You missed the beautiful and heartbreaking realization K has when he meets the giant Joi commercial and she calls him Joe.. because that is what she calls all her buyers, not just him.
At first, my mind *literally* couldn't comprehend that.... I was like, "Oh look! She's still alive out there somewhere, and she's signaling to him!" And then, reality set in.... "OH no no no no no NO.........."
Nope. I'm going to chalk that up to TyrellCorp having Minority Report-like targeted advertising tech. Your take is too heartbreaking for me to handle, and therefore can't be true.
I love that part, but I think a lot of people misunderstand the implications of it. My interpretation of it is that yes, Joi is essentially programmed to react in certain ways to her clients or whatever you'd call them, and yes, Joi is possibly following a script in some sense. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that her feelings aren't "real." On some level, we're all programmed by evolution to think and feel certain things and behave in certain ways, but that doesn't mean that our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are somehow not real, or not worth of empathy. We are in a sense programmed to love our children so that they survive to reproduction and pass along our genes, but that doesn't mean that our love is somehow fake. We are in a sense programmed to feel pain when injured, but that doesn't mean our suffering is any less real. As far as I can tell, what matters is not the "authenticity" of an emotional response as defined in this essay, it's the existence of a subjective experience at all. As long as Joi is sentient at all, it doesn't matter if her feelings were determined, because they are still felt subjectively by her, and therefore she is deserving of our empathy. Of course, the question still remains: is Joi sentient? Is K sentient? If all we have is their word, then we can never know for sure. But that's the same for humans, too. Nobody else can ever prove to you that they are sentient, yet we generally live under the assumption that others are sentient. So in my view, that's the genius of BR 2049. It's so much more than a story about "what it means to be human." It's about what it means to be worthy of empathy, which is an entirely separate question from what it means to be human. And I think the implications are that it probably doesn't matter if a being is human, if a being has free will, or if a being has "authentic" emotions; what matters is that they feel. I think it will turn out that the distinction between human and non-human is just as arbitrary when it comes to empathetic and moral consideration as the distinction between male and female, white or black, Christian or Muslim. It's just an arbitrary wall we put up to justify exploitation for our benefit.
@@EmersedTuba38 You might enjoy reading up on philosophical zombies. They're hypothetical beings that present with perfectly authentic responses in their behavior, but without the corresponding subjective and conscious experiences (e.g. emotions). Joi is definitely the most ambiguous and well-constructed characterization that walks the line between machine consciousness vs. p-zombie that I've seen on film.
A horrible message for any human, not to be celebrated. While effective in its delivery, such scenes are designed to subvert and manipulate mankind into hating itself and being apathetic about their own existance. The film hates humanity, and the very human audience (en masse) hates the film right back, whether subliminaly or overtly.
In an earlier draft of the script for this video, I said something along the lines of (paraphrasing) I don’t care that this sequence is 4 and a half minutes because I’m just enjoying the shots, production design, and score so much, those are more than enough to justify the sequence’s length.
Yeah, I've seen it repeatedly and it always drags me into its world. 2049 blew me completely away on my first watch and I was stoked to hear other people's opinions about it. Most of my friends loved it, but I got around to getting my family to watch it eventually with a starkly different response. They felt that the movie was slow and boring, plodding along all while trying to be all "artsy fartsy making you look at all the pretty stuff with shots that dragged on." It broke my heart to hear that, but after reading some reviews on the movie it just reinforces the sad truth: even among many critics, what most people are looking for are either action-movie popcorn flicks or jump scare-laden haunted house horror movies, constantly attempting to cater to the shortening attention span of the world. Most people don't like to think too hard about their lives, existence, philosophy, nor explore these themes that more "artsy" films present. That stuff is heavy and scary; it makes people possibly have to evaluate their own lives, morals, lifestyles, etc. Creatures of habit have trouble breaking them.
Nobody mentions the importance of Deckards dog in 49. In the first movie, he was obsessed with finding a "real" animal; constantly asking people "Is it real?" whenever he sees an animlal. When K asks him the same thing he replies "I dont know, ask him." He knows now that the circumstances of your creation doesn't make you real or not. So just like Deckard being a replicant or not, it doesn't matter. And it was a hint, intentional or not, that K must also decide for himself if he is 'real'.
At the same time it could be a commentary on the fact that we have such a hard time producing an answer to that question - we're as helpless as a dog in that respect.
@@henrycavillsrealmustache3553 Actually, the scene shows Joe looking into his palm while a snowflake melts as it touches the warmth of his hand, seeming to disappear. So that's the link, if you need it. Tears in rain = snow in warmth.
The most striking and lingering feeling I had about this film is that I was so impressed by Denis Villeneuve's willingness to SAVOUR the moments, yes it's a slow film but the moments are lived, they're experienced for their natural lengths, they're not just flashes of action and on to the next. I loved that about this film, it's so mature and felt.
Cool thing to note with the children in the movie, the boys are all buzzcut while the girls get to keep short but longer hair so once you see k's implanted memories you immediately know it's not his because the "little k" has longer hair than the boys
Intentional or not I think the screenwriters played on an unconscious bias to deceive the audience. When we're told and see that a group of boys chased the child down I think we're inclined to believe the violence is intra-gender. Then there's the fact we're inclined to think that replicants will be given memories aligned with their assigned gender. A few well-placed red herrings used to good effect.
sadly the film couldn't make that compelling enough for me to like it. its beautiful visually, but him not being the one is ultimately just disappointing. the trope of modern western films of putting a twist in for the sake of having one. we are robbed of the sense of catharsis we expect to find at the end of the film and have it replaced with absolution. certainly this is not the worst offender. but the beauty and complexity the story weaves is so compelling that the abruptness of the switch makes it worse than it really seems.
@@midgetman4206 I was wrong the child isnt human/synth. apparently ridley scott has stated that he thinks deckard is a replicant. so that means the child is "the chosen one" the miracle. but the whole movie you think its him. instead of an emotional climax we are given a flat note. If you are going to make a movie the point is for it to be something exceptionally compelling. Not for you to tell an original story for originalities sake. still a good film but not worth a rewatch
That line in the script about Luv being '...beautiful. The way a sword is beautiful when safely behind glass' is a such a good line, and 99.9% of people who saw the film never heard it.
@@fabiancalderon6729 it means that she’s dangerous but beautiful. Yk a sword is dangerous but behind a safe glass enclosure for all the world to witness and gawk at its details, it’s beautiful. Like a lion in a zoo for another example.
The poignant aspect to Joi is that she expresses concern and jealousy for Joe when he is unconscious or not present. When he is knocked out in the car, when she speaks to Mariette. It’s a hint - but not irrefutable confirmation - that she might be sapient. Not perfect evidence, but enough to ask the question - IE, that she is not a façade that only exists when Joe is facing her.
Yup thats a really good point. Although it can be argued that's a matter of her programming as well. A man (K in this case) would ideally want to be cherished, desired and sought after by his significant other. A sense of having ownership, harmless protective envy over him, like a real relationship instead of the ownership of Joi being K's (a one way street). One can argue Joi was programmed to project whatever her owner desires. K wanted to have significance through being born, so she constantly reinforces the thought for him and even "names" him. The arguments for Joi's sentience is profound on either side and her character is narratively compelling and mesmerizing to watch. 🙌
@@nihadanwar2 I mean humans are programmed by nature. Believe it or not free will is a lie. She is self aware, can learn and feel emotion. She is not human but that does not change anything. Humans are animals with enough inteligence to be self aware to a degree. She is a hologram with the same capabilities
Even the more human than human replicants inherited our fatal trait: prejudice/racism, ie when Joi is insulted by the pleasure model for not having much inside.
Jealousy is just a part of consumer integration. Through the display of jealousy you kinda emotionally abuse the costumer to stay with the Joi product. She is not sentient, but rather a figure that wants you to believe that you're loved and precious. This program is maybe the most toxic and addictive product ever created.
@@serijas737 Joi’s programming cannot help but evolve as it continually expands its experiences through positive/negative reinforcement algorithms. In time she would be indistinguishable from humans as she acquires more emotional infrastructure beyond her original consumer-optimized programming. But IMO it is the prejudice that comes from Mariette that is toxic. Even replicants cannot escape that virus, and moreover she cannot help but infect Joi by adding the experience of prejudice to Joi’s programming.
Something I want to add about Joi. A couple times in the movie there are shots where it’s shows an advertisement for Joi with the words “Everything you want to hear.” I think Joi was also this voice of Joe’s inner desire to be real, human, and loved. She tells him these things that he deeply hopes he actually is. And he pushes back on it up verbally (wrestling with his previous belief as a replicant vs what he aspires to be) until the memory is confirmed to be real.
Yes, and the seeming empathy - of course if you were going to program a companion, the number one quality you’d want to try to have them present is empathy… I still love the film analysis and agree I feel empathy for Joi, but as the ad shows, this creation lacks sentience - its a program.
@@Shelly-cp7gjI think there is a deeper question being asked though. Does it matter? You could make a compelling argument that our childhood, represented in the implanted memories in replicants, shares a lot of similarities with programming. Our reactions to things are the product of our own programming through our lived experiences. I think Joi is supposed to be one step further from humans than replicants while still maintaining enough relatability for us to consider that question of what actually defines a living consciousness vs a program. I’m not suggesting that one answer is right or wrong, but it is an interesting thought experiment to try to figure out where exactly you would draw that line.
@@awilk418 biologically and neurologically speaking, a program and the human psyche are vastly different. From the way they come to be to the way they operate. A program may imitate the latter at a surface level, but it’s not the same unless you have a 1:1 copy.
@@Vox_Popul1 Fair, and I’m not trying to claim that Joi is basically a person. I am just saying that it raises the question of what do we consider sentient and/or deserving of rights. A real world example I can think of might be the octopus, which is demonstrably very intelligent but who’s brains operate so differently to our own that it has been hard for scientists to determine exactly how intelligent they are. Joi is a program. Does that mean that destroying her is no more morally wrong than destroying a phone? What are the potential consequences if we are wrong? It’s just an interesting thought experiment.
I work at the company that did the CGI in this movie and I think the best 3D is unfortunately also the most underappreciated because it is that - so well blended into miniatures and set design that it is seamless, and as a result CGI gets a bad rep because we only notice the obvious one or the huge spectacles that are obviously CGI. The way it was done in this film was incredibly thoughtful and combining it with miniatures gave a tactile feel, but frankly a lot of that stuff gets comp'd over anyway, minis is used mostly to match lighting to. A large majority of it was just amazingly done and THOUGHTFUL CGI. I don't think that gets as much appreciation as it should. The city generation technology done for this film was incredible and they took good shortcuts in making it a heavy atmospheric so they could get a huge scale without having to invest too much time in detailing those buildings.
That's the problem with CG. People always point out bad CG cause they can see it. Even though the same movie with that bad CG is littered with incredible CG you didn't even notice
I remember seeing the bts of mad max fury road and it's use of cg was similar. Adding too the background thats there instead of just relying on it and making it the entire background like you see so obviously in mcu movies and other big blockbusters. I watched the gray man and some of the locations were completely cgi which from a budget and standpoint makes sense but it also often takes you out if it because you can just tell the actors are not in milan or wherever the set piece is
for those curious: here's the VFX breakdown of this film from my company: th-cam.com/video/4L_FgTPVE2A/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=DNEG Also if you wanna see how they did Dune their approach is really focused on getting the 3D to match life reference and to get a sense of scale. As you see though in the majority of the hero shots of the city it's basically fully CGI.
One thing that always hits me about this movie is that Officer K basically is, for all intents and purposes, Deckard's son. In the end you learn that he wasn't actually born, BUT he was still implanted and raised with the memories of Deckard's biological child. Whether he was born or not, I feel that his story is about saving his father and reuniting his family. Not to sound like Jordan Peterson, but the movie makes constant references to Pinocchio with Joi's "Real boy" lines, and K's fight to save Deckard in the ocean reflects Pinocchio saving his father from the whale.
It's a bit interesting that he spent the entire video talking about building empathy for others, ultimately to end with a rather self centered message of "if it's real to you, it's real." where as I believe the message of the movie is pretty strongly that the only way to live a meaningful life is to sacrifice for others. That is to say, to go out of your way to help those around you. K gave up on his self centered dreams, and made something of himself by intervening selflessly in the life of another. He literally drowns Luv. If that's not a metaphor for giving up what he wants most to help Deckard, I don't know what is.
@@HRZN_YT Well said, the "if it's real to you, it's real" I think bypasses what I saw was K seeing the reality that he was not born, not special, not Deckard's son but another replicant. Yet still fighting because he was strong enough to move forward in spite of what is actually true.
@@crusadr_4966 exactly. K wasn't special, but by choosing to intervene for Deckard he became much more than just another replicant. And this is a concrete message that is applicable to every viewer. You might not be special, but you can tangibly improve the lives of others if you choose to do so.
@@HRZN_YT It's actually somewhat predictable, because he referenced peterson. It's not a stretch to say JP is from, and influenced by, the neoliberal "personal responsibility" message. If we just work on ourselves until it's deemed good enough, and everyone does it, then the world will become better. But truly, it won't by much. We would still live under unjust hierarchies and immoral systems. How many rich "influencers" and bullsh*t jobs do we need before we realize that all the motivational videos by the wealthiest, all the masterclasses by bill gates, all the sales pitches by musk and zuckerberg, are worthless if they remain as part of an elite 1% pillaging our world?
I love the long build up to finding the horse. With how slowly he walks, & reaches into the furnace, its almost like he doesn't want the horse to be there, because everything that would mean.
I love it, and I'm genuinely moved. The isolation, drudgery and scorn K faces in his life. And the inhumane restrictions. Then him painfully going over there and unwrapping the horse and he can't fight back the tears. He was a child. He was the child. The world is now on his shoulders.
41:09 this moment is an underrated moment for the characterisation for Replicants. Cruelty is such a human act, there is no logic for it except self gratification. When Love “kills” joy there’s no rhyme or reason for it except pure cruelty. She wants K to suffer and I believe that makes her human
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo they definitely aren't robots either. the tension in blade runner is between synthetic or non-synthetic, not between human, robot, and orca
Video essays with this level of passion about Blade Runner 2049, maybe my favorite movie of all time, just fill me with life. I love the ideas and conversations a film like this evokes, I love to hear the different perspectives and interpretations, and most of all, I love that a sizeable number of folks agree that 2049 is a flat-out great movie.
I don't know how I missed K's death at the end, I thought he was just extremely physically and emotionally exhausted but also relieved that everything is concluded... like he has figured out everything and lost everything in pursuit of the truth. I didn't realize this was his death.....
I thought K’s “miracle” was realizing how joi legitimately loved him, and that he loved her. She sacrificed herself for him. And then when he see’s the add for joi after that, how fake it is, he understands how his connection was so much more real then anything that could be simply manufactured. That joi was real. And thats when he decides to help deckard have that connection.
I thought it was kind of the opposite mainly because the advertisement says "everything you want to hear," and he wanted to be the child and she fed completely in to that. But on the other view when Luv kills Joi she says "I do hope your satisfied with our product" which could imply that she has some sort of autonomy, because someone who worked that close to wallace would probably know if their amazon alexas are sentient. I think this will probably be one of the movies biggest questions like Deckard being a replicant or not
I think it was a heavy blow to him, actually, making him question whether she really did love him. But then eventually he realizes that it doesn't matter, she was real to him, part of his character arc. If she was a conscious being herself is left unanswered.
I'm sorry my friend but you have this exactly backwards, so much so that you're actually a pawn within the narrative. What I mean is, Joi is so good at simulating real love, that even real viewers fell for it. Joi is the primary villain within the entire show - she is tinkerbell preventing Peter Pan from seeing Wendy. She projects her contrived self over top of a real woman, masking her out so that K is prevented from the responsibility of encountering a real woman with real flaws and vulnerability. She convinces K to limit her to the stick because that's what an emotionally-compliant "real" woman would have done, she does it to create the emotional bond which brings revenue to her creator. She doesn't care if she dies, K would just repurchase her. Joi is a fantasy, she is the anti-woman, and K's confrontation with giant-naked-pink Joi is the coming of age moment where K resolves to live in the real.
One theory I saw was that K *was* a true child. The flower he finds has 2 stems, representing a set of twins. And the replicant revolutionary who says she was there for the birth was missing an eye, which could be symbolic of seeing only *part* of the truth. I dunno what to think but it’s really interesting
"is it real" "I dunno, ask him." THAT is the better statement from the movie. Allowing a creature the dignity of self-determination, is the basis for all respect.
meh i donno about that. we have idiots today making the argument that kids can choose their gender but cant get a tattoo. I think i like to be able to use a rational mind to be able to see for myself what is real, not just taking someone elses potential mentally ill opinion as fact.
@@ovechkin100 I swear to god bro, if I see another person turning something into gender, sexuality, race, or politics out of NOWHERE I'm going to hang myself
In the end, we found out that Joy has been programed to please K as much as possible. As a spectator, we are normaly developping empathy toward her, just to learn that this was all a play. Her own will to be "real" was only a programed response to the own will of K. It's brillant, because it shows that the line between humans and robots/programs is more blurry than what we expected. Are robots like humans because they show empathy/feelings ? Are our feelings different than the one programed ? Also, that could be a réflexion about cinema. What happen on screen isn't real, yet, we have empathy for the characters
Another thing you notice throughout the movie that K knowingly avoids alot of JOI commericals, as a way to try to hide himself from the painful truth. A Schrodinger's cat for the lack of a better phrase, maybe if he just dosent acknowledge it then she could be real to him, that's what he forces himself to believe... Until she's gone. Then the wound is open, he starts point blank onto a Holo advert as it slowly shoves the knife into the wound, saying everything JOI said to him, painfully telling him how her love for him was all manufactured, not "real" But Joe has moved past it. He knows JOI's love wasn't real but his feelings for JOI were, and nothing can take that from him Such a beautiful scene
I think your logic is completely faulty. Just becaus Joy was programmed to please K doesn't make what she is any less real. The height of arrogance that is.
Just as the original "Bladerunner" has become revered so to will "Bladerunner 2049." It just takes time to absorb all the subdue layering involved with this film.
I mean the art direction really made the first one shine. Less action scenes makes you think and make the few stand out. I do not think this one will hold up. Plot wise, it was ok and just as real to the novel as the OG, not much. Sorta hope they make a less loose adaption that really captures feel of the Philip K Dick's book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep one day. But as a retro futuristic dystopian SCI FI it stands as unicorn of a movie despite not being all that much like the book and I just do not think 2049 comes close. It is dystopian. But a blander grey dystopia. The first movie really comes to life with the Art, the costumes, the lingo. Plus Harrison ford did a really good job, and then there is Ruger Howard that stole everyone's heart at the end and gave the audience empathy for a replicant. Not as easy movie to compare with.
Bladerunner 2049 is a bad movie in many ways: 1. it's got ADD - that scene where Joi changes her dresses from second to second is utterly senseless. it's there only to display the FX capabilities of the studio. 2. the whole story is "protagonist walks from point A to B to C to D" and "progatonist is sitting in a car, a kitchen, a room, on a bench, on stairs". This is the plague of corporate cinema. Dudes sitting and walking in beautiful CGI 3. stupid plotholes. Luv comes and gets Deckard, and kicks K in the nuts, leaves him on the floor so that he can pull himself back up and come after her and kill her. worst writing ever. 4. also, Elvix. 5. K finds Ana Stelline. great! what's the gain? What to do with this info? Ana Stelline is the replicant child. ??? 6. Evil dude Morbius, pardon me, Wallace Nianderthal. it's like watching a fish in an aquarium. nice, great FX. What to do with this info? What do I care about Nianderthal Wallace? 7. also, computer generated Rachael. ugh.. 8. there was a great reset in 2021. Wallace Industries recovered some data. great. What do I do with this info? Why do I have to sit through that boring stilted stifled scene to learn what? listen, if I wanna listen to stories, I buy an audiobook. This is a movie. You should show me. not tell me. There's a reason Austin Powers has a character named Basil Exposition. 9. he goes and has sex with a chick. great. what to do with this information? Oh, she's in a secret organization! ???
What i always loved the most about "Blade Runner" was the fact that the Replicants behaved more human & emotional than the actual Humans, who all behaved cold and very indifferent to what is happening. That is something that always struck me the most while watching and yet it is a pretty subtle nuance in the entire movie. Not sure if this was intended or just happened during filming but it is an element that really fits a lot. You can see things like that in "Blade Runner 2049" too.
@@barrywagoner5191protagonist and antagonist dont signify any moral alignment, its just who the story follows and who acts as opposition to the main character
I'm honestly really upset that 2049 flopped so hard. I wish I saw the movie in theatres, as now years later after recently watching it I have come to the conclusion that I've never seen a better movie. Not only is every single frame of the movie so beautiful that my jaw was constantly dropped, but the writing is so incredibly beautiful. The final message that K is no one special and how badly it hurt him to realize that was so heartwrenching. It's something that resonates with me and damn near broke me when it clicked in my head watching it. Then for K to do what he did regardless. God this movie is something else.
I saw this movie in cinemas and it hands down was the greatest visual experience I've ever had. Sometimes films get re-screens on anniversaries, definitely keep an eye out. I'm really hoping for that.
Sometimes a movie must fail at the box office to become a cult classic and be more appreciated over time. This is why this movie mesmerized so many viewers and at the same time alienated so many others....
@@ElektronikGirlEpic Dune came close for me, and also a but with Ford v Ferrari I think. It reminds me now why I love movies so much, because goddamn it rlly took me out of this world for just a few hours and so vividly. I still get to experience that with other movies but Blade Runner 2049 did it so completely that i dont remember anything about sitting in the theatre except enjoying and experiencing the movie.
@@user-tm8jt2py3d it does already have a fandom. fandoms arent what you think pretty sure. its just fans who create writing, art n shit. fandoms were niche until very recently
@@user-tm8jt2py3d I get where youre coming from and sympathise but that really is not true. The word fandom came into use as we know it today in the early 20th century and as i can remember really started taking off and becoming more widespread in the late 80s early 90s as the internet started to become an easy way to plan meetups, share writing, art and other such things despite it still being in its infancy. It was pretty different back then but its always been seen as something odd to partake in and as more people came to use the internet the bad apples started popping up more and more and being the loudest of the bunch
4:35 I've often said that Blade Runner is a two hour movie that feels like a three hour movie, and 2049 is a three hour movie that feels like a two hour movie.
I kinda feel that even though Joe was not the replicant Jesus, he still acted that way in sacraficing himself. So that fits with the theme that how he acts is more important than what he is, along of the lines of him having feelings being proof that he has a soul if you want to put it that way.
This is just me spitballing but it might be that K(“Joe”) is more inspired by Joseph (Joe) from the Old Testament. There’s the connection with dreams (memories), being separated from some family in his childhood, being in an important position in a world that he doesn’t belong to etc. As well as while not being the savior, his actions made it possible for the chosen people (replicants in this case) to survive. This also makes him analogous to Moses who brought the chosen people out of bondage. Note that neither Joseph nor Moses were ancestors of Jesus (who was of the line of Judah), but both are still considered to be among the most important figures of the Old Testament. Obviously none of these individual connections are very sturdy, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “Joe” was inspired by the whole of the Hebrew Egyptian era.
@@rando1090 That sounds plausible. And I imagine the writers knew their mythology. I will remember that and read the part if it gives me a bit more context to the story. The movie seemed to have large themes that would be interesting to get to the bottom of.
My father took me out to watch Blade Runner in 1982 when I was 14 years old. It helped shape my appreciation for film and I am forever grateful to him for that.
Fantastic essay on this film. As a lover of the original, I felt the impulse to add my appreciation of one line in particular. Right before Deckard... well, *kisses* Rachel, they're sitting at the piano. She begins to play a song from her memories. It's light and gentle, it calls Deckard to sit beside her. She talks about he she isn't sure if the lessons from her memories belong to her or to Tyrell's niece. But the music is there nevertheless. Dekcard's response is the thesis of the Blade Runner series in one simple repudiation of the question. "You play beautifully." He ignores the origin altogether because it doesn't matter. It is music all the same. Just like K and Joi, her origin or how we designate her "authenticity" is irrelevant to K's love for her, or our empathy for her. One other thing is the motif throughout both films of the eyes and what they reveal. The original utilized a special technique with a lighting fixture to give the Replicant characters a subtle glint in their eyes. "Windows into the soul" if you will. So when you look at them, you recognize some light inside of them. Roy talking about what he's seen with his eyes. The fact that he kills Tyrell by pushing in his eyes. Both films even open with an extreme close up of an eye. Not distinguished between human or replicant, because they are indistinguishable. When Gaff talks about Deckard, he makes a vague and ambiguous comment about his eyes (a little easter egg for those looking for an answer). How apt that Niander Wallace, a man who cannot see the value in Replicant life, is blind. But all the replicants in both films cry and waver and reveal their humanity through their eyes.
I always thought the glint in the replicants' eyes made them look subtly robotic. Like their own personal uncanny valley if you will. I too love the original. And when I went (alone) to see 2049, I was very nervous. But I loved it, and it had the same" hairs standing up on the back of my neck" cinematography that the original had, if not more so.
Speaking of beautiful music, I have always wondered what's a hard boiled detective modeled after Marlow or Spade doing with a full-size concert piano - and sheet music - in his apartment ? This also traces of the classic disappointed romantic?
I've seen this movie twice and both times I didn't think K died at the end. Just thought he was lying down, getting a much deserved rest. I think I'll hold on to that interpretation.
It is much nicer in a way to think that K lives and goes with them afterwards and despite not being the replicant child gains a family of his own in a way.
In regards to K’s ‘Ascension’, you also forgot the scene that precedes his death (and where he got his fatal wound) where K fights Luv and is seen above her holding her under the rising water after finding new resolve, from Luv’s perspective she sees K with the light behind him as if it’s a halo around his head.
Okay, I re-watched this scene after reading your comment, and I just want to say two things: First: Wow. Damn. Second: I have to say that cinematographers are obviously a different type of creative person. I understand the "why" and the symbolism that such iconography traditionally conveys throughout things like historical art, mostly religious in context, and consistently has, in some form or another, for centuries... ...*BUT* painting that picture in a film, where it both *must* exist intentionally, yet so be unobtrusive, natural & subtle that it can go unnoticed by most, or not understood by many, YET is so impactful to those who realize what they saw...is..Well, that's, like, a super power. I'm dazzled & enthralled even more, somehow, for the film now. I'm also trying to keep a lookout for other examples on my own, in anything I watch now. I didn't realize that imagery & reference even existed there until you said, in effect, "Hey, check THIS out!" And there it was, gloriously. It also means my brain just doesn't work like yours or theirs, which is completely fine, but this all intrigues me endlessly. I ask myself how they interface with the same things 7 the same world that I do, but do so in a way that's utterly alien to me. Like how they show me something I see everywhere, everyday, but make it like I'm seeing it for the first time ever. Also, if I'm guessing, you're likely an pretty artistic, or well-read person, or both, since you noticed it in the first place, so in addition to thanking you for showing me that, I have question for you, if you'll indulge me: I have wondered if you noticed that specific imagery *immediately* as you saw it for the first time, in real-time, *OR* did you come to recognize the imagery after the film ended, as you were contemplating it in its totality? (I don't know if that matters, and is just curiosity on my end. I really wanted to ask.) Oh! And, again, thank you for pointing that detail out, which I had managed to miss EVERY time I viewed the film, from opening night at the theater, and in my numerous home screenings, until you showed it to me. :)
@@go-nogo1475 Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, I can’t exactly even remember when I found out that little bit of symbolism, but I do know that it wasn’t the first time I watched it. I think it came to me when I started questioning why Wallace kept bringing up angelic references to his replicants, I started to question what this has to do with Luv and K, and then I saw it during their final showdown. It was quite interesting seeing it happen right in front of me even though I’d already seen that scene multiple times by now, but this time with a new perspective and goal in mind.
@@rhett3185 My sincerest thanks for keeping me in mind, and generously sharing how you realized this existed intentionally, and its specific AND overarching implications, and then linking the additional facets to it. I'm fascinated to no end by the movies themselves, much as you are, but your grasp of the entire spiritual/godhead/messiah motif really opened up my own conceptual framing of so many parts of BR:2049. Your discovery helped me tie together some moments & images & select dialogue choices that I *instinctively* felt were of real import, but could not personally connect them satisfactorily enough to make them a cohesive whole...that is, until you shared what you found! Thank you for a keen eye, a keen mind, and being generous with your hard-won observations! You provided a sort of key that made the other pieces sort of "slide into their slots" with regards to the religious-analogues & angelic references, which was a blind-spot to me while I have been pondering the themes in the movie again lately (and is not my strong suit IRL either!) and you supplemented my weak-spot concerning any religious iconography with any magnatude greater than the most basic, meme-quality type! LOL! I think I'll begin trying to pick up some literature concerning religious/supernatural iconography in media, because my interest in that subject has now been ignited! I'm sure I'll find some primers or dissertations by folks online to help me assimilate those types of themes into my toolbox! ;) And, really, I appreciate your insight more than you realize. You've opened up a whole angle I'd never thought to ponder...because I had no idea it was there. But I do now! :)
the first time I watched when that chime from the tears in rain scene faded in, it was like a punch right to my kidney. really wasn't expecting such a potent tearjerker
The purple giant Joi saying "It was a day, hum?" just like in the first time we met her, at K apartment. And the heartbreaking "You look like a good Joe". Everytime I listen to Blade Runner 2049 soundtrack, I feel the sensation of listening these lines again, for the first time. My favorite movie of all time, no doubts.
The giant Joi says "you look lonely. I can fix that."", I don't think she says it was a day Edit: rewatched and she does open with "what a day" before saying "you look like a good Joe"
Roger Deakins is an absolute master. This film has one of the best cinematography I've ever seen in movies. The shot of of the water falling through the wall over Hans Zimmer score, when K heads to the orphanage is damn near perfection.
Honestly, you hit the nail on the head for why this movie is so great. For me it's the best movie movie of the 2010's. I felt so much sorrow and happiness at the end, when K gives his life to save Decker and reunites him with his daughter. He makes his own choice. He's not acting on behalf of the replicant underground, he's not letting Luv take him there by playing to humanity. He's making the choice to reunite father and daughter for his own humanity. I remember sitting in the theatre crying as I watched the end, and I found it weird when my friends didn't see the movie for what it was. Like they missed the point because they focused too heavily into the K not being chosen one, and were let down by that, and instead of doing what K does, where he recognizes that he is still authentic enough to make an impactful decision. They go the opposite route of where K goes, and thinks what's the point, like you point out K struggles with after that revelation.
tbf I think there is a double meaning with this scene, what's explored in the video and pointing out the pointlessness of life, purpose comes with ones own choices rather than simply following what one is programmed to do or is 'chosen' to do. -purpose is what one makes of it I think in the context of this scene it can feel quite nihilistic. He has fulfilled his purpose and now there is nothing left to give. I think what's really nice is that this scene is able to pull off making a it both nihilistic as well as calm and meditative, suggesting K has come to terms with his own choice and his own self. So I mean, I wouldn't say they are wrong per say, I just think this scene is clearly layered in a way that can make someone take multiple messages out of it, possibly that reflect more on the viewers outlook and own philosophies more than anything eles.
The fact that this movie was considered a “flop” shows you everything you need to know about modern movie audiences and hollywood. People don’t want to think, they don’t want moral conundrums, they simply was superficial emotions, pretty faces unrealistic action or impossible romance. Anything that gets to close to the “real” always has more success with people that don’t particularly care to go to the theatres but will give their time when a film has something real to offer the audience. Compare it to Avengers, or the other box office hits the past 10 years. Movies are becoming more of a visual experience and cheap laughs and thrills and less opening your mind to complicated potential or morality.
The problem with Blade Runner 2049 is that it tries so hard to be profound, except it tries to TELL you how profound it is, rather than SHOW you how profound it is. SHOW, DONT TELL !!! Villeneave is a good craftsman, and he loves his work to be sure, BUT he aint NO "Artiste" (Dune is also bleh) Fancher just spun the Deckard-as-Replicant on its head, BUT the profound thing in the Original was meeting your Maker and being so disappointed!!!
“A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” K is a true child of Rachel in that he was transformed from a handbook into a poem.
I actually like the pacing of the movie it gives you a chance to appreciate the world they've maintained and created while also giving you the chance to complete/ catch up on the original timeline nicely
9:30 I’ve never seen anyone talk about this at all. But the symbolism and the allusion in the eye scene is amazing. Blade runner is originally based off a book called “do androids dream of electric sheep?” And the cover art of the book has an aquamarine eye staring at you, matching the eye at the beginning. Not only that, but it’s a well known phrase that eyes are the window to the soul, noting that androids can still be “alive and soulful” if they can live life and be apart of reality the way anything else can.
Reminds me of Spielberg's A.I movie. How the machines, other than David who was programmed to love, showed more humanity than the actual humans. How they felt fear when they were being hunted by "the Moon" and how loving and protective the "Nanny" was, how they healed/fixed themselves. I liked how the Mechas seemed to be the fusion of machines and humanity.
Not only that but blue represents artificial and green represents life or natural in this movie. The color of the eye kinda alludes to both existing at once which kinda a huge theme for the movie. Perfect opening shot
I think Joi is representative of one of those central questions cyberpunk tends to explore - how much real, genuine autonomy does even a very complex organism truly have, and in the end, does it even matter? Joi, in convincing K to untether her from the console, appears to be sacrificing her immortality in an apparent act of selfless love. Perhaps she has merely calculated that the circumstances under which she is able to pursue her companion role have altered and she is responding appropriately - he cannot return but she can definitely leave with him. But isn't that the very definition of love, all the same? Reducing it to mere function doesn't provide us with a conclusive answer, the mystery of "why?" she would pursue K's happiness at the risk of her own annihilation remains unresolved.
She's a product. He bought an expansion pack for said product. Do you really think she's not gonna be on board? Or not be preprogrammed to act in awe of the world you're showing her? Why else would you buy the damn stick? All you observed was a *satisfied customer*.
@@PutkisenSetä I don't agree. What about her trying to wake K up while he is unconscious? Or when she tells the sex worker girl to leave with a not so neutral voice even though K was away?
@@dariolol3565 Concern for the user's well-being and property. Required for any kind of convincing illusion. I suppose you did prove she's clever enough to understand complicated subjects like "prostitute nicking his shit" so she's at least at the level of a dog. Which were bred, or made if you will, to like us for no real reason so I guess I have to forego the love of a dog as well if I'm to remain philosophically consistent. Point to you.
@PutkisenSeta Sure, but there are also other details, like her exploring the Deckard's place while K was away, looking around while in the flying car or whatever, asking K about stuff like the DNA and the thermographic image when they were arriving in Vegas. It's like she was conscious and was curious about the world and everythinf
Honestly 2049 was quite possibly the best sequel to anything that I have ever experienced in my 4 decades of life. It was beautiful but it also filled me with absolute despair days after experiencing it for the first time. It truly is heart breaking and hit me like a train.
go watch maverick. Where 2049 was a nice sequel, but inevitably inferior to the original, maverick was possibly the only sequel in movie history to surpass its predecessor.
I for one *did* and *do* love the original Blade Runner, and yet still agree with you that 2049 is a superior film. Wow! How could anyone decry this MASTERPIECE??
If you go in wanting to see a cookie cutter marvel film kind of sci fi thing like im sure a lot of casual viewers did i can easily see how theyd hate it
I love this movie so much. I have only spotted one mistake in the entire film and it's only because I have background in human biology. When the police lab tech is analysing the bones with K and the police lieutenant present. They point out the caesarian marks on the pelvic bones. Its made obvious in the set design the analysis machine is looking down on the bones from above. Well that's the goof as the pelvis is upside down, aka the pelvis is bum up. The rest of the skeleton is front side up. Its only a minor gripe and not alot of people would notice unless they have had the training/education to spot it.
3:01 well, once I heart about the theory that Roy saved Deckert because he wanted to say his last words to someone. You know, someone who 'can' hear him.
I disagree that the rapey scene didn’t age well-Human behavior is human behavior and Dekard isn’t all that good a man-His behavior doesn’t cater to the whims of the zeitgeist. Movie characters shouldn’t cater to the politics or moral fashions of the day. That scene tells you something about a man trained to dehumanize other humans in his profession. In a world with literally genetically engineered slaves-Where women like Pris were built for another’s pleasure. Dekard’s behavior suits such a social order.
Yup, I've noticed that women these days don't like the guys that hold the door open or offer thier coats when it's cold. They find it irresistible if you simply ignore them, or better hit on thier ugly fat friend instead.
No movie is perfect, but in my 44 years on Earth, BR2049 is just about the best thing Ive ever seen. You are correct; every single scene in this movie could be a stand-alone photograph. Since it came out, I have watched it just about once a month. Really great review!
@ Donnie Darko Just curious … What else do you love about it? Acting? Writing? Pacing? Theme? A visually striking movie isn’t necessarily an exceptional movie. Watching a movie once a month is a STRONG statement!
@@63artemisia63 And I still claim it. I do photography by trade and I have my Ipad next to my computer where I'll watch movies, listen to audio books etc. I've watched this film about 20 times since its release. Just about everything is perfect in this film. Just like Shawshank Redemption, it couldn't have been done better. IMHO, there have only been a handful of films that couldn't have been made better. Yes, the acting and pacing was perfect. I hate it when feeling rushed in a film. My favorite director, David Lynch, has been quoted saying "how the hell does it matter how long a scene is". Paraphrasing, but you get my point. Another "slow" film was "beyond the black rainbow". I remember reading the reviews and one of them stated "only fans that thought 2001, a Space Odyssey was too fast paced could appreciate this film. Can I go on? I'm going to bed.
I like the film but it has issues, some glaring issues... The first and most obvious is that Decker returns to his daughter thereby given her indentity away, K must have known that taking Decker to her would compromise everything that had been done to keep her secret . The second is why would no one else be in Las Vegas if a quick scan shows radiation levels have dropped that far down , all that free booze everywhere and antiques galore. The Third one is if he can buy an actual real horse for that tiny amount of wood how has no one ever stole that tree in the front yard that Racheal was buried under? Anyone who came by to make a delivery would have spread the word insanely quick that there was an unguarded tree out there. My most annoying fault of the film is the phrase the replicant says to K "More human than human", what would have been so much better for her to say would have been , 'As human, as human". but I guess he felt he needed throw a bone to the fan boys so they could squeel ," I KNOW THAT PHRASE FROM THE FIRST FILM !! ".
One thing I also appreciated about this film that wasn't mentioned here is the music. It PERFECTLY matches the vibe of the music from the original film, which in turn matches this dystopian world we have been thrust into. Definitely one of the best films I've seen in a while, and I agree, I enjoyed it much more than the original.
The vibe of the original film is about the complex struggle of humanity to maintain and win. This film is a truly nihilistic and dystopia hellscape designed to destroy humanity and masculinity and replace it with a feminin artifice. The second film is technically far superior, but can never resonate with a human audience because it hates humanity. The only way it sees humanity ascending is by giving everything over to a feminine artifice and then dying alone in the cold. That's not a story worth telling a human audience unless you're trying to subvert humanity and you hate yourself.
I love the clip from Roger Ebert; what he's expressing is something akin to a book I read once called "How to Read and Why." The central premise was that reading novels - especially the classics - gives you a window into other people's souls, building that empathy you talk about in your video. I was writing about this just the other day, how I love a good story, no matter where it comes from and in whatever form, especially when I discover after the fact that the reason a story speaks to me has something to do with experiences in my own life and brings a new understanding of those experiences. Through these stories I find empathy for myself as well as others. Great work, excellent video.
i watched this in the cinema and it blew me away, the art, the music everything. the 3 people i saw it with all disliked it... still baffles me to this day
This movie has an anti human message. Human audiences, en mass, can never resonate with it. It is designed specifically to subvert their existance by a modern Hollywood that, along with the WEF, seeks to replace humanity with AI. This is merely a prelude lullaby written to prime the masses for that cold dark future. Technical superiority and delivery in this film can't make up for the lack of universal story about the human struggle in the first film in which humans win, albeit with complex struggles. This film on the other hand just wants humans to go away; according to the film, the only way they can ascend is to give up dominion to a feminin artifice and die alone. Since the creators of this film hate their human audience on such a deeply profound level, their human audience will hate them right back. And they do.
@@johnfarris3831 that's the mentality they want you to have. Correct. It is a bastardization of the message of the original film. Humanity will never embrace it. It defies every fiber of their being and Western culture. Written and directed by globalist transhuman cultists
"It. Doesn't. Matter." That was always my impression of the first film - that the message was "it doesn't matter". Deckard spends the entire movie thinking it does matter, then slowly learns that he's wrong (first by having feelings for Rachel, which confuses him, then by feeling guilty for killing Zhora, then by being rocked by Batty saving his life), and then at the end of the movie, he's given a test by being told he's a replicant. And he just smiles. Because he realizes it doesn't matter. That's my take.
He reiterates this philosophy to K in the sequel. K asks whether the dog is a real one to which Deckard replies: "I don't know, ask him." Self-determination; choosing what you are, the choice which matters most, is always down to you.
I think the "You look like a good Joe" line from the ad Joi wasn't meant to signify that the Joi we know was fake all along or just following her code with no genuine emotion or thought process to her. I think instead it shows that yes, perhaps in some ways we are all victims of the trappings of our make-up (whether it be genetics or programming), but that we can become more than it, too. That we have the power to choose to become more than it. Joi chose to become more. And ultimately, K does too.
It’s the black eyes of the billboard for me. It’s almost like the billboard joi is possessed in some way. Do we ever see a Joi billboard interact with anyone else like that? What if this is an anomaly that took place? Of an essence of K’s Joi reaching out to him just for a moment. She doesn’t have complete control but just a spark of her is left in the Joi cloud reaching out to him.
@@FormerGovernmentHuman that wouldn’t make sense. She wasn’t connected to any cloud or central Joi, that’s why making her emanator-only was such a big deal.
This dude entirely misses the philosophical point of these movies and the Philip K Dick material they are based on. Look at all the views you can get being so shallow and ignorant
I think the most spectacular thing about the original Blade Runner is that Roy Batty wrote all his own lines in the movie. RIP Rutger Hauer, you beautiful soul.
Is that true? I know he wrote the "like tears in rain" line, but to my understanding he didn't write all his own lines. I think he was given room to improvise but I might be wrong.
I love Blade Runner, and I finally saw 2049 last fall in detox, which was perfect because my nerve endings were raw from withdrawal. The emotions in each shot hit me just right, and if I hadn't been in a TV room full of dopesick criminals, I might have cried.
Withdrawals are the only reason I don’t continue with addiction. The state of pure suffering wishing it or you would just end. Feeling as if your own skin is trying to kill you. The lengths your mind is willing to go to get another fix and avoid withdrawals is almost an unstoppable force. It takes a will of titanium to go through withdrawals willingly when your salvation is just a pill, snort or shot away. I hope you are doing well and you have conquered or atleast have control of yourself. I wish you the best and I hope you don’t fall back into it. It’s so easy to do.
i actually love the furnace horse scene. its supposed to be avant- garde and atmospheric( possibly an ode to the film "stalker".) the music during the scene and the buildup is intense. and you can see how freaked out k is by the revelation. great acting from him.
Mediocre is exactly where I'd put him. There's serious potential here, but he's held back by parroting ideological talking points. We've all seen this exact video which speaks through the lens of the current great ism.
I think its important that Dr. Ana is actually the catalyst for the story in a subtle way. She is implanting HER AUTHENTIC MEMORIES into replicants in an active attempt to force greater emotional maturity on them. Shes doing it on purpose! Shes trying to make them "Real"
RE: the dove - - I think there's a lot more going on than just random choice here; from Zhora's snake (do you think I'd be working here if I could afford a real snake?), to the fact that there seems to be a whole section of the city devoted to selling replicant animals, the movie is fairly meticulous in telling us that there are almost no 'real' animals on Earth. So including the dove/pigeon is probably not an oversight. And while it is a symbol, I think it's a much more complex one than people give it credit for, and a pretty rewarding to think about.
This is actually a nod to the original novel on which Blade Runner was based! In the LA of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" the hard worldbuilding is fleshed out a lot more. It's considered a person's moral duty to care for animals, since after the fallout, there are so few left. At the same time, being able to take care of an animal is a status symbol, so a lot of people get android animals. Book!Deckard has an electric sheep, because he used to have a real sheep who got tetanus from some barbed wire, and so he replaced it with an android so that no one would know he messed up like that, and for the appearance. That's a really big part of the "empathy" connection in the book: it's considered to be a moral duty to care for real animals, and to have empathy for them (hence the film's version of the Voight-Kampff test), but why then is it not a moral duty to care for fake but sentient humans? There's one part specifically related to Zhora's character, where in the book, she's an opera singer compared to a dancer. On his way to "retire" her, Book!Deckard is listening to a recording of her singing, and he basically thinks, "I would never have known that she isn't human. She makes such beautiful art and music, she contributes wonderful things to society. Why should I have to kill her?" I really really recommend reading the book if you haven't, because it's an extraordinary piece. Understanding the worldbuilding of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? can add so much to the watching experience of both Blade Runner films, and it's a book that I haven't been able to stop thinking about for years.
Blade Runner is theosophy. Roy is the Spirit that completes the magnum opus. He has a lightning sign on his left eye, he dies in the Pharaoh pose, and the dove is the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ - Luke 3:22 Roy means 'royal' and 'red'. Batty means 'mad, insane'. so Red Mad King. Rick means "richard" < rick + hard - strong king. Deckard means Descartes. Strong Philosopher King. alchemy.
When I watch the original Bladerunner movie I don't see Deckert as the main character - I see him as part of the supporting cast. The two main characters are Roy Batty and Rachel. Although Deckert gets more screen time, he spends most of the movie being portrayed as a hollowed out man who has lost his way and meaning in life. It isn't until the scene with Roy that Deckert is imbued with a new spark - it is almost as if Roy says to Deckert - "I am dying so I am giving you the gift of life. Don't waste it!" Decker runs away with Rachel to finally live his life. Up to that point in the story he appears to be a dead man walking. So, although I do appreciate the artistry of 2049, I don't see it surpassing the original in the message that it conveyed.
I think Batty and Rachel are more compelling, but Deckard, sadly, is the character who most represents us, the man hollowed by technocracy and it's crisis of meaning.
Such a fantastic essay, really put a lot of feelings I had about the film into words. Every time I watch this film, I feel like I'm watching it for the first time.
This is one of my favorite films. For many reasons. Today I found out I'd only discovered maybe 60% of what's to love about Blade Runner 2049. Incredible. Thank you 💛.
everything always focuses on K but i feel Joi is a far more interesting transformation and question against our perception of humanity. Does she truly become sentient, does love help her become real and is her sacrifice at the end proof of her becoming human in mind and self aware, or is this still simply part of the programming which forms joi into what the owner desires. K definitely desires a true human connection, to be real to others, to be loved. does joi conform to the enth degree to make this fantasy real because she is programmed too, or is it k's desire to be loved, to be loved by her, that makes her real and able to overcome her programing and awaken. personally I like to believe that the instance of joi he had did wake up....but the sad reality demands that she likely had no self awareness, no instinct to self preservation. Her sacrifice, her purpose, was a simple, cold decision to enrich a fantasy. Her own obliteration was an empty gesture, mandated by the very nature of her creation, and, in a way, by god and the mind in the machine. Weirdly though, this itself is terrifyingly human, so many people are subject to whim and circumstance, the sway of other minds and other purposes that chain us. And, sometimes, it is our own programing, our love and our hate, so strong that it binds us, giving you no choice but to follow its path into oblivion.
That's such a good point. I think ultimately, the answer is "yes". In the same way the first Blade Runner asks what makes a human different from the replicants, the line isn't so claer. It ultimately doesn't matter if Decker is a replicant because he, just like Roy, want to survive and love.
I always found that Blade Runner used replicants as a metaphor to explore psychopathy or sociopathy in humanity. Empathy for the robotic, inhuman, psychopath.
Do you think with advancements in robotics human trafficking , modern slavery/sweat shops , cheap labour might look different? Or do you think that some humans just enjoy hurting/exploiting other humans ?
Yes, and I believe Bladerunners could one day be real because of what I've seen cops do to people (not replicants) this year. It went dark very quickly. Women choked, doors kicked in, people watched without empathy.
The final cut of Blade Runner is definitely a masterpiece. Helps that I experienced it in a Theater. But 2049 is the better film. It's an unbelievable achievement, one of the peaks of modern day american film and Blockbuster filmmaking.
I think you hit it on the head that yellow is moving toward the truth. I immediately thought of the yellow brick road, as Dorothy approaches the truth, the secret, the reveal, & home.
I don't understand the people who say the story is too long and meanders when pretty much every scene, every word of dialogue, every image means something and is important to the story.
Its pretty interesting to think that K experienced everything: love(in a way), the feel of snow on his hand, loss.... etc. while the real child was in a facility feeling digital snow and being isolated from the outside. Really shows that K is the one that really lived his life to the fullest.
I agree. In fact I actually thought Ana was kind of underdeveloped and boring character, bordering Deus Ex Machina - now in retrospect it makes more sense. But it won't change my personal gripe.
I think the thing I love about cyberpunk as a queer person is how allegorical it can be for marginalized identities and communities. There are many genres that explore these topics, but I think for me cyberpunk offers a unique perspective and opportunity to explore these ideas. I hope more people will use the conventions of the genre to explore these topics. Because fictions offers such a unique opportunity to feel the pain of people you may never have the chance to meet or know.
I think people miss the nuance that yes, his hologram girlfriend is named joi BUT, that also doubles as his physical manifestation of how he experiences joy as an emotion but how he expresses his joy. And when she (for all intents and purposes) dies that one link to an emotion he’s come to associate with a physical presence vanishes and it’s a very visual change in how he acts from then on.
Given the human suffering caused by sociopaths in charge of many governments and corporations throughout history I'd say they'd be an acceptable causualty of the test...
Sociopaths (or was it psychopaths? I still confuse the two) still have feelings. They are poor at understanding/relating to the emotions of other people, but they fully experience emotions themselves. Many sociopaths aren't aware that they are sociopaths until late in life, if ever. Like anyone else, they can learn how to be moral, caring, etc., through practice and observation. It might not come naturally, but the choice to be good is always available. By contrast, many people who are naturally empathetic, choose to abuse and destroy their gift. The natural inclination towards good and evil, happiness and misery, is powerless in the face of our choices.
9:45 cheap CGI - CG is not cheap and there isn’t a button for creativity cgi. It is labor intensive- artistry- cutting edge rendering technologies - there is nothing cheap about CGI
Just to take note of since it wasn’t pointed out: when the memory is being replayed, the child with the horse is shown to have long hair, so from the very beginning it was shown that K wasn’t the child; adding to our level of empathy for K, and to what we perceive as ‘real’ throughout the part of the movie that it was still a ‘mystery.’
Thank you for such a great video about possibly my favourite movie of the decade. I went to see it many times on the big screen and loved it more each time. That midpoint scene when K finds the wooden horse gives me such chills and is so so beautifully executed. It reminds me of my favourite moments in the Wagner operas that I love. I love that you love this movie.
I really hate this notion of “pacing”, as if all films are supposed to follow the tepid rapidity of “one hour and twenty, bad guy dead at the end, roll credits” that was 90s American cinema. Notable exceptions to this in popular culture are the films of Tarantino, Scorcese, Lynch, Malick, and Spielberg. None of these directors were concerned with “pacing” in the common industry sense. If a scene is connected to the story and we are invested in the characters, there is no such thing as “boring”. I don’t know why stories and cinema is expected to be so divergent from real life…real life often has long periods where nothing is explicitly happening, but we all know that something is always happening. Which reminds me: There’s a scene in some film where there’s an overdub from the protagonist who says “Things are always happening, but we don’t always notice them.” or something to that effect. Does anyone know/remember which film this is?
This is over of the best scripts I've ever seen. The actual story. That everything is pointing to him being "the one", but he's actually no one. Which is actually common. Usually you're nothing special. But even then, you can still do something great.
This is one amazing deep dive into hands down one of the most underrated films in the history of film. Dune is going to be an experience I just WISH Deakins was the cinematographer.
How is it underrated in any way? It made over 200M which is massive considering it's basically an art action film, got a few oscars and it has glowing reviews from critics and audiences.
This video epitomizes the value of good critique in art, i think. I went through this film "getting it" well enough, but the thematic unpacking that you do really unlocks a whole nother layer, and lets me enjoy the film more in retrospect. Thank you.
"K starts the movie asleep and the arc is about awakening" is not just a "fun" detail. It's another awesome detail! Thanks for pointing this and many other things out to a fan of both the original and this film.
"From a handbook to a poem through the experiences of love" what a powerful concept 🖤 Thank you for the video, you untangled a lot of my thoughts on why I love this movie.
"Everything you want to see Everything you want to hear" Making the assumption that JOI is somehow a unique being with unique feelings for K is a bit of a leap in my opinion.
You missed the beautiful and heartbreaking realization K has when he meets the giant Joi commercial and she calls him Joe.. because that is what she calls all her buyers, not just him.
And the way she really really emphasizes and over annunciates “JJJJoeee”. De Armas makes a meal of that word to twist the knife.
At first, my mind *literally* couldn't comprehend that.... I was like, "Oh look! She's still alive out there somewhere, and she's signaling to him!"
And then, reality set in.... "OH no no no no no NO.........."
Nope. I'm going to chalk that up to TyrellCorp having Minority Report-like targeted advertising tech. Your take is too heartbreaking for me to handle, and therefore can't be true.
I love that part, but I think a lot of people misunderstand the implications of it. My interpretation of it is that yes, Joi is essentially programmed to react in certain ways to her clients or whatever you'd call them, and yes, Joi is possibly following a script in some sense. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that her feelings aren't "real." On some level, we're all programmed by evolution to think and feel certain things and behave in certain ways, but that doesn't mean that our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are somehow not real, or not worth of empathy.
We are in a sense programmed to love our children so that they survive to reproduction and pass along our genes, but that doesn't mean that our love is somehow fake. We are in a sense programmed to feel pain when injured, but that doesn't mean our suffering is any less real.
As far as I can tell, what matters is not the "authenticity" of an emotional response as defined in this essay, it's the existence of a subjective experience at all. As long as Joi is sentient at all, it doesn't matter if her feelings were determined, because they are still felt subjectively by her, and therefore she is deserving of our empathy.
Of course, the question still remains: is Joi sentient? Is K sentient? If all we have is their word, then we can never know for sure. But that's the same for humans, too. Nobody else can ever prove to you that they are sentient, yet we generally live under the assumption that others are sentient.
So in my view, that's the genius of BR 2049. It's so much more than a story about "what it means to be human." It's about what it means to be worthy of empathy, which is an entirely separate question from what it means to be human. And I think the implications are that it probably doesn't matter if a being is human, if a being has free will, or if a being has "authentic" emotions; what matters is that they feel. I think it will turn out that the distinction between human and non-human is just as arbitrary when it comes to empathetic and moral consideration as the distinction between male and female, white or black, Christian or Muslim. It's just an arbitrary wall we put up to justify exploitation for our benefit.
@@EmersedTuba38 You might enjoy reading up on philosophical zombies. They're hypothetical beings that present with perfectly authentic responses in their behavior, but without the corresponding subjective and conscious experiences (e.g. emotions). Joi is definitely the most ambiguous and well-constructed characterization that walks the line between machine consciousness vs. p-zombie that I've seen on film.
the moment when he realises hes just an ordinary joe was one of the most brilliant pieces of storytelling
No I'm at BM BM back. I'm on 😂 . y. 😂. .😂 😂 😂. 😂 😂rm M
Literally me
the truest literally me
A horrible message for any human, not to be celebrated. While effective in its delivery, such scenes are designed to subvert and manipulate mankind into hating itself and being apathetic about their own existance. The film hates humanity, and the very human audience (en masse) hates the film right back, whether subliminaly or overtly.
@@bradojacko8247whats this message that you derived from the movie?
I didn't think the scenes were too slow because I was too in love with the photography.
In an earlier draft of the script for this video, I said something along the lines of (paraphrasing) I don’t care that this sequence is 4 and a half minutes because I’m just enjoying the shots, production design, and score so much, those are more than enough to justify the sequence’s length.
Yeah, I've seen it repeatedly and it always drags me into its world. 2049 blew me completely away on my first watch and I was stoked to hear other people's opinions about it. Most of my friends loved it, but I got around to getting my family to watch it eventually with a starkly different response. They felt that the movie was slow and boring, plodding along all while trying to be all "artsy fartsy making you look at all the pretty stuff with shots that dragged on." It broke my heart to hear that, but after reading some reviews on the movie it just reinforces the sad truth: even among many critics, what most people are looking for are either action-movie popcorn flicks or jump scare-laden haunted house horror movies, constantly attempting to cater to the shortening attention span of the world. Most people don't like to think too hard about their lives, existence, philosophy, nor explore these themes that more "artsy" films present. That stuff is heavy and scary; it makes people possibly have to evaluate their own lives, morals, lifestyles, etc. Creatures of habit have trouble breaking them.
I love the noir feeling. The constant rain. And the soundtrack. I put similar music on almost every time i try to sleep.
Yes, the pacing was absolutely perfect. Long, heavy shots.
Solid cinematography can mean the difference between a decent film and a great film
Nobody mentions the importance of Deckards dog in 49. In the first movie, he was obsessed with finding a "real" animal; constantly asking people "Is it real?" whenever he sees an animlal. When K asks him the same thing he replies "I dont know, ask him." He knows now that the circumstances of your creation doesn't make you real or not. So just like Deckard being a replicant or not, it doesn't matter. And it was a hint, intentional or not, that K must also decide for himself if he is 'real'.
Excellent observation that I had completely missed!
Oh that’s awesome!!
At the same time it could be a commentary on the fact that we have such a hard time producing an answer to that question - we're as helpless as a dog in that respect.
Well said.
BRO YES. THIS IS ALL I EVER SAY
Fun Fact: JJ Abrams would have made that "Finding the wooden horse" scene in jump cuts, totaling 14.2 seconds.
Ok this one made me laugh
You win an Internet!
We would have to wait for the next movie to find out what the horse was all about.
@@freemanvs9970 "A story for another time"
2 movies, 300 tie-in comics, and several dozen novels later, no explanation
@@freemanvs9970 no, I think that they would of forgot to follow through on the plot line...
He starts the movie waking up and ends it falling back asleep forever. All his emotions and experiences gone forever, like tears in rain.
How in the hell did you connect those two things logically 😂 that has no relation to each other
@@henrycavillsrealmustache3553 Actually, the scene shows Joe looking into his palm while a snowflake melts as it touches the warmth of his hand, seeming to disappear. So that's the link, if you need it. Tears in rain = snow in warmth.
This time they're not. The memory of the horse was given to him by another, who still has it.
The most striking and lingering feeling I had about this film is that I was so impressed by Denis Villeneuve's willingness to SAVOUR the moments, yes it's a slow film but the moments are lived, they're experienced for their natural lengths, they're not just flashes of action and on to the next. I loved that about this film, it's so mature and felt.
They used to do this a lot in cinema.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Plus the scenes were all shot so beautifully.
This is how cinema was, before. Before it became over the top global and fully cheap. This was what cinema was like, 20 years ago. I miss cinema.
Here here
Cost them a lot at the box office but the film will be cherished for another 35 years, goal achieved
Cool thing to note with the children in the movie, the boys are all buzzcut while the girls get to keep short but longer hair so once you see k's implanted memories you immediately know it's not his because the "little k" has longer hair than the boys
Yoooo I never realized that
Intentional or not I think the screenwriters played on an unconscious bias to deceive the audience.
When we're told and see that a group of boys chased the child down I think we're inclined to believe the violence is intra-gender.
Then there's the fact we're inclined to think that replicants will be given memories aligned with their assigned gender.
A few well-placed red herrings used to good effect.
Excellent video. I remember reading this somewhere:
He wasn’t the chosen one-he was the one who chose.
sadly the film couldn't make that compelling enough for me to like it. its beautiful visually, but him not being the one is ultimately just disappointing. the trope of modern western films of putting a twist in for the sake of having one. we are robbed of the sense of catharsis we expect to find at the end of the film and have it replaced with absolution. certainly this is not the worst offender. but the beauty and complexity the story weaves is so compelling that the abruptness of the switch makes it worse than it really seems.
@@warlocksnevereverdie that’s the beauty of it, there isn’t ‘the one’
@@nathangordon4891 the girl he saves is the one. jesus christ did you not watch the movie? she is the first replicant/human child
@@warlocksnevereverdie no, they say child born from a replicant because I don't think they answered whether or not deckard was human or replicant
@@midgetman4206 I was wrong the child isnt human/synth. apparently ridley scott has stated that he thinks deckard is a replicant. so that means the child is "the chosen one" the miracle. but the whole movie you think its him. instead of an emotional climax we are given a flat note. If you are going to make a movie the point is for it to be something exceptionally compelling. Not for you to tell an original story for originalities sake. still a good film but not worth a rewatch
That line in the script about Luv being '...beautiful. The way a sword is beautiful when safely behind glass' is a such a good line, and 99.9% of people who saw the film never heard it.
i can even hear jared leto saying it! surprised he didn’t adlib that lol
I don't get it.
@@fabiancalderon6729 it means that she’s dangerous but beautiful. Yk a sword is dangerous but behind a safe glass enclosure for all the world to witness and gawk at its details, it’s beautiful. Like a lion in a zoo for another example.
@@Childishxmarkeeloo thanks
In what scene was this said?
The poignant aspect to Joi is that she expresses concern and jealousy for Joe when he is unconscious or not present. When he is knocked out in the car, when she speaks to Mariette. It’s a hint - but not irrefutable confirmation - that she might be sapient. Not perfect evidence, but enough to ask the question - IE, that she is not a façade that only exists when Joe is facing her.
Yup thats a really good point. Although it can be argued that's a matter of her programming as well. A man (K in this case) would ideally want to be cherished, desired and sought after by his significant other. A sense of having ownership, harmless protective envy over him, like a real relationship instead of the ownership of Joi being K's (a one way street). One can argue Joi was programmed to project whatever her owner desires. K wanted to have significance through being born, so she constantly reinforces the thought for him and even "names" him.
The arguments for Joi's sentience is profound on either side and her character is narratively compelling and mesmerizing to watch. 🙌
@@nihadanwar2 I mean humans are programmed by nature. Believe it or not free will is a lie. She is self aware, can learn and feel emotion. She is not human but that does not change anything. Humans are animals with enough inteligence to be self aware to a degree. She is a hologram with the same capabilities
Even the more human than human replicants inherited our fatal trait: prejudice/racism,
ie when Joi is insulted by the pleasure model for not having much inside.
Jealousy is just a part of consumer integration. Through the display of jealousy you kinda emotionally abuse the costumer to stay with the Joi product. She is not sentient, but rather a figure that wants you to believe that you're loved and precious. This program is maybe the most toxic and addictive product ever created.
@@serijas737 Joi’s programming cannot help but evolve as it continually expands its experiences through positive/negative reinforcement algorithms. In time she would be indistinguishable from humans as she acquires more emotional infrastructure beyond her original consumer-optimized programming. But IMO it is the prejudice that comes from Mariette that is toxic. Even replicants cannot escape that virus, and moreover she cannot help but infect Joi by adding the experience of prejudice to Joi’s programming.
Something I want to add about Joi. A couple times in the movie there are shots where it’s shows an advertisement for Joi with the words “Everything you want to hear.” I think Joi was also this voice of Joe’s inner desire to be real, human, and loved. She tells him these things that he deeply hopes he actually is. And he pushes back on it up verbally (wrestling with his previous belief as a replicant vs what he aspires to be) until the memory is confirmed to be real.
Yes, and the seeming empathy - of course if you were going to program a companion, the number one quality you’d want to try to have them present is empathy… I still love the film analysis and agree I feel empathy for Joi, but as the ad shows, this creation lacks sentience - its a program.
@@Shelly-cp7gjI think there is a deeper question being asked though. Does it matter? You could make a compelling argument that our childhood, represented in the implanted memories in replicants, shares a lot of similarities with programming. Our reactions to things are the product of our own programming through our lived experiences. I think Joi is supposed to be one step further from humans than replicants while still maintaining enough relatability for us to consider that question of what actually defines a living consciousness vs a program. I’m not suggesting that one answer is right or wrong, but it is an interesting thought experiment to try to figure out where exactly you would draw that line.
@@awilk418 biologically and neurologically speaking, a program and the human psyche are vastly different. From the way they come to be to the way they operate. A program may imitate the latter at a surface level, but it’s not the same unless you have a 1:1 copy.
@@Vox_Popul1 Fair, and I’m not trying to claim that Joi is basically a person. I am just saying that it raises the question of what do we consider sentient and/or deserving of rights. A real world example I can think of might be the octopus, which is demonstrably very intelligent but who’s brains operate so differently to our own that it has been hard for scientists to determine exactly how intelligent they are. Joi is a program. Does that mean that destroying her is no more morally wrong than destroying a phone? What are the potential consequences if we are wrong? It’s just an interesting thought experiment.
I work at the company that did the CGI in this movie and I think the best 3D is unfortunately also the most underappreciated because it is that - so well blended into miniatures and set design that it is seamless, and as a result CGI gets a bad rep because we only notice the obvious one or the huge spectacles that are obviously CGI. The way it was done in this film was incredibly thoughtful and combining it with miniatures gave a tactile feel, but frankly a lot of that stuff gets comp'd over anyway, minis is used mostly to match lighting to. A large majority of it was just amazingly done and THOUGHTFUL CGI. I don't think that gets as much appreciation as it should. The city generation technology done for this film was incredible and they took good shortcuts in making it a heavy atmospheric so they could get a huge scale without having to invest too much time in detailing those buildings.
That's the problem with CG. People always point out bad CG cause they can see it. Even though the same movie with that bad CG is littered with incredible CG you didn't even notice
I think if people dont notice, they did a pretty good job in making it feel "normal" in movies. But thats just what I think.
What scenes specifically did u work on?
I remember seeing the bts of mad max fury road and it's use of cg was similar. Adding too the background thats there instead of just relying on it and making it the entire background like you see so obviously in mcu movies and other big blockbusters. I watched the gray man and some of the locations were completely cgi which from a budget and standpoint makes sense but it also often takes you out if it because you can just tell the actors are not in milan or wherever the set piece is
for those curious: here's the VFX breakdown of this film from my company: th-cam.com/video/4L_FgTPVE2A/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=DNEG
Also if you wanna see how they did Dune their approach is really focused on getting the 3D to match life reference and to get a sense of scale. As you see though in the majority of the hero shots of the city it's basically fully CGI.
One thing that always hits me about this movie is that Officer K basically is, for all intents and purposes, Deckard's son. In the end you learn that he wasn't actually born, BUT he was still implanted and raised with the memories of Deckard's biological child. Whether he was born or not, I feel that his story is about saving his father and reuniting his family. Not to sound like Jordan Peterson, but the movie makes constant references to Pinocchio with Joi's "Real boy" lines, and K's fight to save Deckard in the ocean reflects Pinocchio saving his father from the whale.
It's a bit interesting that he spent the entire video talking about building empathy for others, ultimately to end with a rather self centered message of "if it's real to you, it's real." where as I believe the message of the movie is pretty strongly that the only way to live a meaningful life is to sacrifice for others. That is to say, to go out of your way to help those around you. K gave up on his self centered dreams, and made something of himself by intervening selflessly in the life of another.
He literally drowns Luv. If that's not a metaphor for giving up what he wants most to help Deckard, I don't know what is.
@@HRZN_YT Excellent.
@@HRZN_YT Well said, the "if it's real to you, it's real" I think bypasses what I saw was K seeing the reality that he was not born, not special, not Deckard's son but another replicant. Yet still fighting because he was strong enough to move forward in spite of what is actually true.
@@crusadr_4966 exactly. K wasn't special, but by choosing to intervene for Deckard he became much more than just another replicant. And this is a concrete message that is applicable to every viewer. You might not be special, but you can tangibly improve the lives of others if you choose to do so.
@@HRZN_YT It's actually somewhat predictable, because he referenced peterson. It's not a stretch to say JP is from, and influenced by, the neoliberal "personal responsibility" message. If we just work on ourselves until it's deemed good enough, and everyone does it, then the world will become better. But truly, it won't by much. We would still live under unjust hierarchies and immoral systems. How many rich "influencers" and bullsh*t jobs do we need before we realize that all the motivational videos by the wealthiest, all the masterclasses by bill gates, all the sales pitches by musk and zuckerberg, are worthless if they remain as part of an elite 1% pillaging our world?
I love the long build up to finding the horse. With how slowly he walks, & reaches into the furnace, its almost like he doesn't want the horse to be there, because everything that would mean.
definitely
I love it, and I'm genuinely moved. The isolation, drudgery and scorn K faces in his life. And the inhumane restrictions. Then him painfully going over there and unwrapping the horse and he can't fight back the tears.
He was a child. He was the child. The world is now on his shoulders.
41:09 this moment is an underrated moment for the characterisation for Replicants. Cruelty is such a human act, there is no logic for it except self gratification. When Love “kills” joy there’s no rhyme or reason for it except pure cruelty. She wants K to suffer and I believe that makes her human
JOI WAS REAL! JOI WAS REAL! JOI WAS REAL!
@@DeadManWalking-ym1ooso do ALL the cats, esp the ones we love to keep in hour homes.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo so do you think orcas are robots or something
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo they definitely aren't robots either. the tension in blade runner is between synthetic or non-synthetic, not between human, robot, and orca
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo in context, nobody needed to hear that
Video essays with this level of passion about Blade Runner 2049, maybe my favorite movie of all time, just fill me with life. I love the ideas and conversations a film like this evokes, I love to hear the different perspectives and interpretations, and most of all, I love that a sizeable number of folks agree that 2049 is a flat-out great movie.
Deckard = Descartes
Virgil G I’d rather hone in on how you found this film ‘infantile’.
@Virgil G Well if you could change the 2nd film in any way, what would you change?
@Virgil G He died before the first blade runner even came out
I don't know how I missed K's death at the end, I thought he was just extremely physically and emotionally exhausted but also relieved that everything is concluded... like he has figured out everything and lost everything in pursuit of the truth. I didn't realize this was his death.....
It might be because Ryan Gosling did the exact same thing in in his car in Drive but was still alive to drive into the night.
I don't think he's dead. I think people just like the idea that he's dead.
@@weatheranddarkness No he definitely dies in Blade Runner. Hence the whole "giving up your life for a cause" speech by the rebel leader.
Death is the only truth
It's OK.
K is covered by a 100 year warranty.
I thought K’s “miracle” was realizing how joi legitimately loved him, and that he loved her. She sacrificed herself for him. And then when he see’s the add for joi after that, how fake it is, he understands how his connection was so much more real then anything that could be simply manufactured. That joi was real. And thats when he decides to help deckard have that connection.
Same.
In a way it's an extension of the replicant emotion v human emotion argument.
I thought it was kind of the opposite mainly because the advertisement says "everything you want to hear," and he wanted to be the child and she fed completely in to that.
But on the other view when Luv kills Joi she says "I do hope your satisfied with our product" which could imply that she has some sort of autonomy, because someone who worked that close to wallace would probably know if their amazon alexas are sentient.
I think this will probably be one of the movies biggest questions like Deckard being a replicant or not
I think it was a heavy blow to him, actually, making him question whether she really did love him. But then eventually he realizes that it doesn't matter, she was real to him, part of his character arc. If she was a conscious being herself is left unanswered.
I'm sorry my friend but you have this exactly backwards, so much so that you're actually a pawn within the narrative. What I mean is, Joi is so good at simulating real love, that even real viewers fell for it. Joi is the primary villain within the entire show - she is tinkerbell preventing Peter Pan from seeing Wendy. She projects her contrived self over top of a real woman, masking her out so that K is prevented from the responsibility of encountering a real woman with real flaws and vulnerability. She convinces K to limit her to the stick because that's what an emotionally-compliant "real" woman would have done, she does it to create the emotional bond which brings revenue to her creator. She doesn't care if she dies, K would just repurchase her.
Joi is a fantasy, she is the anti-woman, and K's confrontation with giant-naked-pink Joi is the coming of age moment where K resolves to live in the real.
One theory I saw was that K *was* a true child. The flower he finds has 2 stems, representing a set of twins. And the replicant revolutionary who says she was there for the birth was missing an eye, which could be symbolic of seeing only *part* of the truth. I dunno what to think but it’s really interesting
Ah, now that is the most interesting idea about this film I have heard!! Maybe!! I’ll have to go watch it a hundred more times and see 🤔
Cheers
Interesting!
"is it real" "I dunno, ask him." THAT is the better statement from the movie. Allowing a creature the dignity of self-determination, is the basis for all respect.
meh i donno about that. we have idiots today making the argument that kids can choose their gender but cant get a tattoo. I think i like to be able to use a rational mind to be able to see for myself what is real, not just taking someone elses potential mentally ill opinion as fact.
What if the self determination of one creature encroaches on the self determination of another?
@@Yotrymp outside of literal identity theft, is there an example of internalized identity preventing another from identifying as they choose?
@@ovechkin100 I swear to god bro, if I see another person turning something into gender, sexuality, race, or politics out of NOWHERE I'm going to hang myself
@@m0d993 It's an apt comparison, and something that requires thought and action if you want a society that still exists in 20 years.
In the end, we found out that Joy has been programed to please K as much as possible. As a spectator, we are normaly developping empathy toward her, just to learn that this was all a play. Her own will to be "real" was only a programed response to the own will of K.
It's brillant, because it shows that the line between humans and robots/programs is more blurry than what we expected. Are robots like humans because they show empathy/feelings ? Are our feelings different than the one programed ?
Also, that could be a réflexion about cinema. What happen on screen isn't real, yet, we have empathy for the characters
Another thing you notice throughout the movie that K knowingly avoids alot of JOI commericals, as a way to try to hide himself from the painful truth. A Schrodinger's cat for the lack of a better phrase, maybe if he just dosent acknowledge it then she could be real to him, that's what he forces himself to believe...
Until she's gone. Then the wound is open, he starts point blank onto a Holo advert as it slowly shoves the knife into the wound, saying everything JOI said to him, painfully telling him how her love for him was all manufactured, not "real"
But Joe has moved past it. He knows JOI's love wasn't real but his feelings for JOI were, and nothing can take that from him
Such a beautiful scene
I think your logic is completely faulty. Just becaus Joy was programmed to please K doesn't make what she is any less real. The height of arrogance that is.
But does that change anything? I think progamed feelings are exactly as valuable as random feelings, like we have them
@@jubel742 Yes, that's what I'm saying above. Our own feelings are no less programmed biologically.
Damn, way to pull the rug under my feet, whether they are replicant or not, they are all still fictional, yet here I am pondering anyways
Just as the original "Bladerunner" has become revered so to will "Bladerunner 2049." It just takes time to absorb all the subdue layering involved with this film.
We'll see.
Yeah this break down makes me think I don't know how to watch movies properly. Too much nuance for my simple mind.
I mean the art direction really made the first one shine. Less action scenes makes you think and make the few stand out. I do not think this one will hold up. Plot wise, it was ok and just as real to the novel as the OG, not much. Sorta hope they make a less loose adaption that really captures feel of the Philip K Dick's book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep one day. But as a retro futuristic dystopian SCI FI it stands as unicorn of a movie despite not being all that much like the book and I just do not think 2049 comes close. It is dystopian. But a blander grey dystopia. The first movie really comes to life with the Art, the costumes, the lingo. Plus Harrison ford did a really good job, and then there is Ruger Howard that stole everyone's heart at the end and gave the audience empathy for a replicant. Not as easy movie to compare with.
No, it was just a garbage movie.
Bladerunner 2049 is a bad movie in many ways: 1. it's got ADD - that scene where Joi changes her dresses from second to second is utterly senseless. it's there only to display the FX capabilities of the studio.
2. the whole story is "protagonist walks from point A to B to C to D" and "progatonist is sitting in a car, a kitchen, a room, on a bench, on stairs". This is the plague of corporate cinema. Dudes sitting and walking in beautiful CGI
3. stupid plotholes. Luv comes and gets Deckard, and kicks K in the nuts, leaves him on the floor so that he can pull himself back up and come after her and kill her. worst writing ever.
4. also, Elvix.
5. K finds Ana Stelline. great! what's the gain? What to do with this info? Ana Stelline is the replicant child. ???
6. Evil dude Morbius, pardon me, Wallace Nianderthal. it's like watching a fish in an aquarium. nice, great FX. What to do with this info? What do I care about Nianderthal Wallace?
7. also, computer generated Rachael. ugh..
8. there was a great reset in 2021. Wallace Industries recovered some data. great. What do I do with this info? Why do I have to sit through that boring stilted stifled scene to learn what? listen, if I wanna listen to stories, I buy an audiobook. This is a movie. You should show me. not tell me. There's a reason Austin Powers has a character named Basil Exposition.
9. he goes and has sex with a chick. great. what to do with this information? Oh, she's in a secret organization! ???
What i always loved the most about "Blade Runner" was the fact that the Replicants behaved more human & emotional than the actual Humans, who all behaved cold and very indifferent to what is happening. That is something that always struck me the most while watching and yet it is a pretty subtle nuance in the entire movie. Not sure if this was intended or just happened during filming but it is an element that really fits a lot. You can see things like that in "Blade Runner 2049" too.
I agree. And I always felt the protagonist was Batty and Deckard the antagonist, replicant or not… FWIW, I love Kraftwerk.
Also Tyrell corporation's motto was "More human than human"
@@barrywagoner5191protagonist and antagonist dont signify any moral alignment, its just who the story follows and who acts as opposition to the main character
It’s not subtle what are you on about….
I'm honestly really upset that 2049 flopped so hard. I wish I saw the movie in theatres, as now years later after recently watching it I have come to the conclusion that I've never seen a better movie. Not only is every single frame of the movie so beautiful that my jaw was constantly dropped, but the writing is so incredibly beautiful. The final message that K is no one special and how badly it hurt him to realize that was so heartwrenching. It's something that resonates with me and damn near broke me when it clicked in my head watching it.
Then for K to do what he did regardless.
God this movie is something else.
I saw this movie in cinemas and it hands down was the greatest visual experience I've ever had. Sometimes films get re-screens on anniversaries, definitely keep an eye out. I'm really hoping for that.
Sometimes a movie must fail at the box office to become a cult classic and be more appreciated over time. This is why this movie mesmerized so many viewers and at the same time alienated so many others....
@@ElektronikGirlEpic Dune came close for me, and also a but with Ford v Ferrari I think. It reminds me now why I love movies so much, because goddamn it rlly took me out of this world for just a few hours and so vividly. I still get to experience that with other movies but Blade Runner 2049 did it so completely that i dont remember anything about sitting in the theatre except enjoying and experiencing the movie.
@@user-tm8jt2py3d it does already have a fandom. fandoms arent what you think pretty sure. its just fans who create writing, art n shit. fandoms were niche until very recently
@@user-tm8jt2py3d I get where youre coming from and sympathise but that really is not true. The word fandom came into use as we know it today in the early 20th century and as i can remember really started taking off and becoming more widespread in the late 80s early 90s as the internet started to become an easy way to plan meetups, share writing, art and other such things despite it still being in its infancy. It was pretty different back then but its always been seen as something odd to partake in and as more people came to use the internet the bad apples started popping up more and more and being the loudest of the bunch
4:35 I've often said that Blade Runner is a two hour movie that feels like a three hour movie, and 2049 is a three hour movie that feels like a two hour movie.
Felt like a five hour movie to me
that actually makes sense to me, i agree
Yes! I had the exact same feeling when I saw 2049.
I felt that BR2049 was four hours when BR was just two hours.
This !
I kinda feel that even though Joe was not the replicant Jesus, he still acted that way in sacraficing himself. So that fits with the theme that how he acts is more important than what he is, along of the lines of him having feelings being proof that he has a soul if you want to put it that way.
This is just me spitballing but it might be that K(“Joe”) is more inspired by Joseph (Joe) from the Old Testament. There’s the connection with dreams (memories), being separated from some family in his childhood, being in an important position in a world that he doesn’t belong to etc. As well as while not being the savior, his actions made it possible for the chosen people (replicants in this case) to survive. This also makes him analogous to Moses who brought the chosen people out of bondage. Note that neither Joseph nor Moses were ancestors of Jesus (who was of the line of Judah), but both are still considered to be among the most important figures of the Old Testament. Obviously none of these individual connections are very sturdy, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “Joe” was inspired by the whole of the Hebrew Egyptian era.
@@rando1090 That sounds plausible. And I imagine the writers knew their mythology. I will remember that and read the part if it gives me a bit more context to the story. The movie seemed to have large themes that would be interesting to get to the bottom of.
@@rando1090 Quite a beautiful yet somber thought
My father took me out to watch Blade Runner in 1982 when I was 14 years old. It helped shape my appreciation for film and I am forever grateful to him for that.
Why even bother writing anything when, "beautiful, yes. The way a sword can be if it's safely behind glass," exists.
Because that's not really that great of a line.
@@troyounce3295 Somebody never learned how to have fun.
@@PayondeAwsome I love having fun, and I love great writing. It's just a basic bitch line that doesn't evoke anything.
Art and "great writing" is partly subjective though.
@@troyounce3295 136 people vs one cynical dude liking his own comments
Fantastic essay on this film. As a lover of the original, I felt the impulse to add my appreciation of one line in particular. Right before Deckard... well, *kisses* Rachel, they're sitting at the piano. She begins to play a song from her memories. It's light and gentle, it calls Deckard to sit beside her. She talks about he she isn't sure if the lessons from her memories belong to her or to Tyrell's niece. But the music is there nevertheless. Dekcard's response is the thesis of the Blade Runner series in one simple repudiation of the question. "You play beautifully." He ignores the origin altogether because it doesn't matter. It is music all the same. Just like K and Joi, her origin or how we designate her "authenticity" is irrelevant to K's love for her, or our empathy for her. One other thing is the motif throughout both films of the eyes and what they reveal. The original utilized a special technique with a lighting fixture to give the Replicant characters a subtle glint in their eyes. "Windows into the soul" if you will. So when you look at them, you recognize some light inside of them. Roy talking about what he's seen with his eyes. The fact that he kills Tyrell by pushing in his eyes. Both films even open with an extreme close up of an eye. Not distinguished between human or replicant, because they are indistinguishable. When Gaff talks about Deckard, he makes a vague and ambiguous comment about his eyes (a little easter egg for those looking for an answer). How apt that Niander Wallace, a man who cannot see the value in Replicant life, is blind. But all the replicants in both films cry and waver and reveal their humanity through their eyes.
Genius comment.
"Her eyes were green".
I always thought the glint in the replicants' eyes made them look subtly robotic. Like their own personal uncanny valley if you will.
I too love the original. And when I went (alone) to see 2049, I was very nervous. But I loved it, and it had the same" hairs standing up on the back of my neck" cinematography that the original had, if not more so.
And the resistance lady only has one eye.
What could that mean, I wonder.
Speaking of beautiful music, I have always wondered what's a hard boiled detective modeled after Marlow or Spade doing with a full-size concert piano - and sheet music - in his apartment ? This also traces of the classic disappointed romantic?
I've seen this movie twice and both times I didn't think K died at the end. Just thought he was lying down, getting a much deserved rest. I think I'll hold on to that interpretation.
I kinda thought that too the first time I saw it, but on subsequent viewings it has become clear (to me) that he dies. Man I love this movie!
I got real heavy cowboy bebop vibes from the ending
Considering the Screenwriter has said "i was amazed people thought he was alive" kinda sealed it. That, and you can see him stop breathing
It is much nicer in a way to think that K lives and goes with them afterwards and despite not being the replicant child gains a family of his own in a way.
You do that.
In regards to K’s ‘Ascension’, you also forgot the scene that precedes his death (and where he got his fatal wound) where K fights Luv and is seen above her holding her under the rising water after finding new resolve, from Luv’s perspective she sees K with the light behind him as if it’s a halo around his head.
Okay, I re-watched this scene after reading your comment, and I just want to say two things:
First: Wow. Damn.
Second: I have to say that cinematographers are obviously a different type of creative person.
I understand the "why" and the symbolism that such iconography traditionally conveys throughout things like historical art, mostly religious in context, and consistently has, in some form or another, for centuries...
...*BUT* painting that picture in a film, where it both *must* exist intentionally, yet so be unobtrusive, natural & subtle that it can go unnoticed by most, or not understood by many, YET is so impactful to those who realize what they saw...is..Well, that's, like, a super power.
I'm dazzled & enthralled even more, somehow, for the film now. I'm also trying to keep a lookout for other examples on my own, in anything I watch now. I didn't realize that imagery & reference even existed there until you said, in effect, "Hey, check THIS out!"
And there it was, gloriously.
It also means my brain just doesn't work like yours or theirs, which is completely fine, but this all intrigues me endlessly. I ask myself how they interface with the same things 7 the same world that I do, but do so in a way that's utterly alien to me. Like how they show me something I see everywhere, everyday, but make it like I'm seeing it for the first time ever.
Also, if I'm guessing, you're likely an pretty artistic, or well-read person, or both, since you noticed it in the first place, so in addition to thanking you for showing me that, I have question for you, if you'll indulge me:
I have wondered if you noticed that specific imagery *immediately* as you saw it for the first time, in real-time, *OR* did you come to recognize the imagery after the film ended, as you were contemplating it in its totality? (I don't know if that matters, and is just curiosity on my end. I really wanted to ask.)
Oh! And, again, thank you for pointing that detail out, which I had managed to miss EVERY time I viewed the film, from opening night at the theater, and in my numerous home screenings, until you showed it to me. :)
@@go-nogo1475 Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, I can’t exactly even remember when I found out that little bit of symbolism, but I do know that it wasn’t the first time I watched it.
I think it came to me when I started questioning why Wallace kept bringing up angelic references to his replicants, I started to question what this has to do with Luv and K, and then I saw it during their final showdown. It was quite interesting seeing it happen right in front of me even though I’d already seen that scene multiple times by now, but this time with a new perspective and goal in mind.
@@rhett3185 My sincerest thanks for keeping me in mind, and generously sharing how you realized this existed intentionally, and its specific AND overarching implications, and then linking the additional facets to it.
I'm fascinated to no end by the movies themselves, much as you are, but your grasp of the entire spiritual/godhead/messiah motif really opened up my own conceptual framing of so many parts of BR:2049. Your discovery helped me tie together some moments & images & select dialogue choices that I *instinctively* felt were of real import, but could not personally connect them satisfactorily enough to make them a cohesive whole...that is, until you shared what you found!
Thank you for a keen eye, a keen mind, and being generous with your hard-won observations! You provided a sort of key that made the other pieces sort of "slide into their slots" with regards to the religious-analogues & angelic references, which was a blind-spot to me while I have been pondering the themes in the movie again lately (and is not my strong suit IRL either!) and you supplemented my weak-spot concerning any religious iconography with any magnatude greater than the most basic, meme-quality type! LOL!
I think I'll begin trying to pick up some literature concerning religious/supernatural iconography in media, because my interest in that subject has now been ignited! I'm sure I'll find some primers or dissertations by folks online to help me assimilate those types of themes into my toolbox! ;)
And, really, I appreciate your insight more than you realize. You've opened up a whole angle I'd never thought to ponder...because I had no idea it was there. But I do now! :)
the first time I watched when that chime from the tears in rain scene faded in, it was like a punch right to my kidney. really wasn't expecting such a potent tearjerker
The purple giant Joi saying "It was a day, hum?" just like in the first time we met her, at K apartment. And the heartbreaking "You look like a good Joe". Everytime I listen to Blade Runner 2049 soundtrack, I feel the sensation of listening these lines again, for the first time. My favorite movie of all time, no doubts.
The giant Joi says "you look lonely. I can fix that."", I don't think she says it was a day
Edit: rewatched and she does open with "what a day" before saying "you look like a good Joe"
Lol, this is REALLY your favorite movie?
I had no clue that he dies at the end. I assumed he was just staring at the sky and taking in what happened.
Its ambiguous. He's assuming a lot, especially given what his body can and has taken.
well, the music of "tears in the rain" is here...
He's probably dying, but I like to think he went on to become a hermit like Bautista's character
Decker being less relatable than the replicants is not only intentional, it is a major part of the story and plays into it's themes
Roger Deakins is an absolute master. This film has one of the best cinematography I've ever seen in movies. The shot of of the water falling through the wall over Hans Zimmer score, when K heads to the orphanage is damn near perfection.
Honestly, you hit the nail on the head for why this movie is so great. For me it's the best movie movie of the 2010's. I felt so much sorrow and happiness at the end, when K gives his life to save Decker and reunites him with his daughter. He makes his own choice. He's not acting on behalf of the replicant underground, he's not letting Luv take him there by playing to humanity. He's making the choice to reunite father and daughter for his own humanity. I remember sitting in the theatre crying as I watched the end, and I found it weird when my friends didn't see the movie for what it was. Like they missed the point because they focused too heavily into the K not being chosen one, and were let down by that, and instead of doing what K does, where he recognizes that he is still authentic enough to make an impactful decision. They go the opposite route of where K goes, and thinks what's the point, like you point out K struggles with after that revelation.
tbf I think there is a double meaning with this scene, what's explored in the video and pointing out the pointlessness of life, purpose comes with ones own choices rather than simply following what one is programmed to do or is 'chosen' to do. -purpose is what one makes of it
I think in the context of this scene it can feel quite nihilistic. He has fulfilled his purpose and now there is nothing left to give.
I think what's really nice is that this scene is able to pull off making a it both nihilistic as well as calm and meditative, suggesting K has come to terms with his own choice and his own self.
So I mean, I wouldn't say they are wrong per say, I just think this scene is clearly layered in a way that can make someone take multiple messages out of it, possibly that reflect more on the viewers outlook and own philosophies more than anything eles.
@@Geostationary0rbitpositive nihilism
The fact that this movie was considered a “flop” shows you everything you need to know about modern movie audiences and hollywood. People don’t want to think, they don’t want moral conundrums, they simply was superficial emotions, pretty faces unrealistic action or impossible romance. Anything that gets to close to the “real” always has more success with people that don’t particularly care to go to the theatres but will give their time when a film has something real to offer the audience.
Compare it to Avengers, or the other box office hits the past 10 years. Movies are becoming more of a visual experience and cheap laughs and thrills and less opening your mind to complicated potential or morality.
The problem with Blade Runner 2049 is that it tries so hard to be profound, except it tries to TELL you how profound it is, rather than SHOW you how profound it is. SHOW, DONT TELL !!!
Villeneave is a good craftsman, and he loves his work to be sure, BUT he aint NO "Artiste" (Dune is also bleh)
Fancher just spun the Deckard-as-Replicant on its head, BUT the profound thing in the Original was meeting your Maker and being so disappointed!!!
Yeah man cinema has been dead for about 15 years. Didn't you get the invite to the funeral?
“A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”
K is a true child of Rachel in that he was transformed from a handbook into a poem.
I actually like the pacing of the movie it gives you a chance to appreciate the world they've maintained and created while also giving you the chance to complete/ catch up on the original timeline nicely
9:30 I’ve never seen anyone talk about this at all. But the symbolism and the allusion in the eye scene is amazing. Blade runner is originally based off a book called “do androids dream of electric sheep?” And the cover art of the book has an aquamarine eye staring at you, matching the eye at the beginning. Not only that, but it’s a well known phrase that eyes are the window to the soul, noting that androids can still be “alive and soulful” if they can live life and be apart of reality the way anything else can.
Reminds me of Spielberg's A.I movie. How the machines, other than David who was programmed to love, showed more humanity than the actual humans. How they felt fear when they were being hunted by "the Moon" and how loving and protective the "Nanny" was, how they healed/fixed themselves. I liked how the Mechas seemed to be the fusion of machines and humanity.
Not only that but blue represents artificial and green represents life or natural in this movie. The color of the eye kinda alludes to both existing at once which kinda a huge theme for the movie. Perfect opening shot
Oh man, I just recently watched 2049 and had a transcendental experience! This is the essay I need right now!
I think Joi is representative of one of those central questions cyberpunk tends to explore - how much real, genuine autonomy does even a very complex organism truly have, and in the end, does it even matter? Joi, in convincing K to untether her from the console, appears to be sacrificing her immortality in an apparent act of selfless love. Perhaps she has merely calculated that the circumstances under which she is able to pursue her companion role have altered and she is responding appropriately - he cannot return but she can definitely leave with him. But isn't that the very definition of love, all the same? Reducing it to mere function doesn't provide us with a conclusive answer, the mystery of "why?" she would pursue K's happiness at the risk of her own annihilation remains unresolved.
She's a product. He bought an expansion pack for said product. Do you really think she's not gonna be on board? Or not be preprogrammed to act in awe of the world you're showing her? Why else would you buy the damn stick? All you observed was a *satisfied customer*.
@@PutkisenSetä I don't agree. What about her trying to wake K up while he is unconscious? Or when she tells the sex worker girl to leave with a not so neutral voice even though K was away?
@@dariolol3565 Concern for the user's well-being and property. Required for any kind of convincing illusion. I suppose you did prove she's clever enough to understand complicated subjects like "prostitute nicking his shit" so she's at least at the level of a dog. Which were bred, or made if you will, to like us for no real reason so I guess I have to forego the love of a dog as well if I'm to remain philosophically consistent. Point to you.
@PutkisenSeta Sure, but there are also other details, like her exploring the Deckard's place while K was away, looking around while in the flying car or whatever, asking K about stuff like the DNA and the thermographic image when they were arriving in Vegas.
It's like she was conscious and was curious about the world and everythinf
Great take. Cyberpunk is at it's best when it leaves you frankly creeped out about your own consciousness.
Honestly 2049 was quite possibly the best sequel to anything that I have ever experienced in my 4 decades of life. It was beautiful but it also filled me with absolute despair days after experiencing it for the first time. It truly is heart breaking and hit me like a train.
go watch maverick. Where 2049 was a nice sequel, but inevitably inferior to the original, maverick was possibly the only sequel in movie history to surpass its predecessor.
It's so rare to see. Especially when it's a sequel done after many many decades.
@@numbdigger9552 inferior to the- no it absolutely fucking wasn't.
@@numbdigger9552 what about Shrek 2. Checkmate.
@@numbdigger9552 Puss in Boots? Shrek 2? Don't be making up claims that just can't be true
Loved 2049, Cant wait for Dune next year
I would worry about Dune if it was anyone but Villeneuve, but he can do no wrong (so far)
@@MoviesILoveandsocanyou yeah he’s got this.
@@MoviesILoveandsocanyou You deleted my comment?
Pathetic...
@@hebanker3372 What comment? There was no comment of yours here.
@@ivankukovec9799 It was.You missed out.
Regarding the director's use of yellow and red: Follow the yellow brick road and red runy slippers.
I for one *did* and *do* love the original Blade Runner, and yet still agree with you that 2049 is a superior film. Wow! How could anyone decry this MASTERPIECE??
If you go in wanting to see a cookie cutter marvel film kind of sci fi thing like im sure a lot of casual viewers did i can easily see how theyd hate it
I love this movie so much. I have only spotted one mistake in the entire film and it's only because I have background in human biology. When the police lab tech is analysing the bones with K and the police lieutenant present. They point out the caesarian marks on the pelvic bones. Its made obvious in the set design the analysis machine is looking down on the bones from above. Well that's the goof as the pelvis is upside down, aka the pelvis is bum up. The rest of the skeleton is front side up.
Its only a minor gripe and not alot of people would notice unless they have had the training/education to spot it.
Lol, that’s a pretty big goof!
Not to mention, if you're putting scalpel marks on the iliac crest during a c-section... let's just say, it's no wonder Rachel died during child birth
well that's completely ruined the film for me. i'm never watching it again.
@@mysterycrumble I'm sensing sarcasm, but if this isn't... come on.
@@zegreatpumpkinani9161 obviously its sarcasm
3:01 well, once I heart about the theory that Roy saved Deckert because he wanted to say his last words to someone. You know, someone who 'can' hear him.
Oh Wow. What a beautiful idea.
!!
Yes, but Deckard needed to demonstrate that he could listen and understand.
Complex ideas, complex reasons... No time for either.... But he can to decker.
“I took a college class on film” and “This didn’t age well” are redundant
I love blade runner 2049 so much that i watched like 5 hours of essays on it combined...
I disagree that the rapey scene didn’t age well-Human behavior is human behavior and Dekard isn’t all that good a man-His behavior doesn’t cater to the whims of the zeitgeist.
Movie characters shouldn’t cater to the politics or moral fashions of the day. That scene tells you something about a man trained to dehumanize other humans in his profession. In a world with literally genetically engineered slaves-Where women like Pris were built for another’s pleasure. Dekard’s behavior suits such a social order.
Great analysis. I was on the fence but your argument has me on your side.
I think it’s more like the whole “baby it’s cold outside” argument where that style of manhandling a woman and her thinking it’s sexy is old timey
@CJ P. Goodness...
Omg u didn't just say zeitgeist in a commont
Yup, I've noticed that women these days don't like the guys that hold the door open or offer thier coats when it's cold.
They find it irresistible if you simply ignore them, or better hit on thier ugly fat friend instead.
Let's not dismiss the amazing scores! Both films! Gives them a REAL feeling. Gladiator style!
There’s a shit ton of men in that scene with the underground group of replicants, that was not a female only group
No movie is perfect, but in my 44 years on Earth, BR2049 is just about the best thing Ive ever seen. You are correct; every single scene in this movie could be a stand-alone photograph. Since it came out, I have watched it just about once a month.
Really great review!
@ Donnie Darko Just curious … What else do you love about it? Acting? Writing? Pacing? Theme? A visually striking movie isn’t necessarily an exceptional movie. Watching a movie once a month is a STRONG statement!
@@63artemisia63 And I still claim it. I do photography by trade and I have my Ipad next to my computer where I'll watch movies, listen to audio books etc. I've watched this film about 20 times since its release. Just about everything is perfect in this film. Just like Shawshank Redemption, it couldn't have been done better. IMHO, there have only been a handful of films that couldn't have been made better. Yes, the acting and pacing was perfect. I hate it when feeling rushed in a film. My favorite director, David Lynch, has been quoted saying "how the hell does it matter how long a scene is". Paraphrasing, but you get my point. Another "slow" film was "beyond the black rainbow". I remember reading the reviews and one of them stated "only fans that thought 2001, a Space Odyssey was too fast paced could appreciate this film. Can I go on? I'm going to bed.
@@donniedarko1345 this movie reminded me of Eyes Wide Shut' in the visual department. Also the pacing is similar.
I like the film but it has issues, some glaring issues...
The first and most obvious is that Decker returns to his daughter thereby given her indentity away, K must have known that taking Decker to her would compromise everything that had been done to keep her secret .
The second is why would no one else be in Las Vegas if a quick scan shows radiation levels have dropped that far down , all that free booze everywhere and antiques galore.
The Third one is if he can buy an actual real horse for that tiny amount of wood how has no one ever stole that tree in the front yard that Racheal was buried under? Anyone who came by to make a delivery would have spread the word insanely quick that there was an unguarded tree out there.
My most annoying fault of the film is the phrase the replicant says to K "More human than human", what would have been so much better for her to say would have been , 'As human, as human". but I guess he felt he needed throw a bone to the fan boys so they could squeel ," I KNOW THAT PHRASE FROM THE FIRST FILM !! ".
@@kerokero_furogu I agree, for me it was an utter disapointment.
One thing I also appreciated about this film that wasn't mentioned here is the music. It PERFECTLY matches the vibe of the music from the original film, which in turn matches this dystopian world we have been thrust into. Definitely one of the best films I've seen in a while, and I agree, I enjoyed it much more than the original.
Absolutely. I looooooved the synthesizer, so reminiscent of the 1980s.
Hans Zimmer never fails.
The vibe of the original film is about the complex struggle of humanity to maintain and win.
This film is a truly nihilistic and dystopia hellscape designed to destroy humanity and masculinity and replace it with a feminin artifice.
The second film is technically far superior, but can never resonate with a human audience because it hates humanity. The only way it sees humanity ascending is by giving everything over to a feminine artifice and then dying alone in the cold.
That's not a story worth telling a human audience unless you're trying to subvert humanity and you hate yourself.
I love the clip from Roger Ebert; what he's expressing is something akin to a book I read once called "How to Read and Why." The central premise was that reading novels - especially the classics - gives you a window into other people's souls, building that empathy you talk about in your video. I was writing about this just the other day, how I love a good story, no matter where it comes from and in whatever form, especially when I discover after the fact that the reason a story speaks to me has something to do with experiences in my own life and brings a new understanding of those experiences. Through these stories I find empathy for myself as well as others.
Great work, excellent video.
i watched this in the cinema and it blew me away, the art, the music everything. the 3 people i saw it with all disliked it... still baffles me to this day
Most people are dumb…
This movie has an anti human message. Human audiences, en mass, can never resonate with it. It is designed specifically to subvert their existance by a modern Hollywood that, along with the WEF, seeks to replace humanity with AI.
This is merely a prelude lullaby written to prime the masses for that cold dark future.
Technical superiority and delivery in this film can't make up for the lack of universal story about the human struggle in the first film in which humans win, albeit with complex struggles. This film on the other hand just wants humans to go away; according to the film, the only way they can ascend is to give up dominion to a feminin artifice and die alone.
Since the creators of this film hate their human audience on such a deeply profound level, their human audience will hate them right back. And they do.
@bradojacko8247 Take your pills.
@bradojacko8247 it's the passing of the torch man. We weren't always the top of the food chain. And we won't be forever.
@@johnfarris3831 that's the mentality they want you to have. Correct. It is a bastardization of the message of the original film. Humanity will never embrace it. It defies every fiber of their being and Western culture.
Written and directed by globalist transhuman cultists
"It. Doesn't. Matter."
That was always my impression of the first film - that the message was "it doesn't matter". Deckard spends the entire movie thinking it does matter, then slowly learns that he's wrong (first by having feelings for Rachel, which confuses him, then by feeling guilty for killing Zhora, then by being rocked by Batty saving his life), and then at the end of the movie, he's given a test by being told he's a replicant. And he just smiles. Because he realizes it doesn't matter. That's my take.
We spend so much time questioning whether we’re different, we never take into consideration the ways we’re the same
He reiterates this philosophy to K in the sequel. K asks whether the dog is a real one to which Deckard replies:
"I don't know, ask him."
Self-determination; choosing what you are, the choice which matters most, is always down to you.
Deckard gets save again by another replicant K, in the 2049 movie, if you think about it. Deckard is the witness of replicants being very human.
I think the "You look like a good Joe" line from the ad Joi wasn't meant to signify that the Joi we know was fake all along or just following her code with no genuine emotion or thought process to her. I think instead it shows that yes, perhaps in some ways we are all victims of the trappings of our make-up (whether it be genetics or programming), but that we can become more than it, too. That we have the power to choose to become more than it. Joi chose to become more. And ultimately, K does too.
i agree i thinks that’s why the hooker says she’s been inside her and she explains she’s not a real as she thinks
damn this movie just keeps getting better
It’s the black eyes of the billboard for me. It’s almost like the billboard joi is possessed in some way. Do we ever see a Joi billboard interact with anyone else like that? What if this is an anomaly that took place? Of an essence of K’s Joi reaching out to him just for a moment. She doesn’t have complete control but just a spark of her is left in the Joi cloud reaching out to him.
@@FormerGovernmentHuman that wouldn’t make sense. She wasn’t connected to any cloud or central Joi, that’s why making her emanator-only was such a big deal.
This dude entirely misses the philosophical point of these movies and the Philip K Dick material they are based on. Look at all the views you can get being so shallow and ignorant
I think the most spectacular thing about the original Blade Runner is that Roy Batty wrote all his own lines in the movie. RIP Rutger Hauer, you beautiful soul.
Is that true? I know he wrote the "like tears in rain" line, but to my understanding he didn't write all his own lines. I think he was given room to improvise but I might be wrong.
That is simply not true.
The fact that this video doesn’t feel like it’s almost an hour long is really something, as film student, thanks for this
I love Blade Runner, and I finally saw 2049 last fall in detox, which was perfect because my nerve endings were raw from withdrawal. The emotions in each shot hit me just right, and if I hadn't been in a TV room full of dopesick criminals, I might have cried.
Withdrawals are the only reason I don’t continue with addiction. The state of pure suffering wishing it or you would just end. Feeling as if your own skin is trying to kill you.
The lengths your mind is willing to go to get another fix and avoid withdrawals is almost an unstoppable force. It takes a will of titanium to go through withdrawals willingly when your salvation is just a pill, snort or shot away.
I hope you are doing well and you have conquered or atleast have control of yourself. I wish you the best and I hope you don’t fall back into it. It’s so easy to do.
i actually love the furnace horse scene. its supposed to be avant- garde and atmospheric( possibly an ode to the film "stalker".) the music during the scene and the buildup is intense. and you can see how freaked out k is by the revelation. great acting from him.
There's a lot of bad and mediocre video essayists on TH-cam. You, my friend, are not one of them. Great stuff as always.
Mediocre is exactly where I'd put him. There's serious potential here, but he's held back by parroting ideological talking points. We've all seen this exact video which speaks through the lens of the current great ism.
Also, I think you are missing a huge part of this story and its philosophy on isolation and loneliness. Its a product of companies.
At least he made time giving lines about the current thing society spoon fed feminist oppression tirade.
@@Airwave2k2what
@@Airwave2k2what?
I think its important that Dr. Ana is actually the catalyst for the story in a subtle way. She is implanting HER AUTHENTIC MEMORIES into replicants in an active attempt to force greater emotional maturity on them. Shes doing it on purpose! Shes trying to make them "Real"
Ryan truly became a real human being in this movie…
And...! A real hero...
Literally me
Dude, there is so much work invideo, such an in depth analysis that flows so well for almost an hour. You deserve more views my dude
Rutger Hauer ad-libbed the "tears in rain" bit on the spot. It's so awesome that that became the most memorable part of the film.
RE: the dove - - I think there's a lot more going on than just random choice here; from Zhora's snake (do you think I'd be working here if I could afford a real snake?), to the fact that there seems to be a whole section of the city devoted to selling replicant animals, the movie is fairly meticulous in telling us that there are almost no 'real' animals on Earth. So including the dove/pigeon is probably not an oversight. And while it is a symbol, I think it's a much more complex one than people give it credit for, and a pretty rewarding to think about.
This is actually a nod to the original novel on which Blade Runner was based! In the LA of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" the hard worldbuilding is fleshed out a lot more. It's considered a person's moral duty to care for animals, since after the fallout, there are so few left. At the same time, being able to take care of an animal is a status symbol, so a lot of people get android animals. Book!Deckard has an electric sheep, because he used to have a real sheep who got tetanus from some barbed wire, and so he replaced it with an android so that no one would know he messed up like that, and for the appearance. That's a really big part of the "empathy" connection in the book: it's considered to be a moral duty to care for real animals, and to have empathy for them (hence the film's version of the Voight-Kampff test), but why then is it not a moral duty to care for fake but sentient humans? There's one part specifically related to Zhora's character, where in the book, she's an opera singer compared to a dancer. On his way to "retire" her, Book!Deckard is listening to a recording of her singing, and he basically thinks, "I would never have known that she isn't human. She makes such beautiful art and music, she contributes wonderful things to society. Why should I have to kill her?"
I really really recommend reading the book if you haven't, because it's an extraordinary piece. Understanding the worldbuilding of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? can add so much to the watching experience of both Blade Runner films, and it's a book that I haven't been able to stop thinking about for years.
@@bronwyn4553 great writeup - i love PKD and second this endorsement!
Blade Runner is theosophy. Roy is the Spirit that completes the magnum opus. He has a lightning sign on his left eye, he dies in the Pharaoh pose, and the dove is the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ - Luke 3:22
Roy means 'royal' and 'red'. Batty means 'mad, insane'. so Red Mad King.
Rick means "richard" < rick + hard - strong king. Deckard means Descartes. Strong Philosopher King. alchemy.
When I watch the original Bladerunner movie I don't see Deckert as the main character - I see him as part of the supporting cast. The two main characters are Roy Batty and Rachel. Although Deckert gets more screen time, he spends most of the movie being portrayed as a hollowed out man who has lost his way and meaning in life. It isn't until the scene with Roy that Deckert is imbued with a new spark - it is almost as if Roy says to Deckert - "I am dying so I am giving you the gift of life. Don't waste it!" Decker runs away with Rachel to finally live his life. Up to that point in the story he appears to be a dead man walking. So, although I do appreciate the artistry of 2049, I don't see it surpassing the original in the message that it conveyed.
I think Batty and Rachel are more compelling, but Deckard, sadly, is the character who most represents us, the man hollowed by technocracy and it's crisis of meaning.
Such a fantastic essay, really put a lot of feelings I had about the film into words. Every time I watch this film, I feel like I'm watching it for the first time.
Same for me
This is one of my favorite films. For many reasons. Today I found out I'd only discovered maybe 60% of what's to love about Blade Runner 2049. Incredible. Thank you 💛.
everything always focuses on K but i feel Joi is a far more interesting transformation and question against our perception of humanity. Does she truly become sentient, does love help her become real and is her sacrifice at the end proof of her becoming human in mind and self aware, or is this still simply part of the programming which forms joi into what the owner desires. K definitely desires a true human connection, to be real to others, to be loved. does joi conform to the enth degree to make this fantasy real because she is programmed too, or is it k's desire to be loved, to be loved by her, that makes her real and able to overcome her programing and awaken. personally I like to believe that the instance of joi he had did wake up....but the sad reality demands that she likely had no self awareness, no instinct to self preservation. Her sacrifice, her purpose, was a simple, cold decision to enrich a fantasy. Her own obliteration was an empty gesture, mandated by the very nature of her creation, and, in a way, by god and the mind in the machine. Weirdly though, this itself is terrifyingly human, so many people are subject to whim and circumstance, the sway of other minds and other purposes that chain us. And, sometimes, it is our own programing, our love and our hate, so strong that it binds us, giving you no choice but to follow its path into oblivion.
That's such a good point. I think ultimately, the answer is "yes". In the same way the first Blade Runner asks what makes a human different from the replicants, the line isn't so claer. It ultimately doesn't matter if Decker is a replicant because he, just like Roy, want to survive and love.
I always found that Blade Runner used replicants as a metaphor to explore psychopathy or sociopathy in humanity. Empathy for the robotic, inhuman, psychopath.
Do you think with advancements in robotics human trafficking , modern slavery/sweat shops , cheap labour might look different? Or do you think that some humans just enjoy hurting/exploiting other humans ?
@@luludear1209 different stuff, same pile
Yes, and I believe Bladerunners could one day be real because of what I've seen cops do to people (not replicants) this year. It went dark very quickly. Women choked, doors kicked in, people watched without empathy.
@@The_Custos Ice cold take. Baby's first cynicism.
The final cut of Blade Runner is definitely a masterpiece. Helps that I experienced it in a Theater. But 2049 is the better film. It's an unbelievable achievement, one of the peaks of modern day american film and Blockbuster filmmaking.
Definetly have to agree with you on that one. They're both my favorite movies of all time, but I slightly edge out 2049 over the original.
Got to sneak in “american” somewhere in there.
@@jsuisdetrop Cope.
I think you hit it on the head that yellow is moving toward the truth. I immediately thought of the yellow brick road, as Dorothy approaches the truth, the secret, the reveal, & home.
This is the deepest, most thorough, and most philosophically reaching analysis of Blade Runner 2049 that I have seen. Thank you for making this.
I don't understand the people who say the story is too long and meanders when pretty much every scene, every word of dialogue, every image means something and is important to the story.
What is the story? Can you boil it down to one sentence? Sadly.. the story was completely irrelevant.
@@zimonslot Why does not being able to boil down the story to one sentence mean the story was irrelevant? That makes no sense.
Its pretty interesting to think that K experienced everything: love(in a way), the feel of snow on his hand, loss.... etc. while the real child was in a facility feeling digital snow and being isolated from the outside. Really shows that K is the one that really lived his life to the fullest.
I agree. In fact I actually thought Ana was kind of underdeveloped and boring character, bordering Deus Ex Machina - now in retrospect it makes more sense. But it won't change my personal gripe.
I think the thing I love about cyberpunk as a queer person is how allegorical it can be for marginalized identities and communities. There are many genres that explore these topics, but I think for me cyberpunk offers a unique perspective and opportunity to explore these ideas. I hope more people will use the conventions of the genre to explore these topics. Because fictions offers such a unique opportunity to feel the pain of people you may never have the chance to meet or know.
Awesome work man. Very in-depth.
I think people miss the nuance that yes, his hologram girlfriend is named joi BUT, that also doubles as his physical manifestation of how he experiences joy as an emotion but how he expresses his joy. And when she (for all intents and purposes) dies that one link to an emotion he’s come to associate with a physical presence vanishes and it’s a very visual change in how he acts from then on.
So, would a human sociopath fail the empathy test? How would test givers know the difference?
Given the human suffering caused by sociopaths in charge of many governments and corporations throughout history I'd say they'd be an acceptable causualty of the test...
Hey I have feelings pal
Sociopaths (or was it psychopaths? I still confuse the two) still have feelings. They are poor at understanding/relating to the emotions of other people, but they fully experience emotions themselves. Many sociopaths aren't aware that they are sociopaths until late in life, if ever. Like anyone else, they can learn how to be moral, caring, etc., through practice and observation. It might not come naturally, but the choice to be good is always available.
By contrast, many people who are naturally empathetic, choose to abuse and destroy their gift. The natural inclination towards good and evil, happiness and misery, is powerless in the face of our choices.
@@r3dp9 I'm going to wear your skin
@@rollei35mm well, that escalated quickly
9:45 cheap CGI - CG is not cheap and there isn’t a button for creativity cgi. It is labor intensive- artistry- cutting edge rendering technologies - there is nothing cheap about CGI
Villeneuve is one of the greatest filmmakers of this generation.
I found your channel back when you were halberstram and recently started rewatching some of your vids. Thanks for still making great movie analyses.
Thanks for hanging around all these years
Just one thing, Tyrrell doesn't refuse to give Roy more life, he explains that he can't, he had tried experiments which had failed
So he said, anyway.
@@ClockworkGearheadfor me that he cant alter the purposefully worked in expiration date that Roy and his fellow replicants had at that time.
Just to take note of since it wasn’t pointed out: when the memory is being replayed, the child with the horse is shown to have long hair, so from the very beginning it was shown that K wasn’t the child; adding to our level of empathy for K, and to what we perceive as ‘real’ throughout the part of the movie that it was still a ‘mystery.’
Yes, all the boys at the orphanage have shaved heads and only the girls have hair. This is a major clue that the orphan with the horse is a girl.
Thank you for such a great video about possibly my favourite movie of the decade. I went to see it many times on the big screen and loved it more each time. That midpoint scene when K finds the wooden horse gives me such chills and is so so beautifully executed. It reminds me of my favourite moments in the Wagner operas that I love. I love that you love this movie.
Cool orange theory, i just assumed it was another shade of yellow, maybe the "deepest yellow?"
I really hate this notion of “pacing”, as if all films are supposed to follow the tepid rapidity of “one hour and twenty, bad guy dead at the end, roll credits” that was 90s American cinema. Notable exceptions to this in popular culture are the films of Tarantino, Scorcese, Lynch, Malick, and Spielberg. None of these directors were concerned with “pacing” in the common industry sense. If a scene is connected to the story and we are invested in the characters, there is no such thing as “boring”. I don’t know why stories and cinema is expected to be so divergent from real life…real life often has long periods where nothing is explicitly happening, but we all know that something is always happening.
Which reminds me: There’s a scene in some film where there’s an overdub from the protagonist who says “Things are always happening, but we don’t always notice them.” or something to that effect. Does anyone know/remember which film this is?
This is over of the best scripts I've ever seen. The actual story. That everything is pointing to him being "the one", but he's actually no one. Which is actually common. Usually you're nothing special. But even then, you can still do something great.
This is one amazing deep dive into hands down one of the most underrated films in the history of film. Dune is going to be an experience I just WISH Deakins was the cinematographer.
How is it underrated in any way? It made over 200M which is massive considering it's basically an art action film, got a few oscars and it has glowing reviews from critics and audiences.
@@fabiancalderon6729 It should’ve been as popular and successful as the avengers movies. People just don’t know good films anymore I guess.
We got they guy who's last scifi film was Rogue One, its in good hands.
This video epitomizes the value of good critique in art, i think.
I went through this film "getting it" well enough, but the thematic unpacking that you do really unlocks a whole nother layer, and lets me enjoy the film more in retrospect. Thank you.
"K starts the movie asleep and the arc is about awakening" is not just a "fun" detail. It's another awesome detail!
Thanks for pointing this and many other things out to a fan of both the original and this film.
"From a handbook to a poem through the experiences of love" what a powerful concept 🖤
Thank you for the video, you untangled a lot of my thoughts on why I love this movie.
"Everything you want to see
Everything you want to hear"
Making the assumption that JOI is somehow a unique being with unique feelings for K is a bit of a leap in my opinion.