Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017) *SPOILERS*

[Luminous]

^ Damn good post.

 

[abake]

Blade runner is one of my favourite movies and 2049 has the potential to get right up there as well. Only seen it once so far but very keen to catch it again... Unfortunately my wife has classified it as "boring" (like the original) so will be seeing it solo for round two.

I do enjoy the ambiguouity over whether Deckard is replicant or not and I'm glad that it remained in the sequel. However, I don't find it that integral to the plot and view it more as a narrative device for exploring our own prejudice as an audience, which I will try to explain later.

My take from the film(s) is that it shouldn't really matter who is and who is not 'born of a woman' as it's your actions and the way you treat life that defines whether you are truly 'human'. For all intents and purposes Deckard spends most of the original film as just another cog in the machine, carrying out his function as a blade runner, even though he would rather just be out of the game. When you meet him it is apparent that he is a solitary man who drinks too much. His rather slovenly unkempt appearance (in comparison to Gaff) match the dirty, rain soaked 2019 environment in both mood and look with suggestions of oppression and depression. Deckard views replicants as machines, as long as they fulfill their function and are a benefit then they are not a problem.

It's only later through his interaction with Rachael and Roy that he changes. He rejects his function as a blade runner and the prejudices of his society. In doing so he is free and for the first time in the picture shows some compassion and humanity.

Rachael and Batty, two replicants or (as Deckard previously viewed them) machines, save Deckard both emotionally and physically. Rachael saves Deckard from Leon and Batty catches Deckard's hand before he falls off the roof. Batty's actions and his tears in the rain speech impress upon Deckard the value in all life whether it be human or replicant (or even AI as explored in 2049). With Rachael, Deckard finds love for another and it no longer matters to him what that other person is because their love is real (echoes of Joi and K).

By the end of the picture Deckard is acting and behaving more like the person I would hope to be in the same situation and that's why he is relatable to me. If the audience feel that they can only relate to Deckard because he is a human and not a replicant then we are just as prejudiced as 2019 LA society. It shouldn't matter whether Deckard was born or made because by the end he behaves like a human and that is all that matters.

There is a nice moment in 2049 when K asks Deckard whether the dog is real or a copy and Deckard suggests he asks the dog. The point being that it should not matter, much like the audience should not get hung up over whether or not Deckard is a replicant.

Very well put.
I agree, and that is why it seems to me more interesting that Deckard is a replicant, who ends up being "more human than human". Like Rachael and K, and to a certain extent, the Nexus 6 gang.

 

[Khev]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

You think he wasn't allowed? I thought he was just avoiding unnecessary confrontation.

I suppose that not looking human officers in the eye didn't necessarily need to be an official directive but I just found it interesting that for whichever reason he chose not to do it.

The idea of what he is and isn't allowed to do brings up a question I've had about the film. In the intro it is stated that Wallace's replicants are different from pre-black out models because they obey. Did Officer K essentially disobey his commander when he lied about having taken care of the replicant child? But then Luv says to Lieutenant Joshi that Joshi bought what K said because "we are incapable of lying". What am I missing here?

I think the film was saying that any replicants that pass their baseline tests can't willfully lie. Once they start exceeding those boundaries internally (as K was doing toward the end) then they become unpredictable and must be put down. Robin Wright's Lieutenant Joshi probably knew that taking K's word at face value was probably unwise after it was confirmed that he was way off baseline but she had already revealed that she was sentimental toward him and that she probably desperately wanted to cling to that which she wanted to believe--that the child really was dead and potential anarchy was averted.

 

[Khev]

My take from the film(s) is that it shouldn't really matter who is and who is not 'born of a woman' as it's your actions and the way you treat life that defines whether you are truly 'human'.

Absolutely. I believe that one of the primary themes of the films is that your will defines you, not your biology (or lack thereof in Joi's case.)

And even though I'll always consider Deckard to be human (for reasons already mentioned) one of the greatest strokes of genius of 2049 IMO is that they still didn't fully say one way or another. That could very well be the primary reason for Ford's limited screen time. At some point it would be silly to keep stringing along the mystery the more he was involved with the story and that's another reason I hope that 2049 is the final cinematic chapter for this great series.

 

[Luminous]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

I suppose that not looking human officers in the eye didn't necessarily need to be an official directive but I just found it interesting that for whichever reason he chose not to do it.

Yeah, I felt bad for him. He could take a human's head off without much effort and does their dirty work yet he has to live a shunned and disrespected existence.

I think the film was saying that any replicants that pass their baseline tests can't willfully lie. Once they start exceeding those boundaries internally (as K was doing toward the end) then they become unpredictable and must be put down. Robin Wright's Lieutenant Joshi probably knew that taking K's word at face value was probably unwise after it was confirmed that he was way off baseline but she had already revealed that she was sentimental toward him and that she probably desperately wanted to cling to that which she wanted to believe--that the child really was dead and potential anarchy was averted.

That makes sense. I forgot to take the baseline tests into consideration.

 

[Khev]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Yeah, I felt bad for him.

I also felt bad for Joi since the same contempt that humans had toward "skinners" was passed on from skinners to digital companions as indicated when Mariette went out of her way to denigrate Joi before leaving K's apartment.

 

[abake]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

I also felt bad for Joi since the same contempt that humans had toward "skinners" was passed on from skinners to digital companions as indicated when Mariette went out of her way to denigrate Joi before leaving K's apartment.

Which is another wonderful point the movies make: bigotry and contempt for those different from us seems to be a never-ending cycle.

 

[karamazov80]

Though the narrative through line in these films does seem to suggest that robots should be treated with care and respect, it's all illusory. You feel because the film shows humans pretending to be robots, with pretty good actors in well placed shots, effective sound effects, etc. And real robots could conceivably do those things.

But Joi and K are robots. They don't intrinsically experience anything, any more than my computer experiences something when I type on my keyboard and it appears on the screen (K's experience with the giant hologram was a great illustration of this). As such, bigotry isn't something that applies here, to my mind. You can be bigoted toward another human who perceives a replicant this way or that way, but you can't be bigoted toward the replicants themselves. Could I be bigoted toward my car? Or the assistant thing on my phone? Leto has the right attitude in this film in that regard. Robin Wright lets herself be manipulated by stinkin' robots, and look what happens!

Cyborgs who are a hybrid of humans and robots is where this argument could get trickier. A real life parallel is humans who are overwhelmed by mental illness when they do something, such as committing a crime. You can be proven innocent by means of mental incapacitation. What does that say about human agency, and the nature of self? Robots are just robots, no matter how real they are programmed to be.

 

[Khev]

Though the narrative through line in these films does seem to suggest that robots should be treated with care and respect

I don't think that that's what the film is suggesting so much as just raising the question of what exactly does make someone a robot vs. a "human." Because replicants aren't really traditional androids like those in ALIEN, Terminator, or Ex Machina. They're more straight up genetically engineered clones. Without serial numbers even their bones don't give them away.

One of the things that BR 2049 asks is what gives something a "soul." Is it solely from the act of being born or can a being of intellect and emotion, even if engineered or manufactured, acquire a soul simply by desiring one? Is K a walking toaster simply because he was created by scientists and not a mom and dad? And if he is *not* a toaster where exactly is the line then? Can Joi cross it? Is being "real" simply relative as Mariette appears to believe when she says "oh you don't like real girls" (even though she technically isn't one?)

You could take those themes and say they are metaphors for real world discrimination based on race, class, and what have you but I find that they're just as fun to ponder within the context of the film itself. I really do find it to be quite amazing on all levels.

 

[Adolfo]

Very well put.
I agree, and that is why it seems to me more interesting that Deckard is a replicant, who ends up being "more human than human". Like Rachael and K, and to a certain extent, the Nexus 6 gang.

If he was a replicant why then was he week...he kept getting his *** kicked...replicants are physical...in the strong sense

 

[Sachiel]

that's another reason I hope that 2049 is the final cinematic chapter for this great series.

It'll be another 25 years before we see a sequel.

 

[xipotec]

If he was a replicant why then was he week...he kept getting his *** kicked...replicants are physical...in the strong sense

Well devils advocate here , because I think during filming, Deckard was human, Ridley liked the idea of him being a replicant later, and decided that he actually had that in mind the whooooollle time...

BUT just because he is not super strong does not mean is is NOT a replicant.

Khev made this argument before taking it one step further...why send an inferior product out to kill a more advanced one?

Simple answer because TYRELL was pulling the strings ....remember his whole deal was "more human than human". He was desperately trying to crest a product that could not be distinguished from human.

Taking that into account, a sure test of a memory implanted replicate would be to pitch it against a nexus six to see if the programming would stick to the point of death....in other words, the replicate with memories would behave like a human no matter what happens...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyderium]

Blade runner is one of my favourite movies and 2049 has the potential to get right up there as well. Only seen it once so far but very keen to catch it again... Unfortunately my wife has classified it as "boring" (like the original) so will be seeing it solo for round two.

I do enjoy the ambiguouity over whether Deckard is replicant or not and I'm glad that it remained in the sequel. However, I don't find it that integral to the plot and view it more as a narrative device for exploring our own prejudice as an audience, which I will try to explain later.

My take from the film(s) is that it shouldn't really matter who is and who is not 'born of a woman' as it's your actions and the way you treat life that defines whether you are truly 'human'. For all intents and purposes Deckard spends most of the original film as just another cog in the machine, carrying out his function as a blade runner, even though he would rather just be out of the game. When you meet him it is apparent that he is a solitary man who drinks too much. His rather slovenly unkempt appearance (in comparison to Gaff) match the dirty, rain soaked 2019 environment in both mood and look with suggestions of oppression and depression. Deckard views replicants as machines, as long as they fulfill their function and are a benefit then they are not a problem.

It's only later through his interaction with Rachael and Roy that he changes. He rejects his function as a blade runner and the prejudices of his society. In doing so he is free and for the first time in the picture shows some compassion and humanity.

Rachael and Batty, two replicants or (as Deckard previously viewed them) machines, save Deckard both emotionally and physically. Rachael saves Deckard from Leon and Batty catches Deckard's hand before he falls off the roof. Batty's actions and his tears in the rain speech impress upon Deckard the value in all life whether it be human or replicant (or even AI as explored in 2049). With Rachael, Deckard finds love for another and it no longer matters to him what that other person is because their love is real (echoes of Joi and K).

By the end of the picture Deckard is acting and behaving more like the person I would hope to be in the same situation and that's why he is relatable to me. If the audience feel that they can only relate to Deckard because he is a human and not a replicant then we are just as prejudiced as 2019 LA society. It shouldn't matter whether Deckard was born or made because by the end he behaves like a human and that is all that matters.

There is a nice moment in 2049 when K asks Deckard whether the dog is real or a copy and Deckard suggests he asks the dog. The point being that it should not matter, much like the audience should not get hung up over whether or not Deckard is a replicant.

Good post and I agree there is undue focus on the question of Deckard’s existential makeup at the expense of broader themes but really, it is Scott himself that has fanned the flames on this conjecture with his revisionist multiple cuts of the original film, each one edging closer to a definitive answer. This was always going to be a talking point with the new film and once Deckard finally shows up two thirds of the way in, Villeneuve caresses the ambiguity - but it is never overt or distracting from the whole. I personally prefer the idea of Deckard being human simply because I feel it provides more light and shade to the narrative and enriches the existential questions explored in the two films from both a human and an AI perspective.

I also liked the moment where K flinches away from the verbal abuse from the cop in the station. I didn’t take it as some sort of directive but more just a reaction borne from his feelings of inferiority at not being ‘equal’. Another great moment is when Lt. Joshi remarks how he has got along fine without a soul so far, the way the camera lingers on his nonchalant and impassive gaze back yet there is conflict and longing etched all over his face. A wonderfully nuanced moment in a film full of them.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Seems like Deckard would have expired long ago if he was a replicant. They weren't built to age from his era.

 

[Matt S]

Seems like Deckard would have expired long ago if he was a replicant. They weren't built to age from his era.

As far as we know.......I dunno, they've always been vague on it

 

[punisher1974]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

How is that relevant?
He wasn't supposed to know he was a replicant...

I find it far more interesting that Deckard is a replicant, just like Rachael.
They are both new models, with built in memories to give them emotional maturity, unlike Nexus 6, who are quite childlike in their lack of maturity.
It also makes perfect sense to make them (Deckard and Rachael) less overtly strong than Nexus 6. If you think you're a normal human and then find out you have super strength and resistance, it won't take long before people around you and you yourself start asking questions.
Even so, Deckard takes quite a beating from Batty and is still able to walk away.

If you think about it, the fact that all the major characters, and the ones who display more human traits, are all replicants in both movies just makes the entire premise of what is it exactly that makes us human so much more interesting.

I like to think Deckard is a human who is burnt out with nothing to live for since his wife left him. Hunting Batty and the nexus six shows how he doesn't care and is going through the motions until Batty beats him and saves him from falling. He regains his humanity seeing as how Batty just wanted to live and was able to share his final moments with a human being which was something he so desperately wanted to be. Replicants wanted to live and most humans had given up. Great conflict and a very introspective film. One of the reasons I love it.

 

[Wor-Gar]

As far as we know.......I dunno, they've always been vague on it

Wasn't that the point about Rachel? She's unique -- no expiration date.

 

[Prime Clone]

Seems like Deckard would have expired long ago if he was a replicant. They weren't built to age from his era.

After seeing BR2049 I got the impression maybe he was one of the first of the new experimental generation?

But as Khev said, maybe Wallace's words shouldn't be taken at face value.

Wasn't that the point about Rachel? She's unique -- no expiration date.

The end of BR gave the impression she was on borrowed time: "She won't live... but then again, who does?"

 

[karamazov80]

Seems like Deckard would have expired long ago if he was a replicant. They weren't built to age from his era.

I could be mistaken, but as I recall the initial models were built to last, and the Nexus 6's were developed to have short lifespans after they learned their mistake there.

 

[clutch]

This could easily fit into the BR world.