Wut?  I don’t believe you. Do you mean Blade Runner (1982)?

Hmmm maybe. I thought that speech wasn't about each of the replicants in the underground thinking they were each "the one" (as in Deckard's/Rachael's offspring) but instead wishing they were simply special in some way other than being just another replicant off an assembly line. Kinda like how all the little snowflakes in the world today can't handle the reality that they are just another human in a mass of billions of humans, so each concocts ways/ideas to think themselves a special little snowflake.

K/Joe spent the moving wanting to be someone special (I think this is reinforced by what Joi keeps telling him, but she is programmed to do just that), and he begins to believe he is (when he thinks he is the first child born from replicant parents) only to find out he isn't. But in the end it is the choice he makes to save Deckard (after being told to kill him by the old one-eyed underground leader woman) and reunite Deckard with his [real] daughter that makes K/Joe special, and I think J/Joe dies comforted and at ease with himself knowing that. Anyway, was just my interpretation of it.

I watched about an hour of it after the football game last night, looks pretty good.
Working late tonight so I'll back it up tomorrow and watch it in its entirety.

That was where I was leaning. I don't think Stelline knows she is the offspring of two replicants, and her growing up to be a memory-maker (who sells memories to Wallace) and her real memory about hiding the horse toy ending up in a blade runner replicant was probably coincidental.

i need to watch this again.

i love the first one. it's in my top ten if not top five flicks. but the sequel was too overdone. it needed to be edited by at least 30 min. i couldn't help but think the director was stroking himself off during every scene. and honestly, i didn't see the big deal of the 'truth that would shock the world.'

there were a lot of things i did like about the flick. i need to give it a second go b/c jury's still out for me.

i will say i do hate a lot of movies, so the fact that i do want to see this again and it makes me think is good for me.

One replicant and one standard human.

Depending on which Blade Runner you think is the best version.
Scott's preferred version is the version where Deckard dreams of the unicorn, which makes him a replicant.

It is my preferred version as well.

FWIW, I got my Wallace Notification ringtone from here:
https://www.zedge.net/ringtone/1976014/
iPhone users will have to convert it first,,, I'm pretty sure,,, because I had to.

I use it for text messages, but use another 30 second version of the original Prokofiev piece for my ringtone

Jay

I liked it but need to watch it again.

Deckard is a repicant. Ridley Scott has stated so, and imbedded throughout the 1982 verion(s) are clues, most notably the dream Deckard has about a unicorn running through the wood and Graff knowing about this dream (evident by him leaving an origami unicorn in Deckard's room).

Here are a few more things that hint at Deckard being a replicant:
<div class="articleBodyText section" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Austin News Text Semibold", Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 10px;"><div class="article-body-text component  " style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 82.3333px;"><div class="component-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 16px; font-size: 1.7rem; line-height: 2.5rem; font-family: "Austin News Text Roman", Georgia, Times, serif;">

Not even that one is free.  Only a "making of"

You can buy a replica of the wood horse and a die cast Spinner Car though.

Who are you thinking was the father-replicant?

Deckard?

Yes. We know in the 1982 version replicants only lived 4 years, and Tyrell tells Roy (who wants more life than four years) that he [Tyrell] hasn't cracked the code per se on replicant longevity. But this is a lie, because we learn that Rachael is a new replicant version that has a long(er) life-span (and apparently as we discover in Blade Runner 2049 can bear children). This means Tyrell had cracked the code on replicant longevity (bolstered by the fact that replicants produced by the Wallace Corp lived longer). So it is possible Rachael wasn't one of a kind, and other replicants like her could have been manufactured by Tyrell. Also, if Tyrell had manufactured a female replicant that could live longer and bear children, we can suppose he may have manufactured a male that could also procreate. If so we can suppose Tyrell may have been able to manufacture replicants that could procreate together, but not procreate with a human (perhaps it was a physiological barrier, or moral one). Combined with the clues in Blade Runner, and Blade Runner 2049, that Deckard is a replicant, is gives credence to the idea that he is the father-replicant.

Deckard is the worst, weakest replicant ever, then.

Well, he does take quite a beating throughout Blade Runner (1982) and keeps on ticking (but then most action stars do ). So maybe not so weak. Also, perhaps he was specifically designed to be that way? Maybe is lack of replicant super human strength, speed, etc. was on purpose so he could be more like a human than any replicant before him.

Roy Batty was extremely strong, and extremely intelligent. AFAIAC, Decard could be a very smart detective, and very strong, if he was a Replicant.

And if Deckard was created in the Nexus 6 era, he should have expired long ago.

IIRC, villaneueve is on record saying that his film is based on the original cut, in which deckard is human.  the entire basis of the original is that a human (deckard) acts like a replicant, while the replicants act (tell me if you've heard this one) "more human than human".  his exposure to replicants causes the human to recognize their humanity, which allows him to reclaim his own.  while the unicorn gimmick is cute, it utterly destroys the theme of the movie.

that and the technical aspect--deckard is pathetically weak and stupid compared to actual replicants--really ought to doom the deckard-replicant concept for good.

And it's sort of the same twist they put into 2001: A Space Odyssey. Where the HAL 9000 has a ton of emotion and thought, and when he's "dieing" and begging for mercy. And the Astronauts are very "robotic", boring, and no facial expressions. lol

Okay!  Thanks for the threadjack.

Let’s not rehash this fucking argument. It’s irrelevant to anything.

Deckard was never a replicant until Ridley Scott wanted to sell copies of the Director's Cut. I've read every book on it and nobody involved in the movie nor the book had him as a replicant. The fact that they kept it ambiguous in 2049 was intentional since the director didn't want to just go with Ridley's version. Even Harrison Ford thought it was nonsense that Ridley said he was a replicant. The first movie also has a lot less meaning and makes less sense if he was a replicant.

It was supposed to be a big contention point between Scott and Ford during filming. Ford said something to the effect that the film didn't make sense to him if his character was a toaster.

The idea of Deckard being a replicant is almost as bad a plot twist as, "I am your father."

The whole point of the story is Deckard's coming to appreciate the humanity of the replicants. He comes to realize, They are us.

If Deckard is a replicant, then his big realization becomes, I am them... which is pointless, except in a cheap "Twilight Zone twist ending" sort of a way.

When he is going through the DNA files and Joi appears:  Did you catch the homage to Tyrell?

Joi:  I'm only two.  One and zero.
K:  Half as much, but twice as elegant.

Tyrell:  The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

I could be reading too much in to it.  But I think it was on purpose.

Ridley Scott is wrong, and even went so far as dumping in some scenes cut from Legend in later releases to prop up his own BS that no one else liked or agreed with (least of all Harrison Ford or the writers).

It's amazing when a director doesn't understand the story they're being tasked to tell, and especially when they double down against everyone else who is being tasked to tell that story.

http://www.forcesofgeek.com/2017/05/sorry-ridley-deckard-is-a-human.html

The whole point is Deckard coming to grips with the humanity he's lost; and that Roy Batty shows him in the end.

From a purely physical evidence in the movie level, Pris is quite literally a sex toy that can crush a man's head with her legs, not because she's built for killing, but because she's a replicant, and they're built strong.  Leon's a heavy duty model, Zhora's a kick murder badass, and Roy is a combat model, sure... and Deckard still gets his ass handed to him by Pris - who is a glorified ambulatory realdoll.

The only reasons those other two examples would be "cheap" or "bad" twists is only because they're decades old now and Twilight Zone & Star Wars are part of our collective culture.  They're standards.

The Voight Comp test is ridiculous in how thoroughly replicants express emotion.  They are so clearly us that it's inhuman not to see it.

Thus, the point of the film.

That dead horse beaten yet again...

2049 is good.  There are a couple little things that bothered me about it at the time, but not significantly enough to remember them.

The mobile emitter hologram girlfriend is great, even though it's a story tackled by sci-fi before, this has a more personal connection to how such a relationship would exist in real life and in a real world and less of a magic meeting table discussion "is the Doctor an EMH or a holographic life form?"

Does he predate Moriarty in TNG as well?

I rarely watched Red Dwarf... so I also don't know how often they bothered to address anything slightly seriously.

What am I missing with this movie?

We all seriously fell asleep at the movies over and over. And all the guys that went were in their early thirties.

I thought the original was good, but I walked out of the theater at the end of 2049 not really caring one bit about any of the characters. Is it worth re-watching or am part of the kids who "don't get it and never will?"

Nailed it.

Tried to - like Roy Batty's hand.  

Srsly, Scott's hubris is amazing.  Everyone knows he's wrong, from the audience to the writers to the cast, and yet he just keeps on going with it.

Best thing is the way he tried to jam in his wrong opinion is still ambiguous to an audience that connects with the rest of the film.  By using the unicorn detritus from Legend - the way to look at that is how people around her (Deckard & Gaff) are thinking of Rachel, who is a different type of replicant.  She is special; and Gaff's statement is about natural life, or retirement, not about a preprogrammed life span.

It's slow, and it takes its time.

The other thing that's odd in this is that the main characters are basically artificial.  K and Joi are both artificial life forms.  I'd say spoilers, but we're pretty deep in the thread... K thinks he's special, but finds out he's not, is crushed, but then overcomes his self-indulgence at thinking he's a beautiful and unique snowflake and acts in order to take care of others.  Joi is special - and the most human character, despite not even having a physical presence.  When your digi-waifu goes to the trouble of superimposing her hologram form over a hooker so you can have sex with her, that is clearly not within the regular programming done by the company that made her.  It makes Luv's murderous actions all the more harsh - and she's either got her own internal issues that are barely touched on (other than the crying during Wallace's dispatching of a sentient being) or she's just fucked up and every bit as callous and defective as Wallace.

It's a slow journey for the characters and it allows for the audience to adapt to the world.  The original Blade Runner was the same way.  We spend a lot of time just hanging out in the world, getting noodles, doing pervy "safety inspections" in the weirdest method of doing policework possible, and spend 30 minutes going "enhance 45 to 87" in a dingy apartment in a megacity that was the first ever seen on screens that looked like it did - and still holds up today.

2049 lingers in the world and tells a better story, but one that is intentionally anticlimactic partway through as we realize K isn't special how he thinks he is.  He is special - he's incredibly special to Joi, who's willing to sacrifice her existence just to stay with him.  Why does an android need or want a tamagotchi girl?  No reason for either of those things to have feelings or needs - but they're not things, they're sentient beings.

He becomes special and his life has meaning by his actions in reuniting Deckard with his daughter.  K has no magical destiny to be "the one" from the factory or from some replicant birth... he's just a good Joe who overcomes what his limitations may have been to do something right.  He's an understated character, but a good one.  Frankly, I was happy to see subversion of the "you are the chosen one" bullshit (usually accompanied by a "prophecy"), and done in a manner that reminds us most people aren't predestined magical beings, they're just people.  And this again goes to K's humanity.  He's totally one of us.  He's only special by what he does, but damned if that isn't important itself.

-

I did remember one of the little things that bugged me.  It's "little" in comparison to the whole story, but still fairly big.  Luv killing the police captain and expecting to walk out is pretty fucking crazy.  For all the "giant corporation" bullshit, this isn't Shadowrun where they're extraterritorial, and even there, a murderer like that is going to get wasted.  Luv's exit from that building would've ended up with Lance Henrikson and Paul Winfield and every other cop in that station laying rounds into her with M16s, and she is a replicant, not living tissue over a metal endoskeleton that can't be defeated with these primitive weapons (or a pipe bomb).  Doesn't matter how tough that skinjob thinks she is, there's going to be a building full of motherfuckers lined up to retire the fuck out of her.

It's a movie telling a story about the philosophical point "what is it to be human?"  If that's not interesting to you, you won't like the movie. Also, 30 year olds have not yet admitted they can't stay up late and do all the stuff they did in their 20's, so they fall asleep at movies.

I'd compare it to (sorry, starting a new spin off here) the Matrix Trilogy. There's a whole philosophical / world concept buried in all the action and each goofy scenery set the programs are running around in is an abstract concept put up on the screen. It doesn't get tied together until the last "father" discussion at the end of the third movie, and then you see the whole thing is just a reflection of other simulations that sometimes intersect. When Neo knocks down the Sentinels in the tunnels in "reality" they intersect another layer of simulation.

Some people just see them as a sometimes inconsistent or confusing action movies. But, it's got deep layers like Apocalypse Now or other classic stories.

Blade Runner 2049 is like that. I am going to watch it a bunch of times when I get it.. because I'll see more new story each time.

All three:

I like everything you wrote. But I will also say that the movie is a world building exercise. Sort of like how Max, in the Mad Max movies, isn't really the main character. The WORLD Max lives in, is the main character. And while Blade Runner doesn't fully adopt that philosophy, but it explains for people who think Blade Runner is "slow".

One thing I really appreciated was Ridley starting a precedent in Blade Runner 1982, for films to incorporate living spaces that look......LIVED IN. And it's what pisses me off about the Star Wars Originals vs the Prequels. The origins looked "lived in", and the prequels were just fucking characters set in front of prestine, computer generated backgrounds.

if you aren't watching 'the expanse', you need to be.  they absolutely nail the dirty sci-fi aesthetic.  it's beautiful.

it predates BR, though--it was in alien where scott really started pushing space grime.

Absolutely.

Books are good, too.

agreed.  the authors are absolutely raging liberals, but IDGAF--the books and show are excellent.

Threads can be boring without pictures.


Blade Runner Blasters by SoloDallas, on Flickr

Fuckin' awesome.  Loved it, going to pick it up on DVD when it comes out to accompany my copy of Bladerunner(1983)

I saw Alien in the theater back then.
I couldn't get over how nasty the Nostromo was.

Jay

I agree.  I consider it more meaningful with Deckard being natural human.

I always wondered what the fuck was up with the water everywhere.

Disks will be released tonight!

Humidity and condensation.  Suggests to me that the Nostromo's ventilation system wasn't functioning correctly outside of the A deck.  Since it was a cargo hauler, I suppose the B and C decks weren't high priority for such maintenance.

Lived in for long periods of transit between star systems, and basic housekeeping aside from maintenance on mechanical systems probably wasn't high on their to do list