BLADE RUNNER 2049 Breakdown | Ending Explained, Easter Eggs, Hidden Details & Things You Missed

[@heavyspoilers]

Check out our breakdown of Blade Runner here - kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXfSeZiDjJuklas

[@demonicusa.k.a.theblindguy3929]

I really appreciate this period I'm a huge fan of the original but lost my vision about 28 years ago. 2049 had descriptive audio for the blind but it wasn't nearly as detailed. Well done. Take care.

[@schulzbrianr]

Prostitutes clients are called "John's" as far as I'm aware (at least in the US), not Joe's.

[@gollumfuck]

27:28 Thanks for the insult, because that’s not Russian it’s Finnish.

[@reaper6765]

Kurt Russel in Soldier is in the same Universe

[@SilentJay8]

Johns, mate. They’re called Johns, not Joes.

[@anthonyluban2492]

I'm glad you said that the ending is happy because K realizes that while he isn't special, he can help serve the greater good and that makes him special. I always thought that was profound. It seems that point was lost on most people.

[@Vascopalmeirim_]

Yes, while he wasn't born special, it isn't an attribute assigned at birth, but more of a personal choice. It's easier for him to continue his path as a blade runner that found out that he doesn't have any importance per say in the resurgence of the replicant kind than to sacrifice himself for a noble cause, a human act as referred in the movie

[@sub-jec-tiv]

Yeah, this film brings up interesting questions sci-fi has been obsessed with since at least Philip K Dick, probably longer (Asimov?)… and to Villeneuve’s credit, it doesn’t hit you over the head with any of them. As a result of leaving the philosophical parts unsaid, people who tend to enjoy reading between the lines and interpreting film in a more poetic way will get a lot out of this film. While people who go to movies for ‘bang bang woo hoo boobies’ may find it boring, ‘empty’ or pointless (if you cannot see it, you think it’s not there). Don’t get me wrong, bang bang movies can be cool, i like those too. But here Villaneuve absolutely made a film that lends itself to a more philosophical or poetic interpretation. Am kind of amazed a movie this subtle was greenlit and actually given the budget it was. It’s kind of a secret art-house movie, like a lot of Cohens films. Personally i think this film rose to the level of the original, while remaining its own statement on the same themes.

[@ZenEndurance]

And also, if being born or giving birth makes you human, then saving somebody's life is very similar. You are giving them life.

[@Takim0n]

a very zen/bushido way to view exsistance. It was a mistake to make Russia more prominent than Japan in this distopia. The theme is more bushido than marxist@@Vascopalmeirim_

[@chrisfox961]

I took the meaning as K realizing that how you are made/what you are doesn't make you special but what you do with your life and the actions that you take can make you special to someone else.

[@ShawsOwn]

Bit of a correction on the Joi segment. The Emanator "Present" isn't how K is tracked. Because Joi specifically tells K to break the antenna inside so that she can't be tracked. Meaning that Joi was also starting to free herself from the shackles of just being a product. As she instructed K on how to essentially jail break herself as a product. I think it's also interesting that originally Joi would make suggestions to K, then immediately change her mind if K showed the slightest resistance. Such as her suggestion he read to her, he resists, she throws the book away & says she hates the book. But towards the end she started making more demands vs requests. Such as the prostitute scene, he was very resistant at first. It was something she took the lead on but they both wanted. But her idea to delete her home files he absolutely did not want to do. That was her taking the lead on something he did not want. Essentially, she was becoming human herself. What are we told directly after Joi's "death?" That to die gor the tight cause is the must human thing we can do. Joi chose to appear while K was being beaten. She knew how vulnerable she was. She chose to die for her right cause. Which was K, whom she mistakenly thought was special because of his birth. K was tracked through his boss's office by the by.

[@donperegrine922]

Wow! Damn thanks for this! I love the Ghost In The Machine mythos that comes up in films like this. And, most famously, iRobot.

[@StarAllKungfu]

Had the same thoughts on the AI. It seemed like she was just another slave created by a human maker. Much like the Replicants Bladerunner hunts.

[@defonjack8169]

I think 2049 is a bit of a modern masterpiece. It's well made and really captures the Blade Runner world.

[@Soboba.Fett69]

& It's leagues ahead of the star wars sequels

[@lawjef]

BR2049 is nowhere near as good as the original but it is remarkable in 3D. Check it out if you haven’t already

[@amuroray9115]

@@lawjef I watched the original. I was very surprised since This one was much better.

[@jackmehoff915]

The Hans Zimmer soundtrack really helps to make you feel this movie

[@ddoumeche]

A bit too long, and the original bladerunner is much deeper. Otherwise an enjoyable movie

[@xzen667]

K isn't special because he was made/born special. He's special because of the choices he made. It's Existentialism.

[@NoodleKeeper]

He makes himself special, which in it's own way is better.

[@lifeonahighway9700]

This existential philosophy is flawed because then we can say no one who has made significant achievements is special, and eugenics becomes a possibility

[@Prometeusz]

Asuming that someone is special because he is born in that or other way , or created , or born in special family - is STUPID . Whole movie is metaphore. There are no replicants and humans !! All are replicants - and questions K is asking can be asked by any guy in real life , here in reality . We ALL are manufactured people !!! By pattern that goes from family to family .... We all are replicants , but by choices we make we can be independent repicants :)

[@zonefreakman]

​@Prometeusz You my friend are helping to crack the code to this puzzle

[@Prometeusz]

@@zonefreakman The puzzle of this world ... simulation world I assume ... Thanks my friend

[@ellatino55]

I don’t think Joi’s emotions were fake. The point of Blade Runner is that the line between synthetic and natural is irrelevant, rather it’s the experience of emotions and drive that makes something alive. Joe is hurt that his love is dead and what he sees is a ghost of emotions he felt. Synthetic or real, it felt the same. That radicalized him to fight and destroy the line between synthetic and natural. The reason I believe this is because the point of blade runner is push against the hierarchy of awareness. If Joe sees his love as false, then the hierarchy is maintained. But if he realizes it is false and yet still real, then the cause has a real purpose. Westworld has a very similar theme as well in the first and second season.

[@samuelc.9686]

No, you missed the whole point. Joi (K's AI) is fake, is just a program. Your evidence is just philosophical meaning you personally derived. The hard hitting thing about the dynamic between K and Joi is that K actually loved Joi (he's able to feel love because he's a replicant. Replicants can feel love. Joi isn't a replicant, she's an AI PROGRAM.) but Joi didn't actually love K because she can't. Again, all your proof that Joi was real is just some philosophical meaning that YOU came up with.

[@ellatino55]

@@samuelc.9686 you’re fun at parties huh? Yes some of this comes from my own interpretation. I wrote a critique on the film for college as well as the evolution of AI in storytelling. The story become very nihilistic if you want Joi to be fake. If Joi’s love is fake, then it reinforces what the oppressors say about the replicants. It’s kinda boring. Also the entire series is nothing but philosophical questions. The entire point between the two films, the story, and the shorts is about the line between synthetic and natural. With the ultimate point being that there is no line. A replicant feels and therefore they are alive. Joi felt love, fear, pain, and she acted on her own to make K happy (the prostitute scene). She even feels jealousy. Her creators created her to fall in love and be the perfect companion, but her actions were real to her and to K. She may not have as much awareness as replicants, but she has a “soul”. When K sees her hologram, he is seeing the soulless default created as he was. If he sees his experiences as faked, it completely nullifies the point of the two films. But if he sees his own pain and real emotions despite his default programming, then his motives are much more understandable. Also Dennis Villanueva absolutely loves these unsolvable philosophical and ethical questions. Watch Sicario, Enemy, Prisoners, Arrival, etc. He’s a director who is willing to put a blank scene for the purpose of having the audience fill in the meaning. The end of Enemy is very similar and is literally only meant to be interpreted. A fun philosophical idea is what did our creator program in us? Is that why we have religion, desires, ethics? Are our motivations in service to a creator? Does that make creation an act of oppression?

[@kreiyu]

@@samuelc.9686 no, you missed the point. you say she's fake, but how is he more real than her? is it just his physical body? he's a created product as much as she is. and most humans in their world probably doesn't see much of a difference. in a world where artificial life has pretty much been perfected, i don't think it's outlandish to think a digital AI could be more than the sum of it's parts too.

[@scrimshaw7470]

Hot take: they're all fake and you're all just simps for Skynet. 😂

[@ellatino55]

There are 3 types of people. Those who believe AI can become as sentient as humans. Those who believe humans are just as sentient as AI. Those who choose not to think.

[@kelborn40k84]

For me, Joi's emotions were real. K was confronted throughout the movie with the wonder of Anna's birth and that he never had seen a wonder himself. When he was confronted with the "standard" Joi, he was reminded of what he had and who she was to him, making her love his wonder. He then takes up the fight to protect Deckard to ensure that he'll have the wonder of sharing his life with his daughter now. A wonderful movie and one of my absolute favourites. Watched it three times in a row just to appreciate it entirely. :)

[@ilkkavierula6664]

If something is capable of imitating love so convincingly we cannot tell if the entity is just imitating or truly feeling it, does the difference even matter anymore ? Doesn't the boundary sort of disappear ? Even if the processes behind it are different, but the outcome and external manifestation is the same, does the difference matter anymore ?

[@turbo8628]

Eiather that or he realizes tbat the connection he experiences with joi is not authentic, so he decides to bring deckard to his daughter.

[@paulrigby7135]

​@ilkkavierula6664 to question is human and doubt could remain making it an emotional conundrum.

[@protonjones54]

Wonder? Don't you mean miracle?

[@JoeMamasBestie]

This movie was GRIPPING. I've seen it two or three times and it's always a good reminder that not all sequels and reboots are trash. If passion is applied the result is so sweet!

[@fusedexe2575]

watch blade runner 2099 be dogshit

[@JoeMamasBestie]

@@mcfresh4913 I always pretend movies I hate simply don't exist. For instance, in my reality there's only one matrix movie. Hopefully this helps you too

[@thorinteague989]

@@JoeMamasBestie The only reason I don't is because of MST3k/Rifftrax. I can watch *those guys* watch bad movies.

[@trajictempr8574]

Yup and I'll watch it again when I feel lonely

[@rambler1475]

This is the difference between great sequels and diznee sequels

[@MemphisCorollaS]

I loved that he tried to make the best movie with the tone and plot he wanted without worrying about spoon feeding fans, being scared of reviewers getting board by the pacing, and wasn’t scared of sacrificing some action to include more room for viewer interpretation. A great way to make a long awaited sequel the honored the original’s legacy without being confined by it. Like it or not, there’s a lot to respect here.

[@Harveyscustommtbs]

Farming bugs. No animals. No trees. No meat No freedom, cyborgs, Completly depressing vision of the future. The only way we get to this dystopia hell is if we let the elites steer humanity this way. Which they are now. Evil only exists at the top. Good people do not desire power over others. Only evil does with evil intentions.

[@Civsuccess2]

But the movie script actually like he was placating old fans, studio, and the woke crowd.

[@jadonstanding95]

@@Civsuccess2mfs like you will use the word ‘woke’ without any idea what it means 💀 don’t leave any comments again if you’re gonna continue being a brain dead waste of space

[@iamcruzing]

I agree. Which is why it wasn't a box office success and is a cult success. Sadly, the average movie goer simply wants more explosions and shoot'em up action. They aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate how the gray, wet, dilapidated scenery, slow pacing, music and even Goslings' flat, depressive affect all contribute to the somber mood of the world man has created in this dystopian vision of our future. And yet, in the most sobering and non-schmaltzy manner, the movie still preserves hope for mankind- capable of expanding our definition of humanity, of finding a purpose to live/die for and experiencing love.

[@Frans86-c3r]

Just a note about the the scene with the 3 pleasure bots walking up. She actually speaks finnish and not russian.

[@mutuasd]

I jumped out of my chair when I heard him say it was russian 🤬

[@Honkanen]

Had to come check out the comments on that one. Geez, how to piss a Finn off. 😁@@mutuasd

[@joy211191]

Yup, same thing. It was clearly Finnish.

[@justiceandhealing4all]

Finland belongs to Russian Empire so shut up or submerge under the sea. You have no idea what this film is bout since you never read Bible or Tanah.

[@mookiejapan7351]

The "Japanese and Chinese" companies in that list are all Japanese except for two Korean. I hope he uses the income from this video to hire some fact checkers.

[@RetroGamerBB]

Absolutely a masterpiece. I want that 4 hour cut. I don't care about pacing at this point. ive seen it a bajillion times already. I want to see Deckard in the desert.

[@jamesb5]

In the big joi billboard scene it also says something to the effect of “ she says exactly what you need to hear” which says to me at AI was only telling k what he wanted to hear, and he realizes the “love” he felt was fake, and the love between the father and his daughter is REAL love, which is why he goes back to help.

[@nintense5317]

Jerk off instructions, it’s a porn category.

[@samuelc.9686]

EXACTLY. People don't want to face the hard reality that JOI WAS FAKE, she didn't love K because she CANT love K. Joi was an AI, she's fake, and she's not unqiue. She tells the owner everything the owner wants to hear. People get sad when they hear Joi wasn't real, but that's the entire point. That's what seperate AI and replicants. And that's what make replicants human.

[@alfatejpblind6498]

@@samuelc.9686ot to cope - but the way you draw the line is pretty arbitrary. You do realize the replicants are AI too? They are mass produced, designed to be slaves, AI put into a synthetic body. Joi was a mass produced sex slave, an AI, but not put into a human body. The argument you’re putting forth is too simple and doesn’t hold. To show that Joi wasn’t real we need to analyze her behaviour

[@MrRed-cf6gk]

Joi is as real as Joe, or anyone.

[@patrickmalone2310]

@@samuelc.9686 she’s real because he cared about her as if she were.

[@mattsreptileroom]

2049, is easily one of my favorite films of all time. Maybe my favorite. It's so dense, so beautiful thematically and visually. It's a masterpiece.

[@justiceandhealing4all]

The children born to Rachel were twins. Anna and K are both this guys' s children. Rachel means "sheep" and he wears sheep skin the whole time. That is the point and the title. The guy who wrote the screenplay was satanist, clearly who covered it up by daoism and other BS, I doubt he ever had a twin. All his bio is bullshit. The movie is really based on Tanah and prophecies of coming messiah. All humanity knows about deep inside but the movie means to reprogram the human and usher in the Antichrist. The movie programs your mind don't be so encharmed by it. It is meant to divert and pervert the truth , what will happen according to prophecies. In Tanah for example, God gave Rachel a child because she was both beautiful on the outside and on the inside, unlike most of other women. Notice how Lucifer is present in the movie but God is completely absent.

[@mc-xu4hg]

I don't think Luv tracked K because of Joi since she asked him to break her antenna before running away, so they won't get followed. Actually, Luv got their location through Madam computer after she killed her.

[@fredbloggs5902]

Correct

[@heavyspoilers]

True true. My bad on that one.

[@mc-xu4hg]

@@heavyspoilers just a little detail in an otherwise pretty insightful video. Great work man

[@dariostromajer1625]

a proof joi evolved beyond her programming..

[@alexhein1738]

I think also Mackenzie Davis character put a track in k’s jacket

[@abdullahx4908]

Here’s something you didn’t notice. K and luv fight in the car, which is circular like an egg. There’s water and it symbolises a womb. They’re twins, both followed orders and both had notions they were something greater. K killing luv symbolises him killing his twin

[@trajictempr8574]

Wow

[@trajictempr8574]

But are they actually twins tho

[@adoraquintessa1691]

@@trajictempr8574could be created at the same time/ model .

[@refundreplay]

He should have absorbed her like a real Chimera.

[@vincentgoupil180]

Philip K. Dick had a twin sister who died six weeks after their birth who he considered his "phantom twin". Possible K (KD6-3.7) is Philip Kindred Dick and Philip K. Dick was a replica ? :)

[@louisberry4403]

One of the best sequels and sci-fi films with the original. Denis And Harrison deserved Oscar Noms. Amazing film with great respect to the original while making its own great story. Can't wait for Blade Runner 2099.

[@fredbloggs5902]

There’s nothing special about Harrison’s performance in this. His best recent performance was in ‘The Age of Adaline’.

[@louisberry4403]

@@fredbloggs5902 Harrison brings more to this than he did as Old Man Han And Indy. He's playing a lot of emotions and not just playing Grumpy Harrison Ford.

[@tonnentonie2767]

2099?

[@louisberry4403]

@@tonnentonie2767 It's a show for Amazon Prime. Hope it lives up to the greatness of the films.

[@Facetiously.Esoteric]

Lmao This movie was idiotic. An android not designed to give birth "magically" gives birth. He makes visually amazing movies that have the worst writing ever. Another David Lynch. The premise of this literally doesn't make sense in any scientific way at all. It's pseudo-Christian magic. That people think this movie makes sense in any logical way makes me sad for humanity.

[@attrage7545]

It's an incredibly deep film. Gosling was criticized for being too wooden in his performance (ironic, I know), but pay attention to his eyes - there's some wonderfully subtle acting going on there. My favourite moment though is the way Deckard reacts when he says Rachael's name out loud (probably for the first time in a long time) - he ever so slightly softens, it's like a weight has lifted from him, it's an absolutely beautiful character moment and makes me tear up every time. Great critique.

[@cryptonite8495]

I'm sure Gosling was directed to maintain an emotionless demeanor, but somehow I still felt emotions boiling beneath the surace. They evoked this with lighting, sweat on his face, eye movement, etc. Finally it boiled over when Anna told him his memory actually happened and he snapped: "GODDAMMIT!" It did actually happen, but to Anna. That part of her memories went into K when he was made. She said, in fact, she puts part of herself into each Replicant.

[@kingkekeli4016]

Am I the only one who's now hearing of the short films and the anime one for the first time?!!!!

[@revalution1965]

I def knew about the anime short but not the TWO PREQUEL SHORT FILMS that accompanied 2049?? I have to see them now wtf 2048 is in my top 3 movies ever

[@ThisIsTheRoad]

Yes, you probably are.

[@EfftupSmith]

The thing about Rache;s eyes being green is, if you pay attention to the 2 Voight Kampff tests, they clearly use the SAME eye in both tests, Green with a slight patch of light brown near the top. Bryon James (Leon) has Blue eyes and Sean Young (Rachel) has brown ones. So the her eyes were green line is either a way to cover this small detail in the oroginal film OR Deckard is just saying that to mess with Wallace, who thinks he did a perfect creation and Deckard is not falling for it.

[@newton2105]

One Easter egg to note - when K flies along the sea wall to head to San Diego, there’s a ship hovering above that’s definitely a replica of the Sulaco from Aliens

[@heavyspoilers]

Nice catch

[@seanylewl]

Whether Joi's love for K is real or not is irrelevant - it's the exact same thing as the replicants being alive or not. If she is programmed to love him, then she would feel that love as strongly as any human experiencing love. She's not programmed to pretend to love him - she's programmed to actually love him, which means that to her (and to him) there is no difference. Of course this asks that age old question - what is love?

[@turbo8628]

Joi's goal is to show love. People "fall in (and out of) love," and that is not planned. We often don't even know why we love someone, just that we do. The difference is intent, and intent means everything when it comes to emotions. If it is premeditated, then that is logic taking over (or programming), whilst emotions are reactions to external stimuli that we then internalise and feel. We cannot define love because there are different types of love, but we at least know it is an emotion, not something that we can plan, not something we can control.

[@itzempathy4464]

-baby don't hurt me

[@turbo8628]

@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo essentially it is the same thing as a sensor which reacts to light by making a beeping noise. It doesn't matter if it understands what light is, and it doesn't natter if it knows why it is making a noise. It is porgrammed to do so, and so it does. Joi is just a more complex version of this system, but with more sensors receiving information and with a wider variety of noises it can make to send information. Joi is about as sentient as your average smoke alarm. The "ai" we have today is no different. The replicants represent something different - more akin to cloning or "designer babies." They may actually be sentient, albeit they are not born naturally, and that is the main question that these movies are asking. They are neither human nor robot, sitting somewhere inbetween or adjacent to them.

[@ofiterpunte]

K's persona is reflected in Joi and viceversa. I distinctly remember while watching the movie that I thought "K's a really softie, you really get to know him by knowing his Joi". I think at a statistical level she's aware of her other personas, if you know what I mean... Being so unique, being made so pure, by K's personality alone, I think she really enjoys herself, so, because he made her what she is, she does really love him. On the Bridge, he realizes she was unique, and that he's unique as well. She had supported his beautiful dreams, even is she wasn't real, now he's gonna do the same with Deckard. Lovely movie, isn't it.

[@angelv5170]

She was doing what she was made for

[@ZenEndurance]

Totally agree. AI becomes unique after you train it. They lived together and their interactions transformed both of them.

[@Fanatiqual]

I am really enjoying your long form breakdowns of older movies, please keep making them, it gives me a chance to rewatch from a new perspective

[@heavyspoilers]

Thank you, really enjoying making em too

[@KevFrost]

The Las Vegas broken statue reminded me of Ozymandias: "look on my works, ye mighty, and despair' in the middle of wreckage and desert.

[@heavyspoilers]

Nice, love that analogy of it

[@michaelrue1400]

I had no doubts as soon as Anna said the memory was a real one that it was hers and not his. I think the fact that Deckard has visibly aged since the first film is proof that he isn't a replicant.

[@mikepette4422]

agree and I've never liked the theory and really thats all it is some nerds trying to b edgy by saying he's a replicant. its pretty clear that deckard is human

[@acropolisnow9466]

It's a preposterously stupid theory. @@mikepette4422

[@NoodleKeeper]

​@@mikepette4422Ridley Scott said he wanted Deckard to be a replicant in the original script. So, no. It's not edgy to theorize that he actually is one. The whole point of the movie is that humans are wrong about basically everyone they say about replicants, so one without a kill switch implemented might live for 30 more years and age, like Arnie in Terminator, or Andrew in Bicentennial Man.

[@justiceandhealing4all]

Çhildren were twins. Anna and Deckard are both this guys' s children. Rachel means "sheep" and he wears sheep skin the whole time.

[@Joker_Black]

​@@justiceandhealing4all how you know

[@schools6555]

After rewatching Bladerunner 2049 a few times a gained a much better appreciation of the film. After the first watch I didn't care for but sometimes you just need to watch certain films multiple times before you really start liking said films.😊

[@robertoneill1979]

I thought it was implied (in both movies) that Deckard and Rachel were both Nexus 7. Effectively made for each other. They were the only Nexus 7s made; able to reproduce and actively encouraged to do so. Rachels serial number seems to include "N7". Wallace could never master the production of this model.

[@daisyblossomflowerchild9702]

Thank you for these indepth breakdowns of the two Bladerunner movies. I love both of them. I also appreciate your inclusion of background content, which I somehow had not come across previously. Cheers, Paul. :)

[@heavyspoilers]

Ey no problem, thank you for all the support and the kind words. Really means a lot

[@05Rudey]

I always thought of as Rachael being a Nexus 7. An experimental and upgraded 6 with extended lifespan, memories and the ability to reproduce.

[@jakemeyer8188]

I do think Joi loved K, insofar as she is capable within the limits of her programming...which was, of course, exactly what she was programmed to do. So she was both in love with him, and programmed to do so. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and it's exactly the question we're meant to be asking. To Joi, the love wasn't a lie. Simulation Theory is an infinite loop, so acceptance of Truth in that loop must be chosen by the person evaluating it. K must decide for himself if Joi "really" loves him...and in doing so he joins the rest of humanity in wondering if a loved one ACTUALLY loves us in return as much as is given. Humans choose to accept the truthiness of love given to us by someone else every day....

[@ilkkavierula6664]

But aren't humans also programmed to love ? We are biologically programmed to feel love in response to certain stimuli. We cannot choose or consciously decide who we love. How is an ai programmed to love in any way different from humans ?

[@iamcruzing]

Interesting comments. We are biologically "programmed" to love, agreed. But it is, for most mentally healthy individuals a combination of the unconscious and the conscious. We fall in love with someone we feel a mystical chemistry with (unconscious) but also tend to choose that person based on conscious factors- that they treat us well, with respect, that we have common interests, that we come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds (yes! almost invariably true) and that we can envision an enduring and fulfilling life with them. So I think you can say there is a distinction there based on free will. Joi was programmed to love K (or anyone else who might buy her) without option. She had no autonomous will of her own to choose & give love. She HAD to love K. (Which is different than the tenuous nature of human love that can end... Can you imagine Joi telling K she no longer loved him...) That this programmed AI compulsion to love ultimately feeling manipulative was nicely portrayed in "Her" when Joaquin Phoenix realizes the AI Scarlett Johansson character loved him just as she loves countless other clients. He realized underneath that interactive experience was a corporate profit interest. (Remember Luv asking if K enjoyed their product- Joi.) @@ilkkavierula6664

[@ethanrabideau7402]

But Joi does not technically have a consciousness, she is by default literal code. She’s made to pretend. She feels like she loves you, she looks like she loves you and she acts like she loves you, she’ll go into deep discussions about your life but only your life and she will say whatever it takes to please you. So thought if she was a person she would 100% he valid, there’s no real thought in her. There’s nobody behind that code it’s an empty message just wait in for somebody desperate so it can trick them. Joi, sadly, is nothing more then digital code with no true soul to back her “emotions”

[@DaSuDanesi]

@@ethanrabideau7402 Personally, I feel that if something can emulate emotion to the point that the main argument as to why it's not "real" is "well, it was artificially created to emulate it", then there's no functional difference to really be had. Joi believed (or emulated believing that) she loved Joe to the point that she actively sabotaged efforts of and technology made by her creators to monitor and track Joe. And what of Joe and the other replicants? Are they somehow more "real" than Joi, despite the fact that everything they know, all their experiences that formed their basic personality, are carefully crafted forgeries programmed into their brains at the point of their activation? What, exactly, defines something as nebulous as a soul?

[@bitharne]

It’s actually the same thing as our “free will” We don’t have it…but we do in the sense that the things you think, the things you do, the things you say are completely determined for you by biology, neurology, and all other (incalculable probably) factors…but you would choose those actions anyway.

[@jiggygrand]

The entire point of this movie was what's real is precious. Joshi summed it up when she said, "We're all just trying to have something Real" Kay & Joi's love was real even though it was shared by two artificial people. It doesn't matter if Deckard was a replicant because his & Rachel's love was real. That Real Love is probably HOW Rachel and Deckard were able to produce a child. Tyrell made for this development but Wallace would forever be 'Blind' to what Real Love can accomplish. Kay's decision to help Deckard see his daughter was, in part because he was now empathetic. His world view deepens as he experiences Real love from and for Joi.

[@Shep2345]

Great vid…Rachel’s eyes weren’t green tho. They were brown/hazel. Deckard tells Wallace they were green to make Wallace think he got the Rachael reboot wrong as an insult and to break his own emotional connection with the new Rachael

[@YourFactotum]

Thank you for the Möbius apartment detail, which ties beautifully with the Bradbury from the original. Also, the Peter and the Wolf connection with Bowie, as he was supposed to be Wallace

[@CarlosRodriguez-dd4sb]

Johns, they are referred to as Johns (at least in all the movies in the US)

[@backroadsentertainment814]

I love the care and reverence you showed to both the Blade Runner films. I saw the original in the theatre, and the impact it had on me lives to this day, and always will. It was a once-in-a-lifetime thing, and it truly deserves its cult classic status. Thanks.

[@Green_Phos]

The wood walls adorning Wallace's "home" are also have a golden color (especially with the water reflections that makes them "sparkle"), which additionally implies his enormous wealth. It also hints at his belief in being a god and living in a golden temple or in Blade Runner's case, wood which is just as, if not more, valuable.

[@garfunkel6975]

I'm sure others have mentioned this already but having the Japanese influences in the original and the Soviet ones in this one does not necessarily imply that those countries won WW3, especially since WW3 is unwinnable as it would turn into a nuclear one. The idea of globalization fits both sci-fi and cyberpunk much better - just a hotpot of cultural influences from all over the world. Also, the streetwalker warning the other two girls that K is a blade runner speaks Finnish, not Russian. Very different languages!

[@kc5402]

The Blade Runner storyline takes place in an alternate timeline, so any comparison with international politics and nationalistic attitudes in our world is incorrect. For example, it would appear that in the Blade Runner world, there was never a cold war between USA and the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union was never dissolved.

[@heyviolet9434]

There's a really obvious comparison to two characters often overlooked in the film. Joi and Luv. Luv is told she's special and Joi is considered to be product. Both of them do exactly the same thing: strive to serve their masters. Joi points out shes just a program and the giant billboard isn't just a storyboard about how Joi is just programmed to do as she's told. We can see K's reflection on the advert as critique of himself. Am I a product designed to do as I'm told, or am I more?' He agonises and stresses throughout as he moves off his baseline. I think if we see this scene and take it for what it is, it flattens out the deeper meaning of whether Joi is any less concious. Is it because she has programming and no brain? K is programmed. He is systematically forced to accept his limitations and threatened with termination.

[@justinstirpe3672]

I love the different takes on Joi and personally I believed that Joi over the course of her “lifetime” developed feelings for K that were genuine. We see consistently throughout the film Luv looking for for reassurance from Wallace that she is special and perhaps loved. This could also be applied to Joi and how K gave her the reassurance and attention she may have craved. Joi is lost in a world where she only had one purpose and that is to please her owner. Similarly K was created with only one purpose and that was to be a slave to humanity. However we see K break free from his original purpose and that was do something that he believed to be important. Something that made him “Human”. Joi could have overtime realized she wanted to break free from her original purpose to please K and genuinely wanted to please him as she felt special. Unfortunately the only hole in my analysis is that Joi was programmed to love K. Meaning that Joi didn’t have “free will”. I’m my own little world tho I like to believe that AI can develop as they receive information from the world around them and become something more than their original purpose. Just like how when a baby is born they are “programmed” to eat, sleep, poop and find love. But as we humans exist, overtime we develop free will to what we please.

[@tysonc2219]

This is my absolute favourite movie! Thank you for nailing the breakdown

[@heavyspoilers]

Much appreciated, really glad you enjoyed it

[@redgetgo]

I’ve seen both bladderunner movies twice. I think I’ve consumed more KZbin video essays about these movies in airtime at this point

[@samuellist1844]

Absolutely one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time.

[@josephmeador1529]

6:24 Rachel's eyes were brown. We see a close up of Rachael's eyes on the screen in Blade Runner during her Voight-Kampf test. The first time the machine zooms in on her eyes they look green due to lighting but when he zooms in during the "boiled dog" question her eyes are brown and her eyes are brown in every scene in the movie.

[@ikmnification5737]

The continued use of ATARI in the film is probably a reference to the replicants themselves; ATARI is a US company that adopted a Japanese name to come across as Japanese, just as the replicants adopt a visage to hide amongst the humans.

[@kc5402]

^ Over-interpreting. The "Atari" reference simply indicates that the Blade Runner storyline is taking place in an alternate timeline, and is *not* a prediction of our own world. Atari, Pan-Am and "CCCP" (Soviet Union) which all appear in the films are reminders of things which no longer exist in our world. (Atari still exists as a trademarked IP, but it isn't producing computer games any more, and is nowhere near as famous now as it was.)

[@CheatFight]

Rachel's eyes were never green. Deckard was more than likely just lying to resist Wallace. Check the first film. I watch either one of them every night before bed, lol.

[@9to5_]

Such an underrated movie.

[@wercakkie]

Great video! One thing i'd like to point out tho is that at 27:31 they are speaking finnish, not russian.

[@ianmcgeehan4627]

Rachel Was a Nexus 7, however her model was" an experiment, nothing more" then Tyrell was killed before he could continue. Also, it always seemed like the eye in the beginning should have been Holden, looking out the window at the gas flares while waiting for Leon. Also the first letter of the names of the wooden animals spell RACHEL.

[@maxmaxneolit]

Not Holden. The eye in the first movie was that of Roy Batty.

[@ianmcgeehan4627]

@@maxmaxneolit maybe, though Roy has blue eyes and that one was hazel. Though Ridley says it wasn't any characters eye in particular but instead meant to convey an "all seeing eye" at the top of the pyramid looking over the city.

[@maxmaxneolit]

@@ianmcgeehan4627 wow... I've been watching BR since it came out. Watched it in a theatre. Then got it on VHS and that copy got ground to dust. DVD and Blurays followed, theatrical and director's and final cut. I have watched it more than 100 times and never did it cross my mind that it's some random eye. I guess Ridley didn't really know how to convey this properly then. For me, it always represented Roy's eye, mesmerised by life underneath, wanting that life, soaking it all in.

[@ianmcgeehan4627]

@@maxmaxneolit yeah i love the movie too. Saw the theatrical in early 1980s at 11 years old. Watch "Dangerous Days" which is the 3.5 hour documentary done in 2007 when they did Final Cut version. Amazing documentary.

[@maxmaxneolit]

@@ianmcgeehan4627 I'll check it out. Thanks!

[@pixels_per_minute]

2049 is one of all time favourite films. No other piece of sc-fi media has effected me like Blade Runner, and I must not forget to mention a great complimentary video "In Search of the Distinctively Human | The Philosophy of Blade Runner 2049" by Like Stories of Old. Which, for me, elevated the film to the top of my list.

[@alanparsonsfan]

@pixels_per_minute THIS. like stories of oldest take on LOTR is outstanding as well.

[@cloudythursday9937]

I never saw the original bladerunner in full. But one evening i thought might as well watch this and the sequel. Honestly watching it back to back was an experience. This is what a good sequel should be. It caught the atmosphere, the ton and the setting of the first movie.

[@franciscogalvez7216]

It is a movie that suits better for simple minds as the orignal one does otherwise having you figure it out. Its a good movie but its not the 1982 art masterpiece.

[@kinjapan1801]

There is a deleted scene on KZbin from the original Bladerunner where Rachel and Deckard are in the car after going on the run. Rachel tells him "you know what I think? I think we were made for each other." Deckard smiles at first, but then gets this great 'wait, what??' look on his face. I think the whole showdown with Wallace gave a big nod to that scene.

[@aarons1811]

Fantastic video! Just to add another small detail: Luv's name is spelt like the SMS shorthand version, emphasising that even though Wallace named her, he still sees her as tech. To him, she is not worthy of being called 'Love'.

[@Mansini77]

41:44 I get chills watching this scene. Rachael’s entrance, the synth chords, and Wallace’s voiceover blend together so smoothly.

[@Aerisot]

I think you are missing another symbolism at the end of the film, you called the lines on the back of K's coat as a by product of the sea salt, but if you look closer, it is actually representing a skeletal rib cage, signifying that K is half dead.

[@reubenmanners5209]

When Luv askes Joi is she’s satisfied with the product, she was actually talking to K on the ground showing no eye contact.

[@lifeman388]

Most underrated movie and one of my favorite sci fi movie

[@diogomp81]

The way i've always seen the marks on K's jacket at the end is that it's partly showing a ribcage, so he's now half-human or becoming human, exactly due to having gained a soul and/or free will due to his actions.

[@aceevans9010]

One of the most underrated movies of all time!

[@SocialBobcat]

22:26 love the movie, and I appreciate when The Goose busts out pieces of emotion like this clip here.

[@lipidi1542]

27:27 The escort is speaking Finnish not russian

[@ThorneyedWT]

I love BR2049 too, but I think it could be much better if Villeneuve just cut almost all "action" with Ford and shortened final fight too. There was perfect reason for dragged out fight in original, but in sequel it just takes time and adds nothing. If not that, I could say BR2049 was perfect.

[@TylerHowarth12]

I literally just finished watching this movie for the first time 10 minutes ago! I haven’t seen the 1st one but that’s next on my list! Loved the movie but felt confused at times. I’m assuming this is cause I hadn’t seen the original

[@safe4jam]

Joi is self aware. The video missed when Deckard was being transported and passed a billboard display of Joi. Her look of contempt toward his captors was palatable.

[@zarandrewstra7833]

These movie breakdowns are your best work. Thanks for covering my all time faves, 2049 is the movie of our generation.

[@TurboB18C]

I sort of disagree with the salt lines on the jacket. You can clearly see the lines at several other times in the film. The markings are vaguely seen early in the film at the 10:32 mark. Then, they are more prominent at the 14:13, 44:39 and 1:02:59 marks; prior to your observation at the steps. Though I do agree that there are salt stains on K’s pants at the end of the film.

[@kadaluarsa-316]

i'm going to re-watch 2049 again after this :D

[@maximilianfontaine2994]

Bro, at zero point did they ever want you to possibly think KD6-3.7 was a human.... the thought never even entered my mind when watching. How on earth did you think they were saying that? You mention it like 4 times in the video. The whole point is that he would be the first replicant born, which is the ENTIRE point....

[@saikathghosh8733]

For real man this movie was PHENOMENAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like sequels really not live to the success of the first one.....but this movie really lived up to the level of first one or even better!! Really sad that it wasnt able to make good success at box office..

[@heavyspoilers]

Yeah totally agree, gained a following but it’s a shame it didn’t have that success right out the gate

[@dariostromajer1625]

I think joi is just as real as everyone else except that she kind of comes with a default personality. But you can change her personality, just like with humans (perhaps easier because her default personality IS to listen to you). You can see her do things that she's not supposed to as a joi that is advertised, like asking K questions about DNA and a thermal image, looking around while in K's jet like she's curious about the world, exploring deckard's place while K is not watching, or her helping K escape from HER company, Wallace... The JOI on the ad really shows how different the original AI and her JOI were.

[@ZenEndurance]

Right. I think she's shown as an example of how AI becomes real if left running long enough. It happened to the replicants, it happened to Joi... rocks turn to soil turn to living things when they run their course.

[@Shaannooonn]

She was programmed to be who he would love so she did everything he would love a person for. As in… A real woman would care about her own safety, Joi cared about maintaining the personality of someone he would love and he would love a selfless person. This is the sad thing. She was never real. But she was a reflection of his values. He realizes that.

[@thorinteague989]

Yeah it just hit me at 30:03. Joi wouldn't have really reacted in any way when K/Joe was unconscious in the junkyard wasteland if she hadn't somehow developed some sort of love, empathy, or concern for his well being. There wouldn't have been any reason to.

[@alanparsonsfan]

@thorinteague989 And, she wouldn't have made sure that the last thing she said to him was that she lived him...poignant.

[@ЗвездыБольшойПротуберанец]

44:56 -"..because he was better than the humans"- I love the elegant simplicity of this explanation, and the bold confidence with which it speaks of all humans.

[@UristMcPerson]

I always thought, at least in the original Blade Runner, that it rained in most parts of the city because of just how high up the buildings had been constructed. In the introductory shots (as well as the animation in 3:24) where it pans over the city and the giant Tyrell Corporation building, it easily dwarfs the skyscrapers of today. So high up and overbuilt that the rain is merely the condensation forming on the buildings.

[@Brainbuster]

8:00 *This is completely made up.* Clients of prostitutes are known as "johns" or "tricks" in North America. And "punters" in Britain and Ireland. Prostitutes do NOT refer to men as "Joes"' (neither "often" or "ever". You're not just reaching. *You're making stuff up.*

[@AlmostProGaming]

My interpretation of K is that he wasn't meant to be seen as a human, but a human/replicant hybrid. If Rachel was a replicant and Deckard was a human (which I lean more towards) it would mean they created a human/replicant hybrid, making him incredibly special while also being yet another metaphor for humans and replicants being one and same. But it turns out he isn't the child and isn't "the chosen one" which leads back in to pretty much everything else you covered.

[@extraplain2412]

The K and Joi relationship broke my heart. We're literally almost at that point with AI. The worlds going to become a much more lonely place. As if it wasn't bad enough already..

[@DavidHands]

Perhaps, but there are plenty of people out there who are socially awkward, handicapped, old, ugly, isolated, or a part of some minority. They would feel that their lonely existence is much improved with the addition of a custom high fidelity companion.

[@extraplain2412]

@@DavidHands I am half of those things you listed. Love it when people try to talk on behalf of others 🥴

[@DavidHands]

@@extraplain2412 Oh half those things plus a sarcastic butthurt karen to boot. You think my point is irrelevant or incorrect because you think I "spoke on your behalf"? I said "there are plenty of people out there.." that are such and such. I should have added dumb to my list and you could have claimed that one too. I made an innocent on-topic comment promoting healthy discussion and you decided to be a bitch about it. Enjoy your lonely life then but remember, it was your choice.

[@sylviecharlois1165]

There's one thing that has bothered me ever since I saw Blade Runner 2049. I don't know why Deckard says "her eyes were green" when confronted with the recreated Rachel. Because no, her eyes were not green ! Rachel has Sean Young's brown eyes, as can be seen on every photo of her in character. Did Deckard say she had green eyes to throw off Wallace, as a way to destabilize him, making him doubt the supposed perfection of his recreation of her ? Anyway, that movie managed to be almost as good as the original. Visually stunning, perfectly coherent with the original, but I thought it felt as if Villeneuve was so in awe of it that he didn't dare stray to far. But he certainly did an awesome job, Blade Runner is, in my opinion anyway, just about the greatest SiFi movie ever made, and possibly as close to perfection as a movie can be, and to follow up on that with such mastery is amazing.

[@donnahanna10565]

This is brilliant! So much fun. You point out things that I've always thought but wondered if I was right. You explain things that now clear up so much. I love Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049. One of the best sequels ever ever made it almost seems like a continuous part of the first one in a way where it brings a certain reality to it. That probably didn't make any sense but I can't put it into words but I can't wait to watch more of your videos❤

[@heavyspoilers]

Ey thank you so much, really appreciate the kind words

[@paddymcgrath9721]

This movie and series of movies are masterpieces, Ridley's should never have criticized Denis offering as he is being criticized for the exact shortcoming he had which was length with his new movie Napoleon. Directors typically don't make good critics I love both of these films immensely.

[@asm-6547]

Nice to see this channel actually doing explaining rather than just recaps

[@GreenInvasion]

For me it was always quite simple: Rachael was the "miracle"; a replicant that can reproduce while Deckard was human. I don't see any hint or ambiguity in the films respect to that. In 2049 K is a poor sod lured to question his own nature in order to protect Deckard & Rachael's doughter. BTW, Gosling kills it.

[@juhokuusisto9339]

She's not speaking Russian, it's Finnish. Learn your trivia.

[@GolemsYT]

I don't think deckard is a replicant because in the first film replicants only have a 4 year lifespan. He would be dead by 2049 easily

[@herp_derpingson]

"Be not afraid" when Rachel shows up

[@midago7332]

Great movie, I didn’t think after many years they could better the OG but this was amazing. Villeneuve nailed it. Recently watched Dune too and he did a top job on that

[@TheGamingDefinition]

Fantastic video, I love watching these explanation videos right after seeing the movies themselves, crazy how much you can miss!

[@ftd888]

There are three elements in the movie that I interpreted differently … 1. In the clips of Rachel from the 1982 film, we can see that she does, in fact, have brown eyes. Deckard was lying when he said that they were green. 2. I think the wooden statue IS a horse, not a unicorn. It’s shown from multiple angels, and a horn is never visible. Instead, its ears (plus the angle of the light) are what make its shadow LOOK LIKE a unicorn … which, to me, makes the symbolism even more interesting. 3. I haven’t seen the full film … but I disagree with the interpretation that K “isn’t special.” Although he isn’t the chosen one, he also isn’t a robot that simply follows orders. Much like Joi, he grows to have a sense of humanity to him. So, he is “special” in the sense that he is a unique entity that can make his own choices … and we’re left to debate whether he truly has a soul.

[@davidgreenwitch]

CCCP is actually "SSSR" and is the abbrevation of the Soviet Union just in cyrillic letters!

[@Thunderflare99]

This was a great breakdown. I grew up with the original, and scoffed they were making a sequel thinking it was going to be a disaster. The surprise was that it was actually a fantastic film and I have watched it many times. I didn't think it was possible, but they recreated the old Blade Runner magic. At the core of the movie is an incredible feeling of loneliness, the desire for love and togetherness, and the bitterness of unfulfilled wishes. All K can do is sacrifice himself to help another more in need than himself.

[@theCODfatherV1]

Wow the analysis at the end absolutely blew my mind. Made the movie so much better.

[@jackharper8307]

Those aren’t salt lines on his jacket. There is a code embossed on the material. It’s more clear in other shots earlier in the film.

[@holmboy]

Rachel's eyes in Blade Runner, in every scene except for her Voight-Kampff test, were brown, not green. So Wallace had quite possibly replicated Rachel correctly, and Deckard told Wallace this because he didn't want him to know he had succeeded, didn't want to believe (or deep down inside knew that) Rachel could be recreated and was never unique, or a combination of both, despite knowing the pain that would come with seeing an accurate reproduction of Rachel be retired in front of him.

[@aweofme]

One of the best sequels ever made up there with the empire strikes back

[@markford2272]

Another great breakdown of what will likely become an aknowledged Sci-Fi classic, just like the OG Blade Runner. While the first film is still my personal favourite of the two, this is a worthy sequel, made with obvious love for the first film. Just a thought on why we went from Nexus 6 to Nexus 8 - perhaps Rachael (and maybe even Deckard, if one goes with the idea he is a replicant too) were Nexus 7 models, deemed to be a failed experiment by Tyrell, and replaced upon his demise, by Nexus 8

[@jackblack5393]

1. Luv finds K using Madam's computer, not Joi's antenna - we're explicitly shown her insisting that K destroys it and later we see Luv find it in his apartment. 2. The weapon K's car was taken down with was a harpoon attached to a metal wire and a kite that flew upwards into the storm cloud, acting like Benjamin Franklin's kite to attract and direct lightning at the vehicle, to fry the breaker.

[@persona2grata]

I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I always thought Joi did love K. I also assumed that the 'Joe' reference later in the movie was because K was being shown a targeted ad. So somewhere in their database they had a notation that a previously owned product had given him the nickname 'Joe' and they dredged that up in the hopes that it might increase the odds of a sale, with the subtle indication to the audience that no aspect of your "relationship" with the product was considered private. I also assumed that the black eyes indicated that the basic product you purchased indeed had no soul, but rather that the soul, meaning their humanity, was grown via interaction with the owners.

[@balinttoser8493]

I think Joi's emotions became very much real as the story progressed. As another comment pointed out, originally she would make suggestions to K, but if he showed even the slightest resistance, she instantly changed her mind. This changed a bit in the prostitute scene, where K resists at first, but she doesn't change her mind and takes the lead. The fulfillment of this change is her telling K to delete her from the console, which he denies completely at first. But again, instead of changing her mind, she starts to reason confidently for her idea and ends up convincing K. And then there's, of course, her "death" scene, where she could've chosen not to appear and "survive". But she did show herself, asking Luv to stop, which IMO is interpretable as a "sacrifice" because she dragged Luv's attention away from K, technically saving his life. I know this sounds like I'm overthinking it a bit, but it sounds good😃. However, after thinking about all these actions from her, I still couldn't decide if her emotions were real or not. The moment when I decided that she really loved K was when I came across a deleted scene where she says something similar to what she said on the roof (,, I'm so happy when I'm with you."), to which K replied ,,You don't have to say that." just like he did in the roof scene. But in this deleted scene instead of staying silent (like in the roof scene), Joi replies with a smile and says ,,I know". IMO this shows that she really meant it, because, think about it...if her emotions weren't real and she was just obeying her programming and telling K anything he wanted to hear, then she wouldn't say it, because K reminded her earlier that she doesn't have to say it, but she decided to do so anyway. Btw, such a great movie, definitely in my top 3... an interesting, mind-provoking story, stunning visuals, an incredible atmosphere, and a great soundtrack indeed (It's a shame it didn't win the Oscar for that). Also, the theme or the concept of the story is a bit similar to Detroit: Become Human which is also a fascinating experience.

[@Festivejelly]

Loving these videos. Loved this film too. But the videos are great for films I couldnt be arsed to watch lol.

[@secondakira]

I was kinda surprised how many critics (particularly the ones who complained about the potrayal of women) missed the interaction between K and the JOI advertisement. With the ad calling him Joe and even with the tagline "Everything you want to hear", it really adds a whole different layer on it.

[@brandongonzalez1258]

Favorite movie of all time. I would talk highly of it but everyone’s already said it for me

[@billallender39]

37:14 Wasn't Holden the man Leon shot at the beginning of the first film? There's a storyboard showing Deckard visiting him in hospital. He's paralysed, not dead.