• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Фейсал

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

126 profile views
  1. Not necessarily. They use that term in the first movie too to differentiate between N6 and N8 etc yet they're all different. Some ramblings about K and Joi:
  2. Not really. K is the lone detective, Joi is his femme fatale side kick. She's sensual and she's versatile and she's clever - but she's not particularly real either and just like K she's working within the trappings of her own existence. It's a very Blade Runner twist on a very antiquated genre. It's not just a traditional noir film, it's neo noir. But Deckard's life didn't really matter. Batty's life and his friends didn't really matter either, the stakes were incredibly low. On one hand you had an asshole cop who's forced to kill those runaway androids, and then you have those runaway androids who don't want to harm anyone and just want to live their life as normal people. Again, without any real stakes and that actually worked in the first movie's favor - but the second movie had much bigger implications. Deckard views it as love in the first movie, and Deckard maintains that there was love between the two of them in the second movie as well in his dialogue with K and Wallace. Hell, the movie actively points out that what Deckard considers love is pretty flimsy and is potentially just a Tyrell equation; the replicant seducing the blade runner who he himself is likely a replicant is pretty poetic, don't you think? and Tyrell sure was fond of poetic imagery. It's not circular reasoning you're just sort of ignoring the context of the child's existence. Him/her eisting proves that replicants can pro-create, can you not see how game changing that is? how that shatters replicant prejudice and how it changes what they are? It's not a random child we're told is important for no reason; who the child is doesn't particularly matter what matters is what they meant for the societal landscape of the world. Rachael and the miracle child were a vehicle to peer into K and Deckard as characters. They aren't present, but it really isn't their story. They're the back drop that sets things into motion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT: Where is this identical replicant argument coming from? none of the replicants are identical to one another in the first movie. None of them are identical in the second movie, unless you consider Joi one. This is effectively a none argument and fan theory being presented as fact. This movie, like the first, trusts you to use your head and figure things out rather than being spoon fed all the information. The world is so alluring partially because of that, IMO. It didn't need any unnecessary padding to go into mundane specifics about how many Goslings are produced in the world or whatever.
  3. Are genre movies stuck to their trappings and cliche conventions with no way of innovating or giving them a unique twist? Blade Runner is a cyber punk sci fi and also a noir. It gives its noir elements a sci fi twist - the love interest being a digital AI in this case. It's also interesting that you knock on this movie for having low stakes when the first movie had literally none. Nothing would have changed/happened if Deckard failed just as nothing really changed or happened when he succeeded - the four replicants on the loose just wanted to live normal, regular lives and would have bled in to normal society. Joi and K's relationship is interesting because both of them aren't human or ''real'' yet it comes off as the most humane in the story. Giving K a human, or physical love interest just to go ''haha see we're noir!'' betrays the essence of the film. The child's existence in itself makes it important. Replicants can produce - they top being objects made at a factory/lab and became an actual species/living organism of sorts. It breaks down the prejudice against them. I agree with you on Rachael/Deckard - what happened in the first movie was just kind of flat out rape but Wallace points out Rachael was engineered to seduce Deckard. Deckard sees it as grandiose love, and we get things from his perspective here but really it was Tyrell playing god and playing his last ace in the hole. How is it lazy? I thought the point of the bit in the theater was to show that K could have snapped him in two if he wanted to but he wasn't there to fight. That's kind of the point though, isn't it? K's boss points out how easy it is to forget that K is in the end a machine and not a man. Ultimately the lines between human and inhuman are blurred as we see countless replicants showcasing actual humanity and aspirations. You can't wipe that away with code. He found some bees there, didn't he? and if you assume Deckard's a replicant it makes sense as to why he'd survive the radiation.
  4. there shouldn't be a sequel at all. i want more of the world since it's so compelling but it's perfect as is
  5. The messianic undertones were present in the first movie? biblical imagery is an often present undertone to cyber punk and dystopian sci-fi.
  6. I know i'm veering off topic here but past the half way point I couldn't really take Westworld too seriously. I still dug it but it started to veer into cheesy, convoluted territory which is why some of it's philosophical tirades felt somewhat jarring.
  7. K is the center of the film and the protagonist you can't really swap out his scenes for what amounts to background noise to the setting.
  8. Wallace saying she was engineered for that very purpose? unless you want to believe the amazing convenience that Rachael's life span ends just when she gives birth to a child and not a second before.
  9. It was working. It's the eyes that broke the illusion for Deckard.
  10. Maybe she was purposefully engineered to die after giving child birth - but she was certainly made for longevity, more so than your average replicant. Fragmentary to our knowledge - hard to say what Wallace really knows and what he doesn't and what the corp wants to hide from K and co.
  11. Yeah. Rachel was an engineered epirement by Tyrell; she was purposefully given no prescribed life span and depending on where you stand on the Deckard issue - Wallace's conversation can imply that Deckard was also put on the case for that singular purpose. Sapper was hunted because he was an older serial number showing independence, it's that simple. Roy Batty and co. in the original were of no threat, either. They just wanted to live. Joe isn't really K's name - if he has one he doesn't know it. It's what Joi calls him when he assumes he's the miracle child. She wasn't working for the LAPD, IIRC. She's part of the resistance and approaches K because he killed Sapper. Again, I think a few scenes were cut at the theater I saw it in so I might be off here or there but I think this is the gist of it.
  12. We're in the same boat haha. I finished Season 1 and got to the second half of Season 2 ages ago but only recently finished it all [Blade Runner got me in that sci fi mood] It's such a great show. I'm still gutted about Miller - episode 5 of season 2 was such amazing TV. I agree i'm never really super invested in Holden and I didn't like Amos at first but now there is certainly more than meets the eye to him. I have a suspicion he's had that same empathy removal surgery done on him as the protomolecule doc.
  13. Because killing Alfie starts a war with the Solomons and it's not what a cold blooded gangster would do. Tommy is just that - but he let emotion over take him after Grace's death.
  14. The future is always further off than we imagine; but then again it takes one massive breakthrough to change everything.