and TV) has become increasingly sophisticated, not just technologically, but in storytelling and presentation. You only have to look at the massive gulf between the 1979 Captain America TV movie and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier to see just how far the visual arts have come.
Poor Luv, so misunderstood ... According to actress Sylvia Hoeks, Luv was twelve years old in Blade Runner 2049. I think she's more of an abused child than a villain. One who, loves, fears and wants to please her 'Father'. In the scene where Wallace kills the failed replicant, just after she is decanted from the plastic womb, he tells her she is the best angel of all, just after kissing the one he kills. You can see on her face she is terrified of being a failure. By the end I think both Luv and Joi true people, even though they weren't 'born'.
Just hit me on the last couple of viewings, in the police station when she kills Madam... "I'm going to tell Mr Wallace you tried to kill me listen to her voice intonation".
Good piece of acting when Gosling sees the Joy advertisement. The look of total emptiness on his face when Joy says, "You look like a good Joe," is priceless .
Noir is ALL about the soul. What's it worth? Can it be sold? What happens when you destroy your own? Does everyone have one? Bladerunner asks the follow on questions: Is the soul a divine thing? Unique to organic life? An emergent artifact of sufficient complexity? The original was a patchwork of story ideas, period mood, genre, visual storytelling(see Scott's "The Duellists" for Film As Canvas) and simply captured lightning in a bottle. Its growth in the popular imagination over the years is what set up the more fully envisioned world of 2049. A couple of brilliant Neo-Noir movies are "Body Heat" from 1981 and "Blood Simple " 1984. Both take a staple Noir plotlines: The extramarital affair, money and murder, and bring them up to date. There are Souls, and the Soulless in these two.
I noticed that the "Wallace Jingle" is music from Peter and the Wolf, too! Specifically, the opening of Peter's theme. I still don't know why it was chosen in this movie.
Something you may have noticed but didn't talk about was the ending. The final scene, the final line of dialog, "Just a moment... beautiful isn't it?" Literally, Deckards daughter was asking him to wait and describing the snow memory she was working on when Deckard arrived. But the 2nd meaning..describing the brief time we are alive. There's a reason that's the last line in the film. It's so subtle I missed it the first time.
Ridley Scott made us question if Deckard is a replicant. Instead of giving us the answer, Villeneuve kept the mystery going and made us question if Deckard was summoned/programmed to fall in love with Rachel.
I took it more to me Rachel was designed to make him/(men) fall in love with her and therefore not want to retire her. Neither Gaff, nor Decker, Nor Tyrrell could bring themselves to...
You mentioned 'Peter and the Wolf' tickling your music nerd brain so I wanted to offer my interpretation of why it was used. Now, I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere, but to me it was the perfect piece of music. In the piece, it tells it's story with each instrument representative of a different animal. A stand in, an approximation and a replica of that animal. What better tune for a company that creates synthetic beings, both digital and semi-biological.
For me both movies (and this a bit more) are about humanity. What it means, what purpose it follows and what are the needs to feel "human". Does it mean to be born? To have a soul? And what does it mean to have one? To have a physical body? To sacrifice yourself for a greater good? To obey? Those questions are for me mixed in between most beautiful artistic shots we can find in movies. Great atmosphere, great acting and writing. And Denis has mastered this to perfection following the mood and style of the first one.
Speaking of subtext in every scene: In the beginning when we first see K being served food by JOI in his apartment. JOI says "i'm getting cabin fever", as if she has made that complaint before. That is effectively a built in advert within JOI, to persude people to buy the Emminater (the hologram stick). And what do you know, in the next scene we see K has alreadt purchases one for her. The other question you have to ask yourself is what is love? Was JOI really in love with K? Or was she just programmed to do everything to make K happy as a partner and make it look like she wss in love? After all JOI is essentially a program made for lonely people and Tyrell corporation owns the product of JOI. I would definitely rewatch the movie. There are plenty more subtext details like this which make the world feel more detailed. Loads things hidden in scenes.
I saw it in the theater. This film left me sitting in my seat 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 love this film and consider it the greatest sci-fi next to Terminator 2 and Aliens. The film score was magnificent too. 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. Just before Luv crushed her emanator she made sure in her final moment to tell him that she loved him. 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.
If you guys want to be REAL completists, there were 3 or 4 short mini films that bridge the time periods between the first and second films. ❤ your reaction!!!!
Ryan Gosling is in this movie as the new Blade Runner. Gosling and Harrison Ford got along with each other during filming. In an interview, Ford said he accidentally punched Gosling so hard in the face during their fight scene, he knocked him out cold for an hour or so. When Gosling woke up, he asked, "What Happened?" Lol!
Knocked him out? An hour? That part is made up. He didn't even fall down from the punch. Ford punched him in one take, Gosling was taken aback but handled it like a champ, and Ford not only hugged him on set moments after it happened (behind-the-scenes videos show you this on the Blu-ray) he also apologized by coming over to Gosling's trailer with a bottle of whiskey. The only change in the story between interviews is that he might not have let Gosling keep the bottle, but rather just one glass. The film's editor Joe Walker did an interview with Screen Junkies where he mentions the crew coming over with ice for Gosling and Ford immediately put his hand in it, apparently.
The audience is just like K in the orphanage scene. They’re seeing what they want to see and don’t notice that all the boys have shaved heads in the girls have short hair.
K won the last fight against Luv because K was designed to combat other Replicants. Blade runner by design. Wallace was supposed to originally be played by David Bowie but he passed away in 2016. Leto replaced him.
Great reaction! I absolutely love this movie. For atmosphere, storytelling, and world building this and Doctor Sleep are on another level and both happen to be sequels that build up and improve upon the original but also stand on their own. As for the tear that Luv shed near the beginning, I admit it threw me off and made me sympathize with her in the beginning and I thought she would surely have some turning point and redemption but after how fanatical she is shown to be right up until the end I see that tear not as sadness for the newly born replicant being murdered in front of her but a tear shed for herself. As Wallace is talking about how disappointed he is that he can't make them breed, she is heartbroken that she can't be that for him. As his "best one" she is still "less than" in his eyes. He's trying to make something better than her that she can never be. Such a great movie.
Such a fascinating discussion after your reaction. Such an intelligent, thought-provoking exploration of the themes. For me it surpassed the first film both narratively and in terms of character and yes so much more satisfying an ending.
Man i love this movie its asthetic is truly enjoyable the cyperpunk futuristic theme plus the cinematography is visual appealing watched it like 3 times i think and somehow hoped it was even longer or a lotr type trilogy
The Blade Runner films are similar to Alien & Aliens. Both have different directors for the sequel, with different visions/aesthetics. But both sequels complement and expand on the originals.
I saw the original "Blade Runner" in a New York theater on opening night so I'm old, seeing two young ladies react to "2049" gave me a new appreciation for the twists and emotional beats in this movie. Thanks for this, keep going.
@31:44 and at @41:31 Notice how Luv copies Wallace and how he killed that replicant at the beginning? That adds a whole new layer to her character in the story.
I went to theater, in middle of day. I wanted to avoid the crowd. The commercial area, where was located the theater, was empty. When I get out of the theater, a tropical tempest had filled the sky with sand from Sahara. Sky was as orange as in the movie. On my way home, I did not cross a living being. I was so relieved to hear voice of my mom, after 20 minutes of doubting about reality.
There are 3 short films that tie the last film to this one, and they explain the topics that you first mention in this video. Really are mandatory watching before seeing this :) Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already.
Pay attention to the color of yellow. The director uses it to show each discovery of the protagonist. And the use of Love’s outfit from white to black…. and Love crushes Joi.
“Her eyes were green.” Sean Young’s eyes are brown, and so are Rachael’s - they didn’t recreate her incorrectly. But Deckard REMEMBERS her as having green eyes, and his statement to Wallace is a short way of telling him that he will not accept this new Rachael. Deckard’s Rachael is long dead and buried and lives now only in his memory. As for Ana: She likely has no immune system deficiency at all. Her being locked up keeps her from being found, since no one will ever have a chance to examine her or her DNA. “Blade Runner” was my favorite movie until “2049” was released - in my opinion, “2049” is a somewhat superior film.
Of course they recreated her correctly, they had the original genetic code. Deckard knew this full well - his comment to Wallace was just a big F#$% You.
It's important to note that cinema is still a relatively new art form and that a movie made in the 1980's will almost certainly be perceived in the 2020's as more primitive. Which it definitely was.
they dont do a lot of explaining with the baseline test and what it is for because its something they do so frequently, they just do it and make us figure it out. which i like, A lot of movies do too much explaining to a point where its like they think the audience is too stupid to understand and it takes you out of the world for a while. I think the baseline is like if they tested Connor from Detroit Become Human to see if he's still an android after his mission or if he's becoming a deviant. I think thats the best way to describe it
Also depending on next week’s film following _Blade Runner: 2049_ and _Gravity_ I would highly recommend that after those films, I recommend all four of you will react to other different films outside of the Science Fiction and Godzilla/Monster/Kaiju films every Thursday such as those of the Horror, Comedy, Drama, Fantasy and Action genres like The _Kingsman_ films, _Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, Scott Pilgrim, Stardust, Van Helsing, The Mummy films, Star Wars, Indiana Jones,_ a Horror movie _(Happy Death Day, Five Nights at Freddy’s,_ etc.), _Arachnophobia, Barbie_ etc. Because you’ve been reacting to Science Fiction films for 6-7 months and eventually it can get repetitive being stuck to reacting to one film genre (Science Fiction) every Thursday and I always would like to see you expand your horizons and reacting to different movies that you’re missing out on and make the Thursday reactions feel new and to add variety, considering your reactions to _2001: A Space Odyssey, Meg 2: The Trench_ and _Annihilation_ are earning a lot less views than your previous group reactions. Secondly It’s October already and it’s baffles me you haven’t reacted to any Scary/Horror movies already!!
Just my interpretation, I think Luv's tears were her morality bubbling to the surface. She didn't like the violence and didn't like killing but she always followed orders anyway. I think it horrified her but she kept it inside except for that little crack. She couldn't stop the tears
Personally I still prefer the first movie because of its stronger ambience and atmosphere - a gritty, rainy and dangerous dystopian world, compared to 2049’s sterile and somewhat safe Los Angeles in comparison. I love Roger Deakins (2049’s cinematographer) and he actually won an Oscar for the film! But I would have preferred more cinematic grain and darkness against the bright neon. It could also be my millennial bias for that specific cyberpunk aesthetic which pretty much was invented by the first Blade Runner movie and inspired other classics such as The Fifth Element, Minority Report, and Back to the Future II. That said, over the years I grew to greatly appreciate the slow burn and profound meaning behind Denis Villnueve’s sequel. With every rewatch I am more convinced of Ryan Gosling’s subtle genius as an actor, and at the end of the day I feel very emotionally connected to K, Joi and even Luv in their quests to have some kind of meaning to their existence. Most cinephiles would agree though, that Roy Batty from the first movie is the heart and soul of Blade Runner, and upends movie expectations by being a villain that actually is more of a tragic sympathetic “hero” just fighting for survival against those who would take away his right to be. I’m so glad you enjoyed both movies overall! The closer we get to Artificial Intelligence, catastrophic global warming/nuclear war, and the rampant abuse of corporate greed, the more these films become a guide and warning to how we value humanity in the future. True science fiction.
You said at the start "this is what I wanted from the original" - well, it was there, but you missed it. Now you need to go back and watch the Final Cut of the original instead of the theatrical release, then this one again. You'll get it. :-)
I'd also add that every question about a soul and living your life as a human is in the first film but it's not about Rachael it's about the off world replicants. They know they are replicant's, they lived their lives not as human yet the audience is still left to question if they have a soul, if they have rights, etc. I just think it doesn't hit you over the head and verbalize soul (like in case you didn't get it).
I highly appreciate screenwriters who are able to take up a given world (the one of Blade Runner 1982), add aspects to it that haven't been thought of so far, develop them logically forward and then present the final outcomes and consequences these aspects would have in the real world. That's an incredible talent in writing. This movie is one of the best examples for this talent. The same is true for the director and the composer of the soundtrack. Certain camera settings as well as the music by Vangelis of the 1982 movie have become iconic. Villeneuve was able to take that up and create a similar kind of iconic pictures in a contemporary style. And the music of Hans Zimmer takes the mood of the original soundtrack to the next level while keeping its flavour. This movie is one of the greatest moments in filmmaking and a demonstration of what truly talented persons are able to create.
well, that was an interesting reaction, for sure. when Stella says "They are people..." 56:59 that is one of /the/ core themes of the first movie. so yes, the story of 2049 was not set up (51:36) in the first one, but how you look at replicants, that was. ach, i just loved how it made you think and discuss, also about the first one. that's what good movies should do. appreciate your appreciation.
This is in the same universe as the Alien franchise. It's basically the answer to people who watch and "Alien" and asked 'What's Earth like during this time period/universe?"
The use of Peter and the Wolf was really just meant to differentiate the emanator from technology we have today. So instead of pleasant beeps and boops, they landed on Peter and the Wolf as a boot-up chime. Originally Denis wanted to use music from Pinocchio because K is a puppet who becomes real, but it would have been a bit too…on the nose. I’ll see myself out
If you remember, we found out wood is very precious. The vendor wanted to trade a real horse for the wooden horse. If you go back and check out the scenes in the Wallace corporation, everything is made of wood.
Someone likely already mentioned this, but what confuses a lot of people is that they think of replicants as being manufactured robots, made out of plastic and metal, and that sort of thing, and old school replicants were probably in their early stages. But all of the new replicants are not those kind of robots. They are manufactured artificial humans. Literally instead of developing in the womb, they are put together piece by piece from genetically engineered parts. So while they fit the definition of a robot, they are basically superhumans.
The films are different bc the two directors have different priorities. Ridley Scott is a master of imagery and set design. Villeneuve wants slow movies with love and emotions being most important. You could see that in Villeneuve's Arrival film. You think it's about aliens but actually it's about love. The writer of both film is Hampton Fancher I think, and he ties the two films together in a very clever way, without solving the mystery about Deckard being a replicant or not. (You don't want to p*** off half of the audience). I was disappointed that we didn't get to see the old Blade Runner world again though with the high contrast back lit night scenes. It's not tech noir visually like the old movie.
The thing I love aboutVilleneuve's movies ( like Dune recently ), is that his movies are a 50% of storytelling and visual art. Half the movie is like a huge screensaver with artwork from the movie, and gives you time to reflect on the last scene before getting confronted with the next scene.
@@vvanheukelum I prefer the visuals of the original. Dune 2049 had many almost monochrome scenes. Las Vegas is all red, the scene with the giant Joy hologram is all blue, and so on. This kind of color grading is a problem/style with many modern films. Dune has the exact same problem.
So many people hates this movie, but I can't say how sad and deep it is. Being a replicant amongst the humans is worse than being a hunted one, and their only hope is having a soul. That's why Roy saved Decard in the original: mercy has a contact with a soul, being mercyful makes you more like a human.
If Rachel is a bit underdeveloped, it's because she's in the middle of a "personality reboot" and she's having to start from scratch. Rachael has a physical body, but what few memories she thought she had turn out to be false. Except for our brief introduction to the cool, confident, and collected Rachael, who takes the Voigt-Kampff Test, the Rachael we see AFTER that test is lost at sea, in the midst of a major identity crisis. She doesn't know how to BE anymore. She runs to Deckard, hoping he'll tell her she's real, and he doesn't. Joi is who she is programmed to be, and has no physical body full of chemicals and hormones to muddy the waters: She is just a more complex version of Chat GPT, telling her owner what her algorithms are indicating that person probably wants to hear. She has no identity crisis, like Rachael does, and is, in fact, incapable of having one. Even her seemingly jealous, morning-after, interaction with the prostitute is likely a 'this is what I'm supposed to do,' statistically-derived, response. Joi is there to be a companion to the customer (whoever it was that rubbed the metaphorical lamp) and make them feel good. At his lowest point, K sees a hundred-foot-tall Joi advertisement, displaying Joi, bared to any and all onlookers, literally telling anyone and everyone that Joi will be everything they want to see and hear. This reality is harshly driven home when the ad version also calls him "Joe," despite never having seen him before, and he realizes how false it all was. Rachel doesn't display as much personality in Blade Runner because she's busy figuring out who she even is. Joi, on the other hand, is perfectly "happy" being a devoted 1950s housewife, baking the perfect holographic meal for her owner, one second, and then ordering up a prostitute for them the next, because her personality is really just an algorithmic pinball, bouncing between a massive behavioral database, and her owner's personality. And you'd better believe that all of his interactions with his instance of Joi (just like all the other Joi owners) are going into a computer at the Wallace Corporation. I'm sure the rights to all of your data is included in Joi's EULA.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the ending so much, it is so much nore compelling that K/Joe isnt the child. His arc of finding purpose without having to be "special" and choosing to save Deckard rather than following more orders proves his humanity.
In the end, the real child is playing with fake snow while the fake child is experiencing the real thing.
God, i never made that connection! Thank you :-)@@brotherjohnnyxXxX
@@Retrostar619 👍
The toy horse and origami unicorn parallel.
@@brotherjohnnyxXxXDamn good observation!!!
the emanator doesn't give her a physical body, the raindrops 'hitting' her hand were also part of the hologram. It just matched the real environment
Denis Villeneuve is my favourite modern director as he allows his audience to think rather than shove it in your face. He trusts his audience and that's a rare thing these days.
The thing I love about all his movies ( like Dune recently ), is that his movies are a 50% of storytelling and visual art. Half the movie is like a huge screensaver with artwork from the movie, and gives you time to reflect on the last scene before getting confronted with the next scene.
I don't know. Dune part 2 sure shoved exposition in my face through Alia's mind conversations with her mom.
The first is a masterpiece. But I'll never hesitate or be embarrassed to call "2049" my favorite between the two. Same writers as the first, too. Also, as long as I live, the theatrical experience was flipping unforgettable.
Can never forgive myself for not seeing it in IMAX
@@mrmr4622 , I did it was amazing visually.
The original is my favorite, but... 2049... is the superior movie... GOD....DAMNIT.
@@mrmr4622the flying scenes and junkyard scenes, and the Los angeles? Were absolutely incredible
I think Luv’s tears are more out of relief…as long as the latest model replicant can’t give birth, she remains “the best” in the eyes of Wallace. If you think of Joi as purely a Wallace companion app who tells you exactly what you want to hear, her dialogue with Joe throughout makes perfect, sad sense. The ad near the end where the billboard even says “you look like a good Joe”. She doesn’t pick Joe as K’s name because she thinks he’s special or it suits him. It’s because he wants to be special, she’s programmed to reinforce his desires and that’s her “default” go to. But what that does indicate is that even a replicant has human wants and desires to be loved and special.
I disagree, she follows her programming just as much as we humans do. She truly loved Joe and was an individual person, not just a good AI
I like your interpretation of Luv's tears a lot. It's part of her programming that she wants to be the best, so that makes logical sense. My view is that she's witnessed this sort of thing multiple times before, and her programming prevents her from intervening, which is heartbreaking to her.
Well, yes, you can say she truely loved him, and i think you'd be correct. But Joi was programmed to adapt to the needs of the user, so is that love a free choice? It's ambiguous, I think. @@TheJerbol
we also do many of the same things as humans. we change our behaviour to appease those around us especially those we care about. we have much less free will around these things than we think@@Retrostar619
Luv is Blade Runner's equivalent of Stephen from "Django Unchained" - by being the right hand slave of a powerful magnate, they have more power privilege than most free people. They have no interest in freeing "their people" or toppling the system built on slave labor because they *personally* enjoy such a high ranking position within that system.
The emotions Luv and Stephen have toward their respective masters is equally complex.
“They couldn’t make the walls opaque?”
Kind of defeats the purpose of a window display that’s supposed to drive sales , wouldn’t it ? Lol
Fun fact: the scene at the beginning with Sapper was actually written as the opening to the first movie, but they re-use/re-work it in this film and weave it into the story
Now that you’ve seen this one, I’d actually recommend going back and watching the Final Cut of the first one. You watched the theatrical cut last time, which is just downright terrible compared to 2049.
The Final Cut is a must-watch.
Yeah, downright terrible they watched that version, spoiled their very first experience of one of the best films ever. If they were recommended that version by someone that person should be shot, if they just decided they should have asked or done a vote.
I'd also recommend the Final Cut.
There were also three shorts made as promotional material for 2049, and a spinoff series called Black Lotus, set between the original movie and 2049. I really enjoyed it
Ok slow down everybody it’s not downright terrible. The theatrical version was the way a lot of people knew the film for a long time. I think it’s good they saw it as it originally was, now they can watch The Final Cut and judge the changes to the film.
@@ghostsquirrel8739 Most people didn't see blade runner until the directors cut was released in the early 90s, and the final cut is just a cleaned up directors cut.
The moment K is dying with Vangelis's Tears in Rain playing gets me every time.
The actress playing the police captain is Robin Wright. Who played Princes Buttercup in The Princess Bride (1987)
I would say that the reaction you had with this movie is the reaction people had with the first Blade Runner (director's cut). It's just that the original one is 40 years old and lot of the themes and issues have been recycled and dealt with in popular culture hundreds of times. But when the original BR came out, it was a refreshing new take on science fiction and humanity and technology. The reason the original one might not resonated with you is because the themes have been dealt with for 40 years in popular culture.
Now BR 2049 dealt with artificial intelligence and dug deeper on what is to be a replicant in ways which is more contemporary and up to date. But 40 years ago, that's what the original Blade Runner was.
I had the same thoughts, The first blade runner has been so influential on not just movies, but so many other things we live in now. It can’t have the same impact now that it did or originally. I can remember seeing it when it came out and being mesmerized. Now it’s nostalgic to watch, but then it had impact!
One of my favourite plot points, that usually gets overlooked.
Is the scene where the Rachael replacement meets Deckard, he says her eyes were green.
Most people read that as the designers making a mistake, but it's actually Deckard removing that piece from the board.
Which makes it all the more heartbreaking.
Rachaels eyes are brown, it only looks green during the scene when she's taking the voight kampf test.
Blade Runner never needed a sequel. But this probably the best possible sequel that could've been made.
When they announced the sequel, I was seriously worried that they’d screw it up and ruin “Blade Runner” in the process. Fortunately, Villeneuve put together an awesome team of folks (esp. Roger Deakins) and demonstrated that we had nothing to worry about.
Even though I love this movie. There was never a moment like in the first film with Roy’s speech that brought me to tears.
When the three replicant prostitutes approached him and one of them spoke and there was subtitles, it was Krista Kosonen, a famous actress over here in Finland and she was speaking Finnish. Everyone laughed in the theate when I saw it, it was so weird.
My 2nd favorite movie of all time! Love that you covered it!
Y'all being speechless when the movie ends is exactly how I felt sitting in the movie theater. A perfect ending for a perfect movie.
Me too.
There is a ton of symbolism in this movie that gets lost, the tree I always felt represented life in the midst of darkness. I think Rachael represents the origins for the rest of the replicant race, a literal Eve, buried at the foundation of a tree, literally from her death springs the miracle of life. Wallace also calls his replicants "Angels" and that he wants "millions" of them without life spans... he literally represents a deity, creating an army of helpers "angels" that serve him and he gives them direction.
About the timeline: The original movie depicted a future where some things still existed, that did not survive into the real 2019 (Have you seen the neon adverts for PanAm, Atari, TDK …?)
2049 just did go further down that vision, basically creating an alternate history future.
Some of the adverts in the market had "CCCP" written on them, which is cyrillic for USSR - which means, the Soviet Union still exists in Blade Runner as it did in 1982.
Somehow it opened up without breaking down in 1991, and got some influential technology used in the food processing farms at the opening scene, where the writings were also in Russian.
Which means, the Blade Runner world deviated from ours at some point in the 1980s.
Every time the 'Peter and the wolf' theme plays it means that someone is sending a message; or that K's girlfriend Joi is checking in on him.
20:18 In Peter and the Wolf, the motifs represent the different characters in the story, as you probably know.
The motif that gets played for K is Peter's own motif, which Prokofiev intended to represent not just Peter, but humanity in general. It is the only motif that is played on multiple instruments (the strings) so it can display the relative complexity of humans versus the simpler animals who only get one instrument.
Blade Runner 2049 won Best Visual Effects and Best Cinematography.
For me, the impact of the character Joi is to further blur the distinction between what is real and what is artificial. This is already there because of the replicants, Joi adds another layer to that. It is a world that seems so determined to create an artificial reality and destroy the actual reality, maybe purely just for the desire of having total control.
No one is better than Denis Villeneuve to adapt RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA into a movie
#DenisVilleneuve4RendezvousWithRama
I am waiting for Rendezvous With Rama. Its the perfect story for Denis.
And I really want Hans Zimmer to do the soundtrack. He adds so much to any movie !
Man, Denis Villeneuve just does not make simple, throw-away movies, does he? Brilliant.
He continues to release amazing films, I think he's going to be regarded as one of the greatest directors in history in the future.
The test is measuring biometric responses to words. Throwing phrases like "How is like to hold the hand of the one you love" "Interlinked" to see if there is shift's in his biometrics. Making sure that the "product" is experiencing malfunction's that will make them "unfit"
I kind of agree with this, but going back to the original I look at it through the lens of -- instead of trying to provoke an emotional response -- trying to measure the comparative stability of the responses he's already having to the extent he's even allowed to have any
I keep re-watching this reaction. It is reassuring to know that others appreciate just how beautiful and deeply emotional this film is. 🙂
Howabout this title: CAN’T EXIST WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL. Unlike Star Wars and Indiana Jones- they brought Harrison Ford back without ruining EVERYTHING
2:17
If you watch Blade Runner: Black Lotus, you learn that the CEO of Wallace corporation was getting politicians to make replicants production legal again.
Wallace put on a demonstration...
@@sana-cm7oc Indeed
Love your reaction. So glad you watched this. I love this film. It is amazing. Ridley Scott personally chose Denis Villeneuve to direct this film. Now you need to react to Sicario - another incredible film from Denis Villeneuve. (and the sequel, Sicario 2)
There are 3 short films with the Blu-Ray release. They are very well made. One of them shows that Sapper was a very good man. That is why the Blade Runners found him.
Sicario is pretty mediocre honestly. Although when I say mediocre, it means mediocre for Villeneuve's standards. All his other movies are way above even the "very good" grade, so yeah, in comparison it does pale a lot. Watch any other of his films and you'll find them way more compelling from start to finish. Its an insanely good modern director to be fair! And I wish we had more directors like him. A true visionary!
PS: Sicario 2 is not even by Villeneuve btw, so its actually quite worse than the first film and not recommended in general.
What few seem to realize is that Luv may not have a name, at all. He just calls her "luv" as one might say "sweetheart" or "my dear", and he even has no emotion in that. She seems to have just adopted it as a name. He doesn't care about her, she just pretends and deeply wishes that he did.
Wallace has a serious God complex, and Luv sees herself as his primary archangel. Insofar as a replicant is capable of love, she absolutely loves him.
@@clayjohanson Completely. I would even say worships. Like a child wanting dad to notice them, desperately!
To me like a child trying to impress, listen to her when she confronts Madam in the police station listen to her voice when she says I'll tell Wallace that you tried to kill me
Looking forward to your _Blade Runner 2049_ reaction and I recommend for Hailey and Stella to react to _Arrival_ (also directed by Denis Villeneuve who did Dune and Blade Runner: 2049) along with _The Matrix_ films, _ET, Back to the Future, AVATAR_ (including _The Way of Water),_ _Total Recall_ (the 1990 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) and _Minority Report_ the latter two which just like _Blade Runner_ are film adaptations by Philip K. Dick.
I think that what you are actually seeing in the difference between BR and BR:2049 is the development of cinema over those 35 years. In that time cinema (and TV) has become increasingly sophisticated, not just technologically, but in storytelling and presentation. You only have to look at the massive gulf between the 1979 Captain America TV movie and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier to see just how far the visual arts have come.
Probably my favourite movie of the last 15 years, its incredible on every level
Mine too. Fury Road too.
Poor Luv, so misunderstood ... According to actress Sylvia Hoeks, Luv was twelve years old in Blade Runner 2049. I think she's more of an abused child than a villain. One who, loves, fears and wants to please her 'Father'. In the scene where Wallace kills the failed replicant, just after she is decanted from the plastic womb, he tells her she is the best angel of all, just after kissing the one he kills. You can see on her face she is terrified of being a failure. By the end I think both Luv and Joi true people, even though they weren't 'born'.
Just hit me on the last couple of viewings, in the police station when she kills Madam... "I'm going to tell Mr Wallace you tried to kill me listen to her voice intonation".
Good piece of acting when Gosling sees the Joy advertisement.
The look of total emptiness on his face when Joy says, "You look like a good Joe," is priceless .
Noir is ALL about the soul. What's it worth? Can it be sold? What happens when you destroy your own? Does everyone have one?
Bladerunner asks the follow on questions: Is the soul a divine thing? Unique to organic life? An emergent artifact of sufficient complexity?
The original was a patchwork of story ideas, period mood, genre, visual storytelling(see Scott's "The Duellists" for Film As Canvas) and simply captured lightning in a bottle.
Its growth in the popular imagination over the years is what set up the more fully envisioned world of 2049.
A couple of brilliant Neo-Noir movies are "Body Heat" from 1981 and "Blood Simple " 1984. Both take a staple Noir plotlines: The extramarital affair, money and murder, and bring them up to date.
There are Souls, and the Soulless in these two.
The two films compliment each other wonderfully.
I noticed that the "Wallace Jingle" is music from Peter and the Wolf, too! Specifically, the opening of Peter's theme. I still don't know why it was chosen in this movie.
Something you may have noticed but didn't talk about was the ending. The final scene, the final line of dialog, "Just a moment... beautiful isn't it?" Literally, Deckards daughter was asking him to wait and describing the snow memory she was working on when Deckard arrived. But the 2nd meaning..describing the brief time we are alive. There's a reason that's the last line in the film. It's so subtle I missed it the first time.
Ridley Scott made us question if Deckard is a replicant. Instead of giving us the answer, Villeneuve kept the mystery going and made us question if Deckard was summoned/programmed to fall in love with Rachel.
And the answer is such a Philip K Dick/existential thing to say "It was real to *me..."*
No he's not a replicant, scott's just screwing with the fans.
I took it more to me Rachel was designed to make him/(men) fall in love with her and therefore not want to retire her.
Neither Gaff, nor Decker, Nor Tyrrell could bring themselves to...
Roy's Tears in Rain music plays when K lays in the end.
K is dying. The music track you refer to is literally called “Time to Die”
Stella mentioning Alexa, now you’ll need to check out Her (2013) starring Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson.
Roger Deakins won the Oscar for Best Cinematography for this masterpiece.
Ridley Scott says Deckard is a replicant. Case in point, the unicorn dream. Dennis Villeneuve says Deckard isn't a replicant.
You mentioned 'Peter and the Wolf' tickling your music nerd brain so I wanted to offer my interpretation of why it was used. Now, I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere, but to me it was the perfect piece of music. In the piece, it tells it's story with each instrument representative of a different animal. A stand in, an approximation and a replica of that animal. What better tune for a company that creates synthetic beings, both digital and semi-biological.
For me both movies (and this a bit more) are about humanity. What it means, what purpose it follows and what are the needs to feel "human". Does it mean to be born? To have a soul? And what does it mean to have one? To have a physical body? To sacrifice yourself for a greater good? To obey?
Those questions are for me mixed in between most beautiful artistic shots we can find in movies. Great atmosphere, great acting and writing. And Denis has mastered this to perfection following the mood and style of the first one.
Speaking of subtext in every scene:
In the beginning when we first see K being served food by JOI in his apartment. JOI says "i'm getting cabin fever", as if she has made that complaint before. That is effectively a built in advert within JOI, to persude people to buy the Emminater (the hologram stick). And what do you know, in the next scene we see K has alreadt purchases one for her.
The other question you have to ask yourself is what is love? Was JOI really in love with K? Or was she just programmed to do everything to make K happy as a partner and make it look like she wss in love? After all JOI is essentially a program made for lonely people and Tyrell corporation owns the product of JOI.
I would definitely rewatch the movie. There are plenty more subtext details like this which make the world feel more detailed. Loads things hidden in scenes.
Finally I found a channel with actual good reactions & commentary! Really liked you guys reaction to my fav movie of 2017.
At the very least Bladerunner paved the way for you to appreciate what the release of 2049 meant for so many fans of SF movies.
I saw it in the theater. This film left me sitting in my seat 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 love this film and consider it the greatest sci-fi next to Terminator 2 and Aliens. The film score was magnificent too. 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. Just before Luv crushed her emanator she made sure in her final moment to tell him that she loved him.
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.
If you guys want to be REAL completists, there were 3 or 4 short mini films that bridge the time periods between the first and second films. ❤ your reaction!!!!
Get to see Sapper's sacrifice - showing he has a soul.
Ryan Gosling is in this movie as the new Blade Runner.
Gosling and Harrison Ford got along with each other during filming. In an interview,
Ford said he accidentally punched Gosling so hard in the face during their fight scene, he knocked him out cold for an hour or so. When Gosling woke up, he asked, "What Happened?" Lol!
Knocked him out? An hour? That part is made up. He didn't even fall down from the punch. Ford punched him in one take, Gosling was taken aback but handled it like a champ, and Ford not only hugged him on set moments after it happened (behind-the-scenes videos show you this on the Blu-ray) he also apologized by coming over to Gosling's trailer with a bottle of whiskey. The only change in the story between interviews is that he might not have let Gosling keep the bottle, but rather just one glass. The film's editor Joe Walker did an interview with Screen Junkies where he mentions the crew coming over with ice for Gosling and Ford immediately put his hand in it, apparently.
Luv & Joi are very accurate metaphors.
The audience is just like K in the orphanage scene. They’re seeing what they want to see and don’t notice that all the boys have shaved heads in the girls have short hair.
I really want to visit Blade Runner Las Vegas. That place looks dope (before the dirty bomb, natch).
Very impressive post movie discussion between you two. Enjoyed how much you both got out of this experience.
K won the last fight against Luv because K was designed to combat other Replicants. Blade runner by design. Wallace was supposed to originally be played by David Bowie but he passed away in 2016. Leto replaced him.
Masterpiece. Beautiful. I agree it's better than the first and I really really love the first.
4:10 Dave Bautista casually putting us through a wall. Must be wild.
Great reaction! I absolutely love this movie. For atmosphere, storytelling, and world building this and Doctor Sleep are on another level and both happen to be sequels that build up and improve upon the original but also stand on their own. As for the tear that Luv shed near the beginning, I admit it threw me off and made me sympathize with her in the beginning and I thought she would surely have some turning point and redemption but after how fanatical she is shown to be right up until the end I see that tear not as sadness for the newly born replicant being murdered in front of her but a tear shed for herself. As Wallace is talking about how disappointed he is that he can't make them breed, she is heartbroken that she can't be that for him. As his "best one" she is still "less than" in his eyes. He's trying to make something better than her that she can never be. Such a great movie.
Such a fascinating discussion after your reaction. Such an intelligent, thought-provoking exploration of the themes. For me it surpassed the first film both narratively and in terms of character and yes so much more satisfying an ending.
Man i love this movie its asthetic is truly enjoyable the cyperpunk futuristic theme plus the cinematography is visual appealing watched it like 3 times i think and somehow hoped it was even longer or a lotr type trilogy
The Blade Runner films are similar to Alien & Aliens. Both have different directors for the sequel, with different visions/aesthetics. But both sequels complement and expand on the originals.
I saw the original "Blade Runner" in a New York theater on opening night so I'm old, seeing two young ladies react to "2049" gave me a new appreciation for the twists and emotional beats in this movie. Thanks for this, keep going.
So focused on male actors. Shout out to Robin Wright and Ama de Armas.
@31:44 and at @41:31 Notice how Luv copies Wallace and how he killed that replicant at the beginning? That adds a whole new layer to her character in the story.
'This is what I hoped the last movie would get into.'
It did. It just didn't say that's what it was doing.
I went to theater, in middle of day. I wanted to avoid the crowd. The commercial area, where was located the theater, was empty. When I get out of the theater, a tropical tempest had filled the sky with sand from Sahara. Sky was as orange as in the movie. On my way home, I did not cross a living being.
I was so relieved to hear voice of my mom, after 20 minutes of doubting about reality.
You need to be a writer.
There are 3 short films that tie the last film to this one, and they explain the topics that you first mention in this video. Really are mandatory watching before seeing this :)
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already.
You skipped the most iconic part " Goddammit "
Pay attention to the color of yellow. The director uses it to show each discovery of the protagonist. And the use of Love’s outfit from white to black…. and Love crushes Joi.
“Her eyes were green.”
Sean Young’s eyes are brown, and so are Rachael’s - they didn’t recreate her incorrectly. But Deckard REMEMBERS her as having green eyes, and his statement to Wallace is a short way of telling him that he will not accept this new Rachael. Deckard’s Rachael is long dead and buried and lives now only in his memory.
As for Ana: She likely has no immune system deficiency at all. Her being locked up keeps her from being found, since no one will ever have a chance to examine her or her DNA.
“Blade Runner” was my favorite movie until “2049” was released - in my opinion, “2049” is a somewhat superior film.
Look at the VK test clips in this movie. That's definitely not brown.
Look at EVERY OTHER PICTURE of her in the movie. Her eyes are brown. Whoever did the V-K effects used someone else’s eye.
Of course they recreated her correctly, they had the original genetic code. Deckard knew this full well - his comment to Wallace was just a big F#$% You.
8:03 Exactly. btw, "Peter and the Wolf" plus "Pale Fire" equal the Blade Runner 2049 story
It's important to note that cinema is still a relatively new art form and that a movie made in the 1980's will almost certainly be perceived in the 2020's as more primitive. Which it definitely was.
they dont do a lot of explaining with the baseline test and what it is for because its something they do so frequently, they just do it and make us figure it out. which i like, A lot of movies do too much explaining to a point where its like they think the audience is too stupid to understand and it takes you out of the world for a while. I think the baseline is like if they tested Connor from Detroit Become Human to see if he's still an android after his mission or if he's becoming a deviant. I think thats the best way to describe it
Also depending on next week’s film following _Blade Runner: 2049_ and _Gravity_ I would highly recommend that after those films, I recommend all four of you will react to other different films outside of the Science Fiction and Godzilla/Monster/Kaiju films every Thursday such as those of the Horror, Comedy, Drama, Fantasy and Action genres like The _Kingsman_ films, _Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, Scott Pilgrim, Stardust, Van Helsing, The Mummy films, Star Wars, Indiana Jones,_ a Horror movie _(Happy Death Day, Five Nights at Freddy’s,_ etc.), _Arachnophobia, Barbie_ etc. Because you’ve been reacting to Science Fiction films for 6-7 months and eventually it can get repetitive being stuck to reacting to one film genre (Science Fiction) every Thursday and I always would like to see you expand your horizons and reacting to different movies that you’re missing out on and make the Thursday reactions feel new and to add variety, considering your reactions to _2001: A Space Odyssey, Meg 2: The Trench_ and _Annihilation_ are earning a lot less views than your previous group reactions.
Secondly It’s October already and it’s baffles me you haven’t reacted to any Scary/Horror movies already!!
"I don't think I'm gonna like Mr. Wallace" Based.
The original book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) had as a main idea if artificial people could have genuine emotions and empathy.
Just my interpretation, I think Luv's tears were her morality bubbling to the surface. She didn't like the violence and didn't like killing but she always followed orders anyway. I think it horrified her but she kept it inside except for that little crack. She couldn't stop the tears
Personally I still prefer the first movie because of its stronger ambience and atmosphere - a gritty, rainy and dangerous dystopian world, compared to 2049’s sterile and somewhat safe Los Angeles in comparison. I love Roger Deakins (2049’s cinematographer) and he actually won an Oscar for the film! But I would have preferred more cinematic grain and darkness against the bright neon.
It could also be my millennial bias for that specific cyberpunk aesthetic which pretty much was invented by the first Blade Runner movie and inspired other classics such as The Fifth Element, Minority Report, and Back to the Future II.
That said, over the years I grew to greatly appreciate the slow burn and profound meaning behind Denis Villnueve’s sequel. With every rewatch I am more convinced of Ryan Gosling’s subtle genius as an actor, and at the end of the day I feel very emotionally connected to K, Joi and even Luv in their quests to have some kind of meaning to their existence.
Most cinephiles would agree though, that Roy Batty from the first movie is the heart and soul of Blade Runner, and upends movie expectations by being a villain that actually is more of a tragic sympathetic “hero” just fighting for survival against those who would take away his right to be.
I’m so glad you enjoyed both movies overall! The closer we get to Artificial Intelligence, catastrophic global warming/nuclear war, and the rampant abuse of corporate greed, the more these films become a guide and warning to how we value humanity in the future. True science fiction.
The MVP of this movie is Sylvia Hoeks as LUV. Terrifying yet alluring.
"Be careful with the old man!" I mean... he's a badass robotic bounty hunter. I wouldn't let my guard down with Deckard!
Watch Gosling in The Place Beyond the Pines. He is great in that film.
29:40 (flashing back to deleated scenes of Deckard and Rachel in the special edition features).... oh uh... yeah uncomfortable...
You said at the start "this is what I wanted from the original" - well, it was there, but you missed it. Now you need to go back and watch the Final Cut of the original instead of the theatrical release, then this one again. You'll get it. :-)
I'd also add that every question about a soul and living your life as a human is in the first film but it's not about Rachael it's about the off world replicants. They know they are replicant's, they lived their lives not as human yet the audience is still left to question if they have a soul, if they have rights, etc. I just think it doesn't hit you over the head and verbalize soul (like in case you didn't get it).
I highly appreciate screenwriters who are able to take up a given world (the one of Blade Runner 1982), add aspects to it that haven't been thought of so far, develop them logically forward and then present the final outcomes and consequences these aspects would have in the real world. That's an incredible talent in writing. This movie is one of the best examples for this talent. The same is true for the director and the composer of the soundtrack. Certain camera settings as well as the music by Vangelis of the 1982 movie have become iconic. Villeneuve was able to take that up and create a similar kind of iconic pictures in a contemporary style. And the music of Hans Zimmer takes the mood of the original soundtrack to the next level while keeping its flavour. This movie is one of the greatest moments in filmmaking and a demonstration of what truly talented persons are able to create.
lov this masterpiece. lov u girls. enjoyable reaction)
thank u❤
well, that was an interesting reaction, for sure.
when Stella says "They are people..." 56:59 that is one of /the/ core themes of the first movie. so yes, the story of 2049 was not set up (51:36) in the first one, but how you look at replicants, that was.
ach, i just loved how it made you think and discuss, also about the first one. that's what good movies should do. appreciate your appreciation.
Definitely not better than the original. Yet, Villeneuve managed to pull off a sequel to a movie that should not have had one, and did an amazing job.
This is in the same universe as the Alien franchise. It's basically the answer to people who watch and "Alien" and asked 'What's Earth like during this time period/universe?"
The use of Peter and the Wolf was really just meant to differentiate the emanator from technology we have today. So instead of pleasant beeps and boops, they landed on Peter and the Wolf as a boot-up chime. Originally Denis wanted to use music from Pinocchio because K is a puppet who becomes real, but it would have been a bit too…on the nose.
I’ll see myself out
If you remember, we found out wood is very precious. The vendor wanted to trade a real horse for the wooden horse. If you go back and check out the scenes in the Wallace corporation, everything is made of wood.
Someone likely already mentioned this, but what confuses a lot of people is that they think of replicants as being manufactured robots, made out of plastic and metal, and that sort of thing, and old school replicants were probably in their early stages. But all of the new replicants are not those kind of robots. They are manufactured artificial humans. Literally instead of developing in the womb, they are put together piece by piece from genetically engineered parts. So while they fit the definition of a robot, they are basically superhumans.
The films are different bc the two directors have different priorities. Ridley Scott is a master of imagery and set design. Villeneuve wants slow movies with love and emotions being most important. You could see that in Villeneuve's Arrival film. You think it's about aliens but actually it's about love. The writer of both film is Hampton Fancher I think, and he ties the two films together in a very clever way, without solving the mystery about Deckard being a replicant or not. (You don't want to p*** off half of the audience). I was disappointed that we didn't get to see the old Blade Runner world again though with the high contrast back lit night scenes. It's not tech noir visually like the old movie.
The thing I love aboutVilleneuve's movies ( like Dune recently ), is that his movies are a 50% of storytelling and visual art. Half the movie is like a huge screensaver with artwork from the movie, and gives you time to reflect on the last scene before getting confronted with the next scene.
@@vvanheukelum I prefer the visuals of the original. Dune 2049 had many almost monochrome scenes. Las Vegas is all red, the scene with the giant Joy hologram is all blue, and so on. This kind of color grading is a problem/style with many modern films. Dune has the exact same problem.
I highly recommend A Place Beyond the Pines & Drive
Next do 'This is Spinal Tap'.
And don't read a single thing about it to get a perfectly fresh take.
Yes, seconded. Great choice.
Ideally with all four watching@@Retrostar619
So many people hates this movie, but I can't say how sad and deep it is. Being a replicant amongst the humans is worse than being a hunted one, and their only hope is having a soul. That's why Roy saved Decard in the original: mercy has a contact with a soul, being mercyful makes you more like a human.
If Rachel is a bit underdeveloped, it's because she's in the middle of a "personality reboot" and she's having to start from scratch.
Rachael has a physical body, but what few memories she thought she had turn out to be false. Except for our brief introduction to the cool, confident, and collected Rachael, who takes the Voigt-Kampff Test, the Rachael we see AFTER that test is lost at sea, in the midst of a major identity crisis. She doesn't know how to BE anymore. She runs to Deckard, hoping he'll tell her she's real, and he doesn't.
Joi is who she is programmed to be, and has no physical body full of chemicals and hormones to muddy the waters: She is just a more complex version of Chat GPT, telling her owner what her algorithms are indicating that person probably wants to hear. She has no identity crisis, like Rachael does, and is, in fact, incapable of having one. Even her seemingly jealous, morning-after, interaction with the prostitute is likely a 'this is what I'm supposed to do,' statistically-derived, response. Joi is there to be a companion to the customer (whoever it was that rubbed the metaphorical lamp) and make them feel good.
At his lowest point, K sees a hundred-foot-tall Joi advertisement, displaying Joi, bared to any and all onlookers, literally telling anyone and everyone that Joi will be everything they want to see and hear. This reality is harshly driven home when the ad version also calls him "Joe," despite never having seen him before, and he realizes how false it all was.
Rachel doesn't display as much personality in Blade Runner because she's busy figuring out who she even is. Joi, on the other hand, is perfectly "happy" being a devoted 1950s housewife, baking the perfect holographic meal for her owner, one second, and then ordering up a prostitute for them the next, because her personality is really just an algorithmic pinball, bouncing between a massive behavioral database, and her owner's personality.
And you'd better believe that all of his interactions with his instance of Joi (just like all the other Joi owners) are going into a computer at the Wallace Corporation. I'm sure the rights to all of your data is included in Joi's EULA.