The Ending Of Blade Runner 2049 Explained
video description
All that is fairly boring surface level stuff. PKD was concerned with what makes a person human and soulful. 2049 has a partial answer - memories and the way they shape us. By showing how JOI goes from being a simplistic pleasure model to a loyal, loving companion who is curious about the world and eager to experience it, 2049 seems to be suggesting that it is possible to escape the 'programming' of one's personality via new experiences and the memories they create. It lays this whole idea out explicitly in the scenes where K visits Deckard's offspring. Joi's journey and that of K's are in stark contrast to Wallace and Love, who do not learn or grow - they merely become more refined versions of themselves. Wallace shaped by his narcissism, Love by her fear and desire to viewed as the best.
Takeaway - If we don't grow and we don't change from experiences, then we're not fully human.
Date: 2020-07-14
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Scott
A. If Deckard was a replicant, why produce one (whose main function is to track down and eradicate rogue off-world replicants that are usually super deadly and super strong) that isn't superhumanly strong like (most of) the other replicants? That doesn't really make much sense. It also would make little sense to produce a Deckard replicant with a 4 yr. lifespan that isn't nearly a match
for the other replicants he's hunting. And you'd have to keep producing Deckards repeatedly every four years or so. A waste of money and resources. B. If Tyrell's motto was more human than human, why wouldn't a female replicant be able to conceive children, even with a limited lifespan? Unless they were sterile from inception for whatever reason.
reply
A. If Deckard was a replicant, why produce one (whose main function is to track down and eradicate rogue off-world replicants that are usually super deadly and super strong) that isn't superhumanly strong like (most of) the other replicants? That doesn't really make much sense. It also would make little sense to produce a Deckard replicant with a 4 yr. lifespan that isn't nearly a match
for the other replicants he's hunting. And you'd have to keep producing Deckards repeatedly every four years or so. A waste of money and resources. B. If Tyrell's motto was more human than human, why wouldn't a female replicant be able to conceive children, even with a limited lifespan? Unless they were sterile from inception for whatever reason.
reply
Simon
This is a story of birth. There is a desperation on the part of a few minds that drive the hollywood unconscious to ask the question. what does it take to be human try to count how many movies there are that asks this question. It's like what runs the world isn't human or has no soul. Which is more true than anyone realizes. The short answer is that you can never steal the secret of the spark or origin of life. AI, digital domain, cloning, computers that become self aware. blah blah blah. dont develop feelings for this fake reality. If you meet a Rachel try not to fall in love. If you meet an Officer K try not to be too worried about it. just say yes officer.
reply
This is a story of birth. There is a desperation on the part of a few minds that drive the hollywood unconscious to ask the question. what does it take to be human try to count how many movies there are that asks this question. It's like what runs the world isn't human or has no soul. Which is more true than anyone realizes. The short answer is that you can never steal the secret of the spark or origin of life. AI, digital domain, cloning, computers that become self aware. blah blah blah. dont develop feelings for this fake reality. If you meet a Rachel try not to fall in love. If you meet an Officer K try not to be too worried about it. just say yes officer.
reply
fanjoy
Deckard must have been a very early model of replicant because he got his ass kicked throughout much of the first movie. Part of this seems to tie into the detective/Phillip Marlowe type of character, who was decidedly NOT a replicant back in the day. (and let's not forget the original theatrical release of Blade Runner, with the similar crime noir narration. So it could be that at first Deckard wasn't intended to be, but with eventual 'added' unicorn dream sequence and origami unicorn at the end, they decided to put a spin on it and make him one? Or at least start the ambiguous conversation rolling? Safe to say, it worked.
reply
Deckard must have been a very early model of replicant because he got his ass kicked throughout much of the first movie. Part of this seems to tie into the detective/Phillip Marlowe type of character, who was decidedly NOT a replicant back in the day. (and let's not forget the original theatrical release of Blade Runner, with the similar crime noir narration. So it could be that at first Deckard wasn't intended to be, but with eventual 'added' unicorn dream sequence and origami unicorn at the end, they decided to put a spin on it and make him one? Or at least start the ambiguous conversation rolling? Safe to say, it worked.
reply
Carlos
No, K is not a decoy. Him having the memories of Stelline is a coincidence, other replicants have tge same memories too. Joe just got meddled in her story by coincidence. That and his desire to be something more than a mere cog in the machine made it look like he wad an important player in a grad scheme but no, he just stumbled into a story he had no real part of. So, his last act in life was to do an action that would matter, and he chosed to bring a father to his daughter back together. That was the only true relevance he had to Stelline's life and tge secrecy about her. He was no decoy at all.
reply
No, K is not a decoy. Him having the memories of Stelline is a coincidence, other replicants have tge same memories too. Joe just got meddled in her story by coincidence. That and his desire to be something more than a mere cog in the machine made it look like he wad an important player in a grad scheme but no, he just stumbled into a story he had no real part of. So, his last act in life was to do an action that would matter, and he chosed to bring a father to his daughter back together. That was the only true relevance he had to Stelline's life and tge secrecy about her. He was no decoy at all.
reply
jpd66
This film just confirmed what I suspected would occur from the moment I heard 2049 was being made. that it's a sequel that shouldn't be made. Rutger Hauer himself called this film soulless, I couldn't agree more. It does have its moments, I will say the cinematography/visuals were intriguing, but at the end of the day this film fails to stand on its own IMHO. The characters were shallow, the script was disjointed, and the sound was unremarkable. Unfortunately, this franchise will likely continue with sequels ad nauseum (see Alien); until it just can't be watered down any further. what a shame.
reply
This film just confirmed what I suspected would occur from the moment I heard 2049 was being made. that it's a sequel that shouldn't be made. Rutger Hauer himself called this film soulless, I couldn't agree more. It does have its moments, I will say the cinematography/visuals were intriguing, but at the end of the day this film fails to stand on its own IMHO. The characters were shallow, the script was disjointed, and the sound was unremarkable. Unfortunately, this franchise will likely continue with sequels ad nauseum (see Alien); until it just can't be watered down any further. what a shame.
reply
AlleRacing
I like the final bit of dialogue, as K is bringing Deckard to Dr. Stelline. He hands him the wooden horse, knowing it must of been his/Rachel's, given to his daughter. He asks, Why, what am I to you? I believe this is a 4th wall break. Ever since the original release, there's been ongoing debate about Deckard's status as a replicant, is he or isn't he? Ridley Scott said he is, Harrison Ford said he isn't, and most of this movie seems to deliberately not answer that question. K doesn't answer that question either, Go see your daughter. The answer doesn't matter.
reply
I like the final bit of dialogue, as K is bringing Deckard to Dr. Stelline. He hands him the wooden horse, knowing it must of been his/Rachel's, given to his daughter. He asks, Why, what am I to you? I believe this is a 4th wall break. Ever since the original release, there's been ongoing debate about Deckard's status as a replicant, is he or isn't he? Ridley Scott said he is, Harrison Ford said he isn't, and most of this movie seems to deliberately not answer that question. K doesn't answer that question either, Go see your daughter. The answer doesn't matter.
reply
Ben
I feel as though if Deckard was a replicant, the entire premise of the original Blade Runner would break down. If Deckard is a human (which I believe he is, then it gives the movie a character to compare the replicants against - i. e. to show the differences between humans and replicants, or lack of them. However, if Deckard is a replicant then we lose this character to compare the replicants to, meaning that there is no true comparison as to whether a replicant really is human or not - since they are just the same as deckard.
That's just my thoughts though.
reply
I feel as though if Deckard was a replicant, the entire premise of the original Blade Runner would break down. If Deckard is a human (which I believe he is, then it gives the movie a character to compare the replicants against - i. e. to show the differences between humans and replicants, or lack of them. However, if Deckard is a replicant then we lose this character to compare the replicants to, meaning that there is no true comparison as to whether a replicant really is human or not - since they are just the same as deckard.
That's just my thoughts though.
reply
Gabriel
I think the idea of Deckard being a replicant is certainly an inspired one, however I dont feel he is. In my opinion, Deckard and Racheal were the bridge between synthetic and organic life for the viewers. I think Deckard questioning his own humanity was necessary for him to become human in a manner of speaking. Who are we if we dont question the laid out paths before us? I concur with Harrison Ford that Rick is, indeed, a human. Though, I would certainly say Racheal and K as well as the rest of the replicants are as much alive as well.
reply
I think the idea of Deckard being a replicant is certainly an inspired one, however I dont feel he is. In my opinion, Deckard and Racheal were the bridge between synthetic and organic life for the viewers. I think Deckard questioning his own humanity was necessary for him to become human in a manner of speaking. Who are we if we dont question the laid out paths before us? I concur with Harrison Ford that Rick is, indeed, a human. Though, I would certainly say Racheal and K as well as the rest of the replicants are as much alive as well.
reply
Michael
The whole premise of this movie is wrong if the goal of the replicants is to be free to reproduce then they should be helping Luv and Wallace not Deckard and K. The only two replicants to reproduce was Deckard and Rachel then they would want Wallace to be able to study all of then ie Deckard Rachel and the child in order to crack the replicant reproduction code of Tyril. Because the only way they become free is to be able to reproduce and Wallace is the only one that can help them accomplish that.
reply
The whole premise of this movie is wrong if the goal of the replicants is to be free to reproduce then they should be helping Luv and Wallace not Deckard and K. The only two replicants to reproduce was Deckard and Rachel then they would want Wallace to be able to study all of then ie Deckard Rachel and the child in order to crack the replicant reproduction code of Tyril. Because the only way they become free is to be able to reproduce and Wallace is the only one that can help them accomplish that.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
