Decks wrote:Well, that's the only really lingering question. What's the point in implanting that memory into K? If she's the only one who can do such things, why did she do it? |
Blade Runner 2049 • Page 22
-
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago -
I read it as all of the new models have some of her memories. She said as much, something like "every artist put something of themselves into their work". Might have been chance that he had that one of hers.
Admittedly there are a lot of coincidences in the film but I loved it nonetheless. -
Mola_Ram 26,196 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoAlso, her implanting those memories arguably almost completely fucked the resistance, given that they lead the authorities to Deckard's doorstep. Did they know that she was doing that? -
Decks 31,014 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 6 years agonickthegun wrote:
They said something along the lines on "all the best memories have something of herself in them", so I took that as she just used some of her own memories all the time.
Decks wrote:
Well, that's the only really lingering question. What's the point in implanting that memory into K?
ZuluHero wrote:
Wait, so you think she knows who she is?
As I said a few pages ago I think she's faking it to stay hidden, but in a position to implant dodgy memories to start the uprising for the replicant freedom movement. The weak immune system is just a cover so no one can really get close to her.
If she's the only one who can do such things, why did she do it? -
Nazo 1,953 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoThe call girl recognised the horse in K's apartment as being from the dream, I took that to mean he's not the only one that has that dream. -
Decks 31,014 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoYeah good point, I missed the relevance of that. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoI thought the call girl just looked at it because it was a rare bit of wood, something she would have never seen before.
Because if she put that memory in every replicant, the plan would have been fucked and the horse would have been found long before K stumbled into it. -
yippeekiyay 12 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 5 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
Michael Green said, “I have to recognize that going into a sequel for this, not only would it be foolish but it would be the midichlorianization of the experience to canonize yes or no and give it an answer. What would be much more meaningful and much more honest to the integrity of the original would be to make that ambiguity part of the story and our experience because ambiguity, if you ask people to talk about the original Blade Runner, ambiguity is one of those words that comes up a bit and proudly so. It’s a film that is not only okay with things not being clear, it’s a film that is entirely about it and the legacy of the film is also about it because you don’t know which version is true because the answer depends on your version.”
Decks wrote:
@Mola_Ram It was a symbol that they were more than just machines.
But like, if you're going to have "can bear children" as a prerequisite for transcending machinehood, then none of the rebels really qualify. So is she really that inspirational or useful for them?
I guess she could be more of a symbol of hope or something, rather than a tool to be used to convince humans about replicants. But I never really understood the practicalities of the plan. As touching as the end with Deckard and daughter was (and it really was quite moving, and totally worked on an emotional level), some part of my brain was thinking "OK... so, now what?"
But we'll probably not get another sequel to flesh that part of the storyline out, so I guess this is it.
She could also be used as a symbol to make other replicants join the uprising. But the "what now" aspect of the ending was very much intentional I think.
I guess it's how you want to interpret it and how you interpret the original can affect how you see 2049.
If Deckard is a replicant then Stelline is a pure born replicant from a Nexus 7 and maybe we can assume that Tyrell made all Nexus 8s able to reproduce. Her existence is proof to the Nexus 8s that it is possible since they were made after Rachael.
If Deckard is human then Tyrell created replicants that are compatible with humans. This would break down barriers between humans and replicants.
Villeneuve said he prefers the original cut of Blade Runner because that's the one he grew up with so maybe he sees Deckard as a human.
As a kid, I never thought of Deckard as a replicant. I just thought it was weird that he fell in love with a machine. The Final Cut does change my view of Deckard. -
Phattso 27,426 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoJust having the memory of something doesn't mean you'd go looking for it? I buried shit in my childhood, fucked if I'm ever going back for it though (apart from anything else, my sister's left wellie wouldn't fit her any more).
It was only the sequence of events in his investigation, and the fact that he was beginning to think he was the messiah perhaps that led him to actually find it?
I also felt that the call girl had that shared memory based on her reaction. -
Decks 31,014 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 6 years agothe midichlorianization of the experience
Ha, I like that. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoNo, having the memory doesn't necessarily mean you would go looking for it but having millions of people with the same memory means surely someone would have or, at the very least, someone would have noticed they all had the same weird memory and wondered what the significance was.
And, as I said in the film thread, I do prefer deckard as just a human. It just makes more sense. I think it's also implied in the way that Wallace just wants info from him rather than his magic replicant jizz. -
Mola_Ram 26,196 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoPersonally, I've never really given much thought to the "ambiguity" of whether Deckard was a replicant or not, because I never got the impression that the answer was particularly important in the context of the first film. It's not really about that imo, and only really became controversial because of the disagreement between Ford and Scott afterwards.
But in the context of this one, it kind of is important, because the implications of replicant/replicant and replicant/human babies are pretty different. -
Blurp 1,447 posts
Seen 10 months ago
Registered 5 years agoIt completely changes the film. -
Phattso 27,426 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 18 years agonickthegun wrote:
And that's where we have to resort to assumptions. We know that two replicants have that memory, but that doesn't mean all or even many do. It also doesn't mean that many or even any of them had been in a position to actually do something about it - K only knew where it was because he ended up in that building and recognised something about the layout. Clearly the memory alone wasn't enough to embue a sense of place, geographically speaking.
No, having the memory doesn't necessarily mean you would go looking for it but having millions of people with the same memory means surely someone would have or, at the very least, someone would have noticed they all had the same weird memory and wondered what the significance was. -
Phattso 27,426 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoBlurp wrote:
Well, to be more accurate, perhaps it completely changes whatever film might come next.
It completely changes the film..gif)
-
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoAnd also, it's one of the things that immediately gave away the fact that K isn't his kid.
If Deckard was a replicant, he got stiffed on the abilities and, presumably, since Rachel didn't realise she was a replicant, she wasn't particularly strong either.
Then you have K who can run through walls. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoPhattso wrote:
Well, it was a post apocalyptic orphanage, so that kind of narrows it down.
Clearly the memory alone wasn't enough to embue a sense of place, geographically speaking. -
Mola_Ram 26,196 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoPhattso wrote:
I think the extra plotlines with Wallace and the resistance and such were probably at least partly designed as a sort of "sequel hook". But I don't think we'll get one of those anytime soon, so they feel a bit like the movie equivalent of an appendix. It's not as good a stand-alone movie as the first one was.
Blurp wrote:
Well, to be more accurate, perhaps it completely changes whatever film might come next.
It completely changes the film. -
Phattso 27,426 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 18 years agonickthegun wrote:
...in a world where all records were lost in the blackout. As someone above said, it's all a bit convenient. All a bit coincidental. But if you squint your eyes, I think my interpretation stands up. Just about.
Phattso wrote:
Well, it was a post apocalyptic orphanage, so that kind of narrows it down.
Clearly the memory alone wasn't enough to embue a sense of place, geographically speaking.
But whether it does or not, that's absolutely what I took from her reaction to the wooden horse in the performance. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoPerhaps we will get some more movies set in the 'world'.
Speaking of which, it's been a while since I've seen it but were the flying garbage trucks the same/similar to the ones in soldier? -
Phattso 27,426 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
Well indeed. When they decided to make it a continuation that was always gonna be the case, but you're right: those other threads dangling serve no other purpose than as sequel hooks.
It's not as good a stand-alone movie as the first one was.
Unless there's a buttload on the cutting room floor. The DVD/BluRay release of this could be interesting. -
Decks 31,014 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
Whether Deckard is a replicant is a huge aspect of the first one. Pretty much every scene early on can be viewed differently depending on whether he is or isn't. The way the police chief keeps eyeing him warily throughout their scenes, the roll of Gaff as some kind of keeper for him. The different ways of looking at it are my favourite thing about it.
Personally, I've never really given much thought to the "ambiguity" of whether Deckard was a replicant or not, because I never got the impression that the answer was particularly important in the context of the first film. It's not really about that imo, and only really became controversial because of the disagreement between Ford and Scott afterwards.
But in the context of this one, it kind of is important, because the implications of replicant/replicant and replicant/human babies are pretty different.
I also like Decakrds awkwardness with Rachel, and yes the rapey sex scene. Is he like that because he's a replicant that's just been born or just because he's been on his own for so long. It all adds a huge amount of depth to the film.
And the wider philosophical questions about consciousness and what is is to be alive all have added depth with the ambiguity around whether he human or not.
That came out more wanky than I intended. -
Decks 31,014 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 6 years agonickthegun wrote:
I doubt it, it's bombing pretty hard isn't it?
Perhaps we will get some more movies set in the 'world'.
-
Sadly I think that's probably the end of it as a franchise. People would rather watch Jumanji 2 or Pirates of the Caribbean 72
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
