Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Most of the killing in Blade Runner 2049 makes sense only in a movie. Killing in Blade Runner [1982] made perfect sense in both a real world and a movie. That is huge difference between those two films.

In the 1982 Blade Runner, the replicants are illegally in LA to live longer than 4 years. To learn the secret of how to extend their lives, they kill employees of the Tyrell Corp. The Blade Runner, Harrison Ford, kills the replicants one by one. He is especially motivated to kill when the replicants try to kill him. All the killing has powerful real world motivations, the world we live in. On the other hand, most of the killings in Blade Runner 2049 don’t have a reasonable motivation outside of a movie. It is killing to make a rhetorical point or to entertain the audience. For example, every time that industrialist Wallace kills one of his replicants, he is killing to make a point to someone he is talking to. It is never because the replicant deserves to die.

The following scene didn’t make it into the movie, but it shows Wallace again killing a replicant to make a point with an audience. Wallace treats the replicant as if it had no more value than a piece of toilet paper. Remember Tyrell, the replicant builder from the first Blade Runner? Tyrell talked to his replicants. He answered their questions with care. He didn’t kill them to score a point in a movie. He treated his replicants as if they were valuable, at least monetarily, exactly how a real industrialist would treat his products in the real world. Wallace was as unreal as a villain in a stupidly violent comic book, killing for the dumbest reasons of Hollywood movies.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Didn't K only terminate replicants which killed humans?
Wasn't one of the points of Blade runner that terminating a replicants was not considered "killing" anyhow?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

About every scene with Wallace or his minions seemed to underline that he was despicable. Not sure how his treatment of his production units changes that. Did you feel terminating replicants was different than killing Joi?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Didn't K only terminate replicants which killed humans?
Wasn't one of the points of Blade runner that terminating a replicants was not considered "killing" anyhow?

---

K’s first kill in the movie was a farmer who had been peacefully living in the same location, working a job, for 29 years. K beat the farmer without mercy, ignored his famous last words about never seeing a miracle, shot him twice, then cut out his eyeball for identification. Later, K looks at the farmer’s police record. The farmer’s only crime was being a runaway slave.

---

Quote:

---

But Joi is not a human. Joi is a hologram or, latter in the movie, a flickering semisolid.

Select to view spoiler:

---

Joi was turned off permanently, but that is not killing Joi. She was never alive.

---

She is broken electronics recycled at Best Buy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Well, looks like we agree that replicants are not human, and Joi is not human.
I'm not sure if you and I saw the same film.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Well, looks like we agree that replicants are not human, and Joi is not human.
I'm not sure if you and I saw the same film.

---

I not only saw the film, I have a copy of it, so I think I've got a huge advantage over you about what the film is about. I can look at any scene as many times as I want. And we do NOT agree about replicants. They are NOT "soulless units". At least not all replicants. And some humans are soulless, Wallace for one example. How those humans ruined themselves is always a dramatic story. I know more than a few real humans that are missing some essential parts of their soul. That is one of the points that Philip K Dick was making in his writing career -- not every human holds on to their humanity.

I'll add that the film deserves all the admiration it has received. Now if it could have put different words in the actors' mouths, it would have been a greater movie. There is an interesting article about the various titles the movie could have had. Choosing the right words makes all the difference in the world.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/blade-runner-2049-was-almost-called-something-
much-muc-1819400590

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?

---

I can't answer any of those questions because the movie is completely imaginary (no scientist from our world can get inside the movie and run experiments). All your questions have flexible answers, depending on who answers them, but there certainly are two rock solid stories in the two Blade Runner movies, stories that are cast in concrete, at least until the directors issue alternative cuts. The first Blade Runner is on version 7. The second Blade Runner might get an alternate cut, some day.

The first rock solid story:

The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secret of eternal life, the replicants kill employees of the company that built them, Tyrell Corp. Eventually the replicants kill Mr. Tyrell in frustration that he, their Maker, can't extend their lives past 4 years. In pretty straight forward story telling, Harrison Ford kills replicants because they are murderers. Every killing makes sense. There is no killing just to be killing. I think everyone can agree on what I wrote without throwing in speculation about whether or not replicants have human souls.

Mister Tyrell seems to be a sharp guy, but he made a very bad design mistake: only experts can tell a replicant from a human. There would not be a movie if Tyrell had built his replicants to be easily identifiable. Tyrell could have given replicants a T shaped head, T for Tyrell. The replicants would look like hammerhead sharks, but you could tell them from humans a mile away. There would be no way for replicants to blend in with the human, no way for replicants to run free on Earth. And no need for experts to identify replicants – no Blade Runners.

The second rock solid story:

The second Blade Runner movie cannot have Mister Tyrell return because he was murdered. His replacement is the industrialist Wallace. Wallace is still making replicants that look exactly human, except to an expert. Wallace learned nothing from Tyrell’s murder, other than to have lots and lots of bodyguards to protect himself from runaway replicants who still look exactly like humans. Tyrell had no bodyguards because he was sane. Wallace, played by the actor who was The Joker, is as crazy as The Joker, who had plenty of henchmen to protect himself. There are plenty of murders in the second Blade Runner, all because Wallace is nuts.

The second Blade Runner movie forgot to explain why replicants built by Mister Tyrell with a 4 year life are secretly living on Earth to be 30 years old. I guess it is because Ryan Gosling, the second blade runner, needs targets to kill. It doesn't make sense that Tyrell's replicants are old men, but the scriptwriters need somebody for Gosling to kill before he starts killing Wallace's very obedient, newer replicants, which only kill on Wallace's commands.

The ending the movie needed was Harrison Ford killing Wallace. Maybe that will be in the Director's cut. I'd pay for a ticket to see Wallace dead.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?

---

I can't answer any of those questions because the movie is completely imaginary (no scientist from our world can get inside the movie and run experiments). All your questions have flexible answers, depending on who answers them, but there certainly are two rock solid stories in the two Blade Runner movies, stories that are cast in concrete, at least until the directors issue alternative cuts. The first Blade Runner is on version 7. The second Blade Runner might get an alternate cut, some day.

The first rock solid story:

The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secret of eternal life, the replicants kill employees of the company that built them, Tyrell Corp. Eventually the replicants kill Mr. Tyrell in frustration that he, their Maker, can't extend their lives past 4 years. In pretty straight forward story telling, Harrison Ford kills replicants because they are murderers. Every killing makes sense. There is no killing just to be killing. I think everyone can agree on what I wrote without throwing in speculation about whether or not replicants have human souls.

Mister Tyrell seems to be a sharp guy, but he made a very bad design mistake: only experts can tell a replicant from a human. There would not be a movie if Tyrell had built his replicants to be easily identifiable. Tyrell could have given replicants a T shaped head, T for Tyrell. The replicants would look like hammerhead sharks, but you could tell them from humans a mile away. There would be no way for replicants to blend in with the human, no way for replicants to run free on Earth. And no need for experts to identify replicants – no Blade Runners.

The second rock solid story:

The second Blade Runner movie cannot have Mister Tyrell return because he was murdered. His replacement is the industrialist Wallace. Wallace is still making replicants that look exactly human, except to an expert. Wallace learned nothing from Tyrell’s murder, other than to have lots and lots of bodyguards to protect himself from runaway replicants who still look exactly like humans. Tyrell had no bodyguards because he was sane. Wallace, played by the actor who was The Joker, is as crazy as The Joker, who had plenty of henchmen to protect himself. There are plenty of murders in the second Blade Runner, all because Wallace is nuts.

The second Blade Runner movie forgot to explain why replicants built by Mister Tyrell with a 4 year life are secretly living on Earth to be 30 years old. I guess it is because Ryan Gosling, the second blade runner, needs targets to kill. It doesn't make sense that Tyrell's replicants are old men, but the scriptwriters need somebody for Gosling to kill before he starts killing Wallace's very obedient, newer replicants, which only kill on Wallace's commands.

The ending the movie needed was Harrison Ford killing Wallace. Maybe that will be in the Director's cut. I'd pay for a ticket to see Wallace dead.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

could you put spoiler alert in appropriate places?

You seemed so certain replicants had souls. Now you seem less sure.
Backpedalling?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Apparently it had a disappointing opening Box Office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

could you put spoiler alert in appropriate places?

You seemed so certain replicants had souls. Now you seem less sure.
Backpedalling?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
It's at the break-even stage ($150M Budget); it's made $158.6M worldwide -
Domestic: $60.6M
Foreign: $98M

In 10 days time since it's release. My guess is that the running time, 2 hours 45 minutes might have something to do with it. I found it overly long, it could have been a 1/2 hour shorter. And, it could have been better written as far as dialogue goes.

The best work came from the actress who played Joi (Ana De Armas) she was totally captivating and engrossing as the hologram with the heart of gold.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Apparently it had a disappointing opening Box Office.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I just saw the film this afternoon (Sunday) and I found it interesting, but somewhat of a letdown in terms of overall story. I think that the premise of this movie was the question of the existence of the soul; but not just in replicants, but in humans and A.I.

K's investigation and tracking down of the "miracle child," but also other replicants brought into question: Do you need a soul to love or to hunt down and kill sentient beings? Do you need to be human to exhibit human characteristics? JOI with her caring for K, who seemed to be in total obedience to Madam; mainly because he was programmed to be. But was he totally obedient?

Select to view spoiler:

---

Set aside the irrational killings that took place (the movie's one main flaw was the behavior of Wallace toward his creations - that part for me was somewhat unclear; I thought at one time that he took over Tyrell's corporation as a business investment, but he did speak of creating millions of replicants that were more to his liking. He was both psychotic madman and forward thinking businessman)

---

To me, Wallace, as a villain, went too far over the top for there to be any soulsearching (pun intended) on the part of the audience as to his motives within that world, while on the other hand, we did care about K's "feelings" about his role in all of this (within the world depicted on the screen). I got more from his interactions with Joi and Madam, than at any other point in the film.

Select to view spoiler:

---

Madam wanted to keep "order" and demanded obedience from K; which kind of confused me a bit because he was programmed to be obedient. Was there history between these two regarding "following orders?" That seemed to be hinted at with every meeting she had with K

---

Wallace was a soulless, evil bastard; a madman.

Select to view spoiler:

---

The film suggested that perhaps he lacked very thing that both K and Joi had: empathy, which connotes having a soul, or a thinking feeling being. Both Wallace and his Killer Girl Bot "Luv" the soulless creatures; while Joi and K represented the more human-like beings in the film. At least the Killer Bot Girl had a reason why she was killing - she was under orders. Although she did seem to enjoy her work - the look on her face when she terminated Joi said it all

---

Select to view spoiler:

---

I was also left wanting regarding this supposed war between the "old" replicants and the newer models. To me, there seemed to be a disconnect with the background plot and the main plot - finding this "miracle child" - to what purpose? I know that the police lieutenant wanted her "retired" to prevent a panic among the humans; but I wasn't sure of Wallace's motives to find the child.

---

The film posed some serious questions as to human behavior and what constitutes the makings of a soul. But I agree, better writing would have delivered a masterpiece - like the near miss in Arrival. That was a much better movie, IMHO.

SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

which replicants have a soul?
Were they manufactured with a soul?
Was a soul an option or upgrade?
Were only Wallace replicants allowed to have a soul?
Or only Tyrell replicants?
Or either?
What other manufactured products have souls?
Does Joi have a soul?

---

I can't answer any of those questions because the movie is completely imaginary (no scientist from our world can get inside the movie and run experiments). All your questions have flexible answers, depending on who answers them, but there certainly are two rock solid stories in the two Blade Runner movies, stories that are cast in concrete, at least until the directors issue alternative cuts. The first Blade Runner is on version 7. The second Blade Runner might get an alternate cut, some day.

The first rock solid story:

The first Blade Runner has replicants seeking longer lives. Searching for the secret of eternal life, the replicants kill employees of the company that built them, Tyrell Corp. Eventually the replicants kill Mr. Tyrell in frustration that he, their Maker, can't extend their lives past 4 years. In pretty straight forward story telling, Harrison Ford kills replicants because they are murderers. Every killing makes sense. There is no killing just to be killing. I think everyone can agree on what I wrote without throwing in speculation about whether or not replicants have human souls.

Mister Tyrell seems to be a sharp guy, but he made a very bad design mistake: only experts can tell a replicant from a human. There would not be a movie if Tyrell had built his replicants to be easily identifiable. Tyrell could have given replicants a T shaped head, T for Tyrell. The replicants would look like hammerhead sharks, but you could tell them from humans a mile away. There would be no way for replicants to blend in with the human, no way for replicants to run free on Earth. And no need for experts to identify replicants – no Blade Runners.

The second rock solid story:

The second Blade Runner movie cannot have Mister Tyrell return because he was murdered. His replacement is the industrialist Wallace. Wallace is still making replicants that look exactly human, except to an expert. Wallace learned nothing from Tyrell’s murder, other than to have lots and lots of bodyguards to protect himself from runaway replicants who still look exactly like humans. Tyrell had no bodyguards because he was sane. Wallace, played by the actor who was The Joker, is as crazy as The Joker, who had plenty of henchmen to protect himself. There are plenty of murders in the second Blade Runner, all because Wallace is nuts.

The second Blade Runner movie forgot to explain why replicants built by Mister Tyrell with a 4 year life are secretly living on Earth to be 30 years old. I guess it is because Ryan Gosling, the second blade runner, needs targets to kill. It doesn't make sense that Tyrell's replicants are old men, but the scriptwriters need somebody for Gosling to kill before he starts killing Wallace's very obedient, newer replicants, which only kill on Wallace's commands.

---

could you put spoiler alert in appropriate places?

You seemed so certain replicants had souls. Now you seem less sure.
Backpedalling?

---

---

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

The director did well to not spoon feed us. SGG, you indicated you were originally disappointed with Arrival because it was not what you expected. Have you considered that, again with BR2049 the Director has slipped past you a more subtle storytelling than you had expected? Should you be more open to what the Director is gifting you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Don't you think the primary purpose of this story was for empathy with K to help understand the conundrum of this:

Select to view spoiler:

---

Like Deckard, and Rachel, they did not know if they were human or replicants - but each had the impression they were human. Copying the reversal of Terminator -> T2, now the impression of K is that he is replicant, but the story implores us to conjure whether he truly is or not, if he might be the missing piece of the puzzle.

---

---

My response:

Select to view spoiler:

---

My thought about the story was what makes us human, what constitutes the soul. K was a replicant, that much I understood as the story unfolded. His reactions to human, especially in the BR precinct, and his interactions with the Lieutenant gave me the impression that he knew that much himself. He was conditioned to act and react as a replicant. But then came the existence of the Miracle Child and his thoughts went to "could I be?"

It was, for my taste, a very subtle suggestion that affected his investigation and reactions throughout the film. An interesting concept and way to adjust the audience's focus. Yes, empathy...a human trait, that rarely escapes some of us. The ability to feel for others. K was just that type of replicant, and so Villeneuve put forth the question and dangled the thought of a replicant with human traits and the possibility that he, K, may be the Golden Child. He held out hope that maybe, just maybe he was the one.
So yes, the film took into account the theme of the first and the director conjured a story to further the original's concept of AI adaptation to being human, but also of not knowing for sure.

---

Oops...

Select to view spoiler:

---

Perhaps upon a second and third look I will come to appreciate the subtleties Villeneuve wove into BR2049. Somehow I got the notion that this was a noirish and slightly askew "Pinocchio" - the puppet who wanted to be a little boy; with Deckard as "Poppa Geppetto."

---

Quote:

---

The director did well to not spoon feed us. SGG, you indicated you were originally disappointed with Arrival because it was not what you expected. Have you considered that, again with BR2049 the Director has slipped past you a more subtle storytelling than you had expected? Should you be more open to what the Director is gifting you?

---

In giving this film more thought, perhaps I should hold judgement until I've seen it a few more times. But I think you have a point, because there were so many subtle moments and motifs sprinkled throughout the film (the main reason why I was excited to see this movie once I knew Villeneuve was involved). His direction and vision in Arrival, and in this film, had a very visceral and ethereal quality to it. Like a thin veil over a woman's face; you could just about percieve the outline of her face, but not quite. He drops breadcrumbs along the way, and you never quite know which way he'll scamper. I like that, but just enough to keep our interest otherwise we'll tire and give up the hunt.

SGG

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Has Blade Runner 2049's failure killed off the smart sci-fi blockbuster?

www.theguardian.com/film/2017/nov/14/blade-runner-2049-killed-the-smar
t-sci-fi-blockbuster-denis-villeneuve

Despite fantastic reviews, Denis Villeneuve’s brainy, big-budget sequel has not made enough money to launch a new universe at the multiplex.

Unfortunately, reports that Blade Runner rights holder Alcon Entertainment could lose up to $80m on Villeneuve’s epic don’t bode well for the prospect of follow-up films. BR 2049 has so far racked up $240.6m at the global box office, a long way short of the $400m it apparently requires to break even, once marketing costs are taken into consideration. The news comes as a shock, because when a tentpole genre movie is as well reviewed as Villeneuve’s film, we expect it to do good business. The three most critically acclaimed science fiction and fantasy movies of 2017 so far are Wonder Woman, Thor: Ragnarok and Logan, all of which performed well at cinemas.

The obvious difference here is that Blade Runner 2049 is a muscular-yet-cerebral science-fiction thriller rather than a superhero flick, which perhaps explains its disappointing reach. There has been very little like it in multiplexes since Alex Garland’s Ex Machina in 2014 or Villeneuve’s own Arrival last year (and neither of those cost even a third of BR 2049’s staggering $155m budget).

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves quite why BR 2049 cost so much to make when TV shows such as Westworld and Humans are meeting the needs of smart sci-fi fans on the small screen for a fraction of the cost.

Villeneuve and screenwriters Hampton Fancher and Michael Green have been hoping to answer all questions raised by Blade Runner 2049 in future instalments. Certainly BR 2049, despite being relatively self-contained, would have made an enticing first instalment in an eventual trilogy. Both Fancher and Green have admitted dreaming of sequels to answer questions such as: What do the off-world colonies look like? Are replicants the next stage in human evolution, or merely useful gifts for the 21st-century sociopath who has everything?hi

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Don't you think the primary purpose of this story was for empathy with K to help understand the conundrum of this:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

---

Like Deckard, and Rachel, they did not know if they were human or replicants - but each had the impression they were human. Copying the reversal of Terminator -> T2, now the impression of K is that he is replicant, but the story implores us to conjure whether he truly is or not, if he might be the missing piece of the puzzle.

---

My response:

Select to view spoiler:

---

My thought about the story was what makes us human, what constitutes the soul. K was a replicant, that much I understood as the story unfolded. His reactions to human, especially in the BR precinct, and his interactions with the Lieutenant gave me the impression that he knew that much himself. He was conditioned to act and react as a replicant. But then came the existence of the Miracle Child and his thoughts went to "could I be?"

It was, for my taste, a very subtle suggestion that affected his investigation and reactions throughout the film. An interesting concept and way to adjust the audience's focus. Yes, empathy...a human trait, that rarely escapes some of us. The ability to feel for others. K was just that type of replicant, and so Villeneuve put forth the question and dangled the thought of a replicant with human traits and the possibility that he, K, may be the Golden Child. He held out hope that maybe, just maybe he was the one.
So yes, the film took into account the theme of the first and the director conjured a story to further the original's concept of AI adaptation to being human, but also of not knowing for sure.

---

Oops...

Select to view spoiler:

---

Perhaps upon a second and third look I will come to appreciate the subtleties Villeneuve wove into BR2049. Somehow I got the notion that this was a noirish and slightly askew "Pinocchio" - the puppet who wanted to be a little boy; with Deckard as "Poppa Geppetto."

---

Quote:

---

The director did well to not spoon feed us. SGG, you indicated you were originally disappointed with Arrival because it was not what you expected. Have you considered that, again with BR2049 the Director has slipped past you a more subtle storytelling than you had expected? Should you be more open to what the Director is gifting you?

---

In giving this film more thought, perhaps I should hold judgement until I've seen it a few more times. But I think you have a point, because there were so many subtle moments and motifs sprinkled throughout the film (the main reason why I was excited to see this movie once I knew Villeneuve was involved). His direction and vision in Arrival, and in this film, had a very visceral and ethereal quality to it. Like a thin veil over a woman's face; you could just about percieve the outline of her face, but not quite. He drops breadcrumbs along the way, and you never quite know which way he'll scamper. I like that, but just enough to keep our interest otherwise we'll tire and give up the hunt.

SGG

---