Blade Runner 2049 SPOILERCAST! - Still Untitled: The Adam Savage Project - 10/10/17

K's relationship with Joi was my favorite part of the film. It was inherently very weird and incredibly sad the longer you thought about it. This cop who's job is to kill his own kind, lives in a shitty apartment, and is hated because he's a replicant, this guy saves up his salary just so he can buy something to take his holographic companion with him. From our perspective it's silly, but from the perspective of that world she's his only friend. Why is Joi a laughable concept when K himself was essentially made in a factory? The idea of holographic companions adds a third tier to the hierarchy of creation; Humans are above Replicants, and Repicants look down on Holograms as lesser even when they're capable of developing attachments and personalities, or at the very least projecting attachment. Sure it was programing, but Wallace himself suggests even Deckard may have been programmed to fall in love at the right time. Replicants in 2049 are programmed to obey at a certain level themselves. I love that such a weird uncomfortable idea as a relationship with a hologram can so effectively shine the light on the deeper themes of the film.

People say it was too long and slow, but it worked great for immersion, helped set it apart from a regular jaunt down to the cinema.

Blade Runner 2049 Discussion starts from 15:10

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS What I love about the movie is that it builds up K as The Special. The Chosen One. The Child of Prophecy. And then in an instant it says, "No, nevermind. He's no one." And even at a point Deckard wonders why he is even here. When K escorts him to his real child Deckard stops to ask why. "Who am I to you?" K doesn't answer because he is no one. He's not special to the world. But he doesn't have to be. Much like Roy Batty in the first film, K saves Deckard just because he can. Because Deckard will remember that. Deckard will remember him. And that's all he needs. Just to be remembered. And that's why Tears in Rain plays when he dies. Because like Roy Batty, he proved he had a soul and humanity by saving Deckard even though he didn't have to.

This film should be my generation's defining sci fi film

Shocked to hear someone say that Joi's arc is beside the point. It more or less IS the point. The film builds much of its emotional core around her, and challenges the audience to see her as a person, just as the original film challenged us to see replicants as human. This is why the full emotional scale of both films can be elusive the first few times. You have to get past this block in your head that distinguishes between characters who are "people" and characters who are "things."

In the end, The snow hits k's hand and the daughter the snow doesn't touch her's. He's fake in a real world. She's real in a fake world.

I liked how Blade Runner 2049 incorporated elements from other films and media which took inspiration from Blade Runner. It sort of makes it come full circle.

25:30 im surprised Adam doesnt care so much about Joi, i dont see why her artificiality would make her any less important to K. he speaks about her murder as if it was a good thing. I think she's one of the most interesting characters. what makes you think K can gain agency or whatever if you dont think Joi can? they are more similar to each other than to humans.

The two close companions to K and Wallace are named Joi and Luv which are also two of the “fruits of the Spirit,” found in the Biblical book of Galatians. There’s a passing, unexplained reference to something called “Galatians syndrome” in the film, which seems to indicate this is something worth paying attention to. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control,” the verse in Galatians reads, and then continues, importantly: “Against such things there is no law.”

The movie is the Joi subplot. Okay, that's an exaggeration. I'm going to quote what some others have said. But that subplot is everything that makes it a Blade Runner movie. In the original, replicants were essentially indistinguishable from humans, but their makers believed they had intrinsic ownership over because they had created them. This draws an obvious moral line that's the focus - or at least a major theme - of the movie. In 2049, the Wallace replicants are literally, objectively subhuman. Less than human. Human-minus. Minus the ability to say no, minus non-compliance, minus free will. They take a step back from the aspirational synthetic humanity of the first movie towards the realm of spec-designed tools. The VK in the first movie was there to identify flaws -- in the second, it's there to ensure them. Rachel was a project, designed to further humanity's mastery over itself and its world. K is a product, designed to best fulfill the needs of his purchaser. Which is also exactly what Joi is. From the exact same manufacturer. Any question, doubt, criticism, or cynicism you lay a Joi's feet has to be reflected upon K himself. K reflects it on K himself. I mean, after all, there was a scene where they literally physically merged in the frame and took the time to talk about how the entirety of both of their beings is summed up by the number of symbols invokes Leto-Wallace voice that a child could count to. On one hand, nonetheless. Sure, there's a 2-symbol disparity there, but it's the same discipline. If they can bind free will in the 4-symbol squishy organic human brain, binding it in a 2-symbol AI of their own design is a given. So, what does his ownership of her mean? Is he any better than the humans that own and force compliance from him? Did he save her and provide her with a kindred spirit, or did he force-birth a slave to cover up his own existential dread and loneliness? When she talks about being a real girl, or truly being with K physically, is that just programming, or is it the drive of a sentient being in a cage? Is it any different than K's hope for being the child instead of a slave? When Joi's final words are, "I love you", does she mean it, or is it the cold calculation of 0s and 1s? What does 'meaning it' even mean? If her love isn't real, can his possibly be? Can he even love her if she's just a product? Can he ever actually be loved if that's all he is? Is that all either of them are? When he's there in the rain, looking at the giant naked ad-Joi, what's he thinking? That his Joi was a fucking fraud, and he was duped into finding meaning in the meaningless? Or that that Joi isn't his Joi, despite whatever shared base they might both derive from? What do those answers mean for him as, y'know, someone who is designed and created to be replicated? Stemming from that answer, was his final run an act of suicidal nihilism, or him proving he could break the literal mold? Who knows? It should be noted that BOTH Deckard and K are presented with "fake" copies of their lovers at the same time. And, both reject them. Deckard clearly rejects the copy Rachel as he believes he had the "real" Rachel. But, we aren't told why K rejects the billboard Joi. That's left to us to decide. The K-Joi dynamic is what makes it a successor to Blade Runner. Most of the rest is sequel-plotting in Blade Runner decor.

I loved this ep, but oh my god, I feel like Will was trolling us by acting like he hadn't paid attention to the movie.

"I want them to make a shit ton of money so that they could make another if this kind" - never has a Man been so selfish for others, I'm thinking the same to just watch it in theatres again 🎥

The relationship with Joi was gorgeous. It was such a wonderful exploration of what is sentience and what is real. That whole storyline was crucial. It also explored how even the replicants look down on the ai persons.

K's relationship with Joi was perhaps the greatest spiritual inheritance from the original film. Just as Deckard's love for Rachel lead us to question the bounds of love, spirit, and humanity -K and Joi do the same in 2049. We may not understand the technological explanations for how Joi's AI works, or if she can truly feel and express, but that only fuels the beautiful ambiguity. I think it was an essential arc to the story as a whole, and to understanding K's ultimate decisions.

Norm is over Wills shit.

Adam: "Deckard's a replicant." spoilers Kind of shocked that Adam, as big of a fan as he is, could be of this persuasion because it does not work in the context of either movie. It makes no sense at all in the first. Rachel is supposed to be a new, experimental model that are not only unaware that they are replicants, but also the first to have false memories implanted. Having Deckard being a replicant would mean he would be an older model with features of a new, experimental model. In the new movie, we also see that Wallace is ONLY interested in Deckard to uncover the location of the child, meaning they have no interest in studying him, which they would if he was a replicant as he would have been part of process in creating the child as a synthetic organism (we see that they even want the bones of Rachel).

How many times do we have to say it ? The writers and the director, on purpose, left the Deckard question OPEN. That was the POINT. You don't KNOW. That's what makes it more interesting.

Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov is the book K is reading in his apartment and the poem in it is his base line test.

Joi is not a fucking flesh light! I'm shocked at Adams coldness towards this.... She risked her own life all be it virtual by having K destroy her in the apartment and only exist on the handheld.