User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:13:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don’t see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. Good questions. My impression: It depends on the extent of the memories provided to the replicant. Rachel wasn't aware that she was a replicant. That means that she was provided with enough memories to perceive having lived a "life" like a regular home-grown human being. From what we were shown, it looks like the art of providing memories to replicants was pretty well refined by the time of K/Joe. Comprehensive memories, a particular memory that was proven to be real (for someone), combined with an innate wish to "be a real boy" with a "soul" and it isn't difficult to imagine how powerful the draw would be to believe the possibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:15:23 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's more along the lines that K sees the birth date and thinks, "LOL, what a coincidence. If only." Once the realness of the memory is validated, all logical thought as to alternatives go out the window. "You're way off baseline." A valid point. K was emotionally compromised. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:26:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought it was even more interesting in how they sowed doubt about whether Joi was ever even real/authentic or just a program. Both. If Joi was an AI, then she had the capacity to learn and develop through interaction. I believe she was "just a program" that became more through interaction with K. K treats her as more than a program. He moves his feet for her as if she were corporeal and not just a hologram. When paid a bonus for completing the "job" at the beginning, he invests in enhancing Joi's ability to experience the world. When Joi remarks that she's just 0's and 1's, K tells her that she's more than that. K treats Joi as a valued, cherished equal instead of as a subservient program, and Joi responds and develops accordingly. Joi was developing and progressing from "realistic" towards "real". When K encountered the "advertising" version of Joi, it represented the undeveloped template of the program. In a way, it cast into sharp relief what was lost when the emanator was broken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:28:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate Luv was to Wallace what Rachel was to Tyrell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:33:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Watching it again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:45:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don’t see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I liked the 2049 movie a lot, and my wife loved it.  Like others, I was a little apprehensive, because I loved the original Blade Runner, and was worried that 2049 would disappoint. I think it's a fantastic sequel, and really like the story telling and the visuals.
However, there is ONE thing that bothers me, and hopefully someone can explain. WHY does K/Joe believe that he might be Deckard & Rachel's kid? That part never made sense to me. Obviously I understand that he has the memories, but if he WERE the kid, how in the world would he have become a Blade Runner, who is owned by the police department? Clearly, the police department must have purchased him from Wallace at some point. There is ZERO explanation possible (as far as I can tell), how a human/replicant hybrid could have been BORN to Deckard/Rachel, and then somehow magically have appeared in the Police department as a purchased replicant. Plus, EVEN IF it were somehow possible for the people protecting the child to have snuck him into an order from Wallace to the police department, why in the world would they have chosen the life of a Replicant for the child? That would also make no sense at all, since openly being a replicant would put him at risk of violence from humans. That's my only beef with the movie - that a smart investigator like K would never in a million years have believed that he might be the lost child, because there's no way that makes sense. Did I miss something? The point was the inverse of the first movie K became special because he chose to, not because he was the "chosen one" like Rachel or Deckard. The majority of the themes dealt with free will or the lack of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:46:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
..... since it is so obviously IMPOSSIBLE for him to be the child. What did I miss that made k being the child an impossibility? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:49:05 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you watch the special features a lot of the effects are real/practical. Like Nolan, Villeneuve likes real over CG. I saw it in IMAX three times, it is easily the most visually impressive movie I've seen. 
Still LOVED the movie, and the 2+ hrs flew by, but I would have loved to see it on IMAX. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:54:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One effect I was pleasantly surprised about was Rachael. She didn't look fake like Princess Lea in "Rogue One". Excellent job by the effects team. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Saw it in the theatre (something I rarely do) and this weekend i rented it to watch again (something I've seldom ever done). I would agree. I actually like it as much as the first and that is saying something. The CG was well integrated without being overwhelming like Transformers 7. The story was there, but left bits for you have to actually think on. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:58:36 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't remember anything about being terminated for failing a baseline. But if so, it seemed the Chief was pretty attached to K. So you could say she error'd on her friendship with the Replicant and trusted his ability to not turn on her. So yeah... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 8:59:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm so jealous. I had to wait a few weeks, and because the movie bombed, they quickly pulled it out of my nearby IMAX. So I missed that train.
Still LOVED the movie, and the 2+ hrs flew by, but I would have loved to see it on IMAX. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 9:07:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm glad more people have taken an interest in Luv. I totally got her after it was explained in the appendices that she was described as designed with a 12 year girl's mind, and was given no memories. Her calmly directing fire on the San Diego mouth breathers while getting her nails done: Awesome. Also, the pilots in the three spinners that K took down,,, especially the two he shot,,,, were they human or replicant? Were the thugs in Las Vegas,,, including the rogue LAPD cop,,, were they human or replicant? K didn't hesitate to kill any of them, and all this happened after he was off his Baseline. As far as Luv killing humans, I got the impression she never had a Baseline. Jay Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate I totally got her after it was explained in the appendices that she was described as designed with a 12 year girl's mind, and was given no memories. Her calmly directing fire on the San Diego mouth breathers while getting her nails done: Awesome. Also, the pilots in the three spinners that K took down,,, especially the two he shot,,,, were they human or replicant? Were the thugs in Las Vegas,,, including the rogue LAPD cop,,, were they human or replicant? K didn't hesitate to kill any of them, and all this happened after he was off his Baseline. As far as Luv killing humans, I got the impression she never had a Baseline. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 9:16:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The sheer emotional power of the implanted memories overpowered logical deduction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I liked the 2049 movie a lot, and my wife loved it. Like others, I was a little apprehensive, because I loved the original Blade Runner, and was worried that 2049 would disappoint. I think it's a fantastic sequel, and really like the story telling and the visuals.
However, there is ONE thing that bothers me, and hopefully someone can explain. WHY does K/Joe believe that he might be Deckard & Rachel's kid? That part never made sense to me. Obviously I understand that he has the memories, but if he WERE the kid, how in the world would he have become a Blade Runner, who is owned by the police department? Clearly, the police department must have purchased him from Wallace at some point. There is ZERO explanation possible (as far as I can tell), how a human/replicant hybrid could have been BORN to Deckard/Rachel, and then somehow magically have appeared in the Police department as a purchased replicant. Plus, EVEN IF it were somehow possible for the people protecting the child to have snuck him into an order from Wallace to the police department, why in the world would they have chosen the life of a Replicant for the child? That would also make no sense at all, since openly being a replicant would put him at risk of violence from humans. That's my only beef with the movie - that a smart investigator like K would never in a million years have believed that he might be the lost child, because there's no way that makes sense. Did I miss something? The point was the inverse of the first movie K became special because he chose to, not because he was the "chosen one" like Rachel or Deckard. The majority of the themes dealt with free will or the lack of. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 9:20:25 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm so jealous. I had to wait a few weeks, and because the movie bombed, they quickly pulled it out of my nearby IMAX. So I missed that train.
Still LOVED the movie, and the 2+ hrs flew by, but I would have loved to see it on IMAX. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: If you watch the special features a lot of the effects are real/practical. Like Nolan, Villeneuve likes real over CG. I saw it in IMAX three times, it is easily the most visually impressive movie I've seen.
Still LOVED the movie, and the 2+ hrs flew by, but I would have loved to see it on IMAX. I could only see Villeneuve doing that if he was talked into it. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 9:22:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Luv was to Wallace what Rachel was to Tyrell. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 9:22:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would love to see a director's cut, where the hour and a half that was edited out, is edited back in. I could only see Villeneuve doing that if he was talked into it. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 9:44:25 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Both. If Joi was an AI, then she had the capacity to learn and develop through interaction. I believe she was "just a program" that became more through interaction with K. K treats her as more than a program. He moves his feet for her as if she were corporeal and not just a hologram. When paid a bonus for completing the "job" at the beginning, he invests in enhancing Joi's ability to experience the world. When Joi remarks that she's just 0's and 1's, K tells her that she's more than that. K treats Joi as a valued, cherished equal instead of as a subservient program, and Joi responds and develops accordingly. Joi was developing and progressing from "realistic" towards "real". When K encountered the "advertising" version of Joi, it represented the undeveloped template of the program. In a way, it cast into sharp relief what was lost when the emanator was broken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 10:12:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would love to see a director's cut, where the hour and a half that was edited out, is edited back in. I could only see Villeneuve doing that if he was talked into it. Jay Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: If you watch the special features a lot of the effects are real/practical. Like Nolan, Villeneuve likes real over CG. I saw it in IMAX three times, it is easily the most visually impressive movie I've seen.
Still LOVED the movie, and the 2+ hrs flew by, but I would have loved to see it on IMAX. I could only see Villeneuve doing that if he was talked into it. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 10:47:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously: As the movie ended I pondered the equal liklihoods that 1) 'k' is not the child and 2) 'k' is her brother whose death was faked. That's what bothers me so much. Why let him lie there and die. I expected the girl to ask of his whereabouts to be answered by her dad, "oh, he's outside dying on the steps;" and her answering "OMG, no, he' s my brother!" What did I miss that made k being the child an impossibility? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
..... since it is so obviously IMPOSSIBLE for him to be the child. What did I miss that made k being the child an impossibility? Dude he is a replicant. No question. ETA, I am not even sure that Sapper 'allows' himself to be killed by K, as stated in the film. K, visibly and very effectively fucks his shit up because he is a replicant designed to retire other replicants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 10:50:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, for one- we know he had memories that were implanted from Deckard's daughter. Also, if he was born, he was born with actual replicant powers per se, like superhuman speed, strength, reflexes and ability to absorb punishment. There is a scene in the spinner where he awakes from a 'standby' mode, as if he was sleeping on a long flight... Dude he is a replicant. No question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 12:38:12 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don’t see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. As to what planted that thought in the first place, it could have been the very real nature of the memory itself. The woman that created it didn't make it up, it was the real deal, and it probably stood apart from other memories and felt more real (since it was). He was looking for the offspring of a human and a replicant...he had a childhood memory that felt more real than any other...and he verified the memory was real. I feel like I've repeated myself like 5 times, and if so, it's just 'cause I'm working my way through it. It's been a while since I saw it...I'm really looking forward to watching it again, now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 1:28:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Picked up the DVD from redbox with a coupon not really knowing what to expect. Wasn't a huge fan of the original but thought it was a solid movie so I watched it again not too long ago in anticipation of this movie but missed it in the theaters. I really enjoyed it and the more I think about it I think I liked it better than the original. I had no idea how long it was until I paused it to go grab something and saw the total time. Had that not happened I wouldn't have given it a second thought.
After reading this thread I feel like I need to watch it at least a time or two more with no distractions this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 2:10:44 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about this: she is both an AI and a program. Thousands or millions of initially identical AIs with the ability to learn and customize themselves, but with pre-programmed tendencies and preferences. Part of the meaning of the Blade Runner movies is the idea that at some point the line between "realistic" and "real" can become so fine that there might not be much difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 2:18:00 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryLoves any man’s $$$$$ equally 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 2:24:44 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually it makes sense that he was a weaker replicant. The strong replicants are becoming an issue, killing humans. You don't want to send and waste human lives so you build a weaker replicant that if it/he dies wasn't as big of a loss. Personally I loved the movie and I saw the original in the theaters and loved it too. One of the few sequels I'm happy I purchased. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 2:40:59 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...and? Part of the meaning of the Blade Runner movies is the idea that at some point the line between "realistic" and "real" can become so fine that there might not be much difference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: How about this: she is both an AI and a program. Thousands or millions of initially identical AIs with the ability to learn and customize themselves, but with pre-programmed tendencies and preferences. Part of the meaning of the Blade Runner movies is the idea that at some point the line between "realistic" and "real" can become so fine that there might not be much difference. The book Blade Runner was based on was even called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" which is more or less the entire point as I see it, the movies ask the same kind of question in other ways but the questions are always there: If we create things that can mimic emotional responses at what point does it quit being mimicry? If the things we create have emotions, and dream, aren't they alive? If they're alive can we really treat them as "wetware" machines? Basically, at what point can something we created in our own image actually be considered, for all intents and purposes, human? And with the second one they turn it up to 11 with the big holy shit question: If the living things that we created in our own image can procreate then where does that leave us? At it's core Blade Runner is about questioning what it means to be human. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 2:43:16 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would love to see a director's cut, where the hour and a half that was edited out, is edited back in. I could only see Villeneuve doing that if he was talked into it. Jay Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: If you watch the special features a lot of the effects are real/practical. Like Nolan, Villeneuve likes real over CG. I saw it in IMAX three times, it is easily the most visually impressive movie I've seen.
Still LOVED the movie, and the 2+ hrs flew by, but I would have loved to see it on IMAX. I could only see Villeneuve doing that if he was talked into it. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 3:01:15 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously: As the movie ended I pondered the equal liklihoods that 1) 'k' is not the child and 2) 'k' is her brother whose death was faked. That's what bothers me so much. Why let him lie there and die. I expected the girl to ask of his whereabouts to be answered by her dad, "oh, he's outside dying on the steps;" and her answering "OMG, no, he' s my brother!" What did I miss that made k being the child an impossibility? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
..... since it is so obviously IMPOSSIBLE for him to be the child. What did I miss that made k being the child an impossibility? If he were the actual child, there is simply no way he could have been owned by Wallace and sold to the police department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 3:08:36 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good questions. My impression: It depends on the extent of the memories provided to the replicant. Rachel wasn't aware that she was a replicant. That means that she was provided with enough memories to perceive having lived a "life" like a regular home-grown human being. From what we were shown, it looks like the art of providing memories to replicants was pretty well refined by the time of K/Joe. Comprehensive memories, a particular memory that was proven to be real (for someone), combined with an innate wish to "be a real boy" with a "soul" and it isn't difficult to imagine how powerful the draw would be to believe the possibility. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don’t see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. My impression: It depends on the extent of the memories provided to the replicant. Rachel wasn't aware that she was a replicant. That means that she was provided with enough memories to perceive having lived a "life" like a regular home-grown human being. From what we were shown, it looks like the art of providing memories to replicants was pretty well refined by the time of K/Joe. Comprehensive memories, a particular memory that was proven to be real (for someone), combined with an innate wish to "be a real boy" with a "soul" and it isn't difficult to imagine how powerful the draw would be to believe the possibility. I also think he was infused with that memory for psychological reasons because of the job he was meant to do. It might've been a standard memory implanted in bladerunners to build a sense of fortitude to accomplish difficult tasks. The depravity of that childhood would also make you feel better about you current situation and life....you may be an underappreciated, killing slave that lives in a shit heap, but it's much better than your childhood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 3:13:19 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously: As the movie ended I pondered the equal liklihoods that 1) 'k' is not the child and 2) 'k' is her brother whose death was faked. That's what bothers me so much. Why let him lie there and die. I expected the girl to ask of his whereabouts to be answered by her dad, "oh, he's outside dying on the steps;" and her answering "OMG, no, he' s my brother!" What did I miss that made k being the child an impossibility? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
..... since it is so obviously IMPOSSIBLE for him to be the child. What did I miss that made k being the child an impossibility? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 3:19:36 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dude he (K) is a replicant. No question. ETA, I am not even sure that Sapper 'allows' himself to be killed by K, as stated in the film. K, visibly and very effectively fucks his shit up because he is a replicant designed to retire other replicants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 3:39:19 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was my impression. Later, when Freysa says Sapper "allowed himself to be killed", I was thinking whoa, it didn't look that way to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dude he (K) is a replicant. No question. ETA, I am not even sure that Sapper 'allows' himself to be killed by K, as stated in the film. K, visibly and very effectively fucks his shit up because he is a replicant designed to retire other replicants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 3:51:34 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 4:58:54 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that the police department clearly purchased him from Wallace to work as a Blade Runner who specializes in killing/retiring replicants. If he were the actual child, there is simply no way he could have been owned by Wallace and sold to the police department. i'm not making the claim that this is the case, but it would be a viable train of thought for joe, especially in his unbalanced state. memory is the foundation of identity (PKD was big on that theme), so the malleability of memory is a source of profound instability--hence joe's poor baseline performance. i get why it bugs you, but i think you're reasoning it from the outside rather than looking at it through joe's eyes. roy batty might have something to say about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 9:25:10 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fact that the police department clearly purchased him from Wallace to work as a Blade Runner who specializes in killing/retiring replicants. If he were the actual child, there is simply no way he could have been owned by Wallace and sold to the police department. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..... since it is so obviously IMPOSSIBLE for him to be the child. What did I miss that made k being the child an impossibility? If he were the actual child, there is simply no way he could have been owned by Wallace and sold to the police department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 10:14:21 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that the police department clearly purchased him from Wallace to work as a Blade Runner who specializes in killing/retiring replicants. If he were the actual child, there is simply no way he could have been owned by Wallace and sold to the police department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 10:18:10 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was my impression. Later, when Freysa says Sapper "allowed himself to be killed", I was thinking whoa, it didn't look that way to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dude he (K) is a replicant. No question. ETA, I am not even sure that Sapper 'allows' himself to be killed by K, as stated in the film. K, visibly and very effectively fucks his shit up because he is a replicant designed to retire other replicants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 10:25:30 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 10:25:41 AM EDT
[#39]
Little Pone and I saw it in the theater. Was really good. Loved both of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 10:26:31 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Luv is a souped up special model who is brim full of emotion. I know she trembled at the thought of displeasing Wallace. I expect he had total control over her, so standard baseline tests were forgone for her. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate I totally got her after it was explained in the appendices that she was described as designed with a 12 year girl's mind, and was given no memories. Her calmly directing fire on the San Diego mouth breathers while getting her nails done: Awesome. Also, the pilots in the three spinners that K took down,,, especially the two he shot,,,, were they human or replicant? Were the thugs in Las Vegas,,, including the rogue LAPD cop,,, were they human or replicant? K didn't hesitate to kill any of them, and all this happened after he was off his Baseline. As far as Luv killing humans, I got the impression she never had a Baseline. Jay Loved 2049. Better than the original. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 10:39:00 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that the police department clearly purchased him from Wallace to work as a Blade Runner who specializes in killing/retiring replicants. If he were the actual child, there is simply no way he could have been owned by Wallace and sold to the police department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:00:36 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can someone explain the significance of Wallace cutting down the fresh Luv replicant? I just didn't get the point unless it was simply to be cruel. Loved 2049. Better than the original. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:01:38 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can someone explain the significance of Wallace cutting down the fresh Luv replicant? I just didn't get the point unless it was simply to be cruel. Loved 2049. Better than the original. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate I totally got her after it was explained in the appendices that she was described as designed with a 12 year girl's mind, and was given no memories. Her calmly directing fire on the San Diego mouth breathers while getting her nails done: Awesome. Also, the pilots in the three spinners that K took down,,, especially the two he shot,,,, were they human or replicant? Were the thugs in Las Vegas,,, including the rogue LAPD cop,,, were they human or replicant? K didn't hesitate to kill any of them, and all this happened after he was off his Baseline. As far as Luv killing humans, I got the impression she never had a Baseline. Jay Loved 2049. Better than the original. Before, Tyrell was still under the coercion of the government. He had a healthy respect for it. Perhaps more of an equal footing outlook since he provided a useful service to the state. More of a cooperative effort. In this one, it seems to have flipped. Wallace is allowed indulgences. For things he's done to keep things going since the revolution. one of the shorts goes into it a bit. He came up with solutions. The government provides. It also can explain his ability to escape any retribution when Luv kills the Police Chief. And also the coroner tech death without repercussion. Allowances are made as long as Wallace doesn't go too far. Little people are disposable. Luv knows this well. The government's perception is a willingness to allow things because of what the corporation provides. Wallace's outlook is more of a contempt. He exercises a certain latitude of control with the government. As was suggested a little earlier, this might be reflected in the personas of the two replicants who are closest to their makers. Tyrell and Rachel. Niander and Luv. Reflections of their deeper selves. My take on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:02:09 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can someone explain the significance of Wallace cutting down the fresh Luv replicant? I just didn't get the point unless it was simply to be cruel. Loved 2049. Better than the original. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate I totally got her after it was explained in the appendices that she was described as designed with a 12 year girl's mind, and was given no memories. Her calmly directing fire on the San Diego mouth breathers while getting her nails done: Awesome. Also, the pilots in the three spinners that K took down,,, especially the two he shot,,,, were they human or replicant? Were the thugs in Las Vegas,,, including the rogue LAPD cop,,, were they human or replicant? K didn't hesitate to kill any of them, and all this happened after he was off his Baseline. As far as Luv killing humans, I got the impression she never had a Baseline. Jay Loved 2049. Better than the original. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:05:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Using that logic, this would have been the best choice to take out Roy: https://consequenceofsound.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/tumblr_oeyahemt6k1uofr2ko5_r2_500.gif?w=806 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:15:58 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To establish his indifference to his creations (and his danger as a villain). Wallace sees them as things, to be discarded like a used tissue on a whim. As to that particular scene, I took it as a "another failure... back the drawing board" moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:18:16 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think it was so much of Sapper allowing himself to be killed as just not allowing himself to be brought in, which implies escape or death. Given the skill set of the Blade Runners, escape would be unlikely. Watch the fight scene again and you will see that K/Joe is not at a disadvantage - he is extremely fast and very strong. When he is beating Sapper into submission he hits far beyond what any normal could - the sound and the force portrayed are impressive. In addition he tells Sapper not to get up and even though Sapper can barely stand - he eventually does and K/Joe shoots him. I thought that first scene with K/Joe and Sapper was very well done. You really wonder if K/Joe is an idiot the way he casually puts his pistol on the table and puts himself at a disadvantage while at the same time making sure Sapper knows why he is there. In my mind I was thinking - this guy is going to get killed! Then the fight starts and after a few seconds we can see why he was so confident in his abilities. Confident in the same way Roy Batty was. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:21:27 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. Sort of like a blemished part coming off the injection molding machine. It gets tossed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: To establish his indifference to his creations (and his danger as a villain). Wallace sees them as things, to be discarded like a used tissue on a whim. As to that particular scene, I took it as a "another failure... back the drawing board" moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:23:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. Sort of like a blemished part coming off the injection molding machine. It gets tossed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 11:29:42 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a ritual. He soothed it's fear before he killed it. And he held her while she died. And the choice of how to cause her death wasn't a quick one. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
