Spoiler Space: Blade Runner 2049

I think it was just a meaningless coincidence that he had those memories, which I liked. I thought it was a poignant twist on the chosen one narrative.

No, not all replicants have that memory. The rebel leader's line was referring to the replicants' wish to be born and not created, i.e. authentic and not synthetic.

So, my wife thought this movie firmly established Deckard as a replicant. I thought it was more ambiguous - Leto could have just been fucking with him.

Of course, the latent ambiguity about Deckard depends on which version of the original you're dealing with, I guess.

Maybe, but his scene with Deckard was one of the most horrifying I've seen in recent memory. Wallace mocking Deckard by implying that Rachael's love for him was a lie and then summoning an almost exact replica of her made for an incredibly effective scene.

Didn't they CGI her ala Tarkin in Rogue One? She had that weird CGI mouth thing going on.

Avengers running time: 143 minutes, no complaints
Blade Runner 2049 running time: 163 minutes, "How are our bladders supposed to survive this?"

Are those 20 minutes really that big of a dealbreaker?

I want, no, NEED that coat.

I finally have the chance/am in the mood to see this and should I see it in 3D or not?

I think Deckard's status as a replicant is very much meant to remain ambiguous, which I'd agree is good.  My biggest issue with the idea of a sequel to Blade Runner when I heard they were bringing Ford back was that it would seem to make his character canonically not-a-replicant, but the movie addressed those issues with the idea of replicants with an open lifespan and focusing even more on the ambiguity of the film.

As to Joe's place in the plot, my read on it is that he was given the memory of the 6/10/21 horse because a) he was placed in the Blade Runner division so the replicant army could keep tabs on him and so he would eventually end up alerting the underground replicant army when the Blade Runners/Wallace Corp. started closing in on the real "born" replicant, and b) possibly to serve as a decoy "born" replicant if need be (although Luv/Wallace never seem to have seriously considered him as possibly being Rachel's child).  I wouldn't necessarily agree with General that it's a meaningless coincidence, because that's a bit contrived, but ultimately I think it is supposed to be a bit unclear, which I like, because it's more true to a PKD novel in that you can't ever be sure whether you have a legit explanation for what's happening or not.  It's also why I'm OK with the incipient replicant rebellion playing such a small role in the film; as in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, BR2049 is ultimately focused more on Joe's (and Deckard's) reaction to a deeply confusing world without any clear-cut moral choices (I'd argue that one's sympathies should lie most heavily with the replicant army, but their "more human than human" attitudes and their apparent dismissal of artificial intelligence as also being persons are alarming), and how they cope in a world of uncertainty, a lack of respect for the rights of sentient persons, and soul-crushing consumerism than it is about the particulars of sociopolitical happenings that may or may not be happening at all.

I liked BR2049 a lot.  I'd say it's at least on par with the original.  I'd even go so far as to say that it feels like a more thematically faithful adaptation of a PKD novel; there's a lot more focus on what authenticity is and if it really matters, which is explored in depth in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but not quite so much in Original BR.  Joe's internal conflict about the authenticity of his memories and what it means for him to be a supposedly inherently obedient replicant, or possibly a "born" replicant, or possibly just a regular replicant, makes him a much more compelling lead than Deckard was in the original BR, and makes him more like the Deckard from the book.  Likewise, Deckard himself is a more interesting character in BR2049.  This is partly because Ford's performance here is probably better than it was in the original, but I think it's mainly because in the original the relationship between Deckard and Rachel was pretty creepy, to the point where it's hard to like or pull for Deckard at all.  In BR2049, most of the creepiness of that relationship is excised, and his character can focus more on a relationship tragically cut short and on his being forced to spend his entire life away from his daughter in order to protect her. 

Another thing that's good about the film is that they get rid of a lot (albeit not all) of the misogyny of the original film and of PKD's book.  BR2049 (mostly) seems to be just depicting a misogynistic society (i.e. that horrifying scene where Leto stabs that replicant, AI wives who primarily function as emotional helpmates, and women being sexualized a lot more than men), whereas Original BR seemed to be more of the view that the over-sexualizing of female characters was cool and that Deckard was just cool and suave.  BR2049 definitely still sexualizes female characters more than its male characters, but it's much less sexist than the original, or PKD's writing (which, to be fair, is a super low bar to clear).

Something else that the BR2049 got right about PKD that Original BR didn't really get into was the way that, in a world wherein bland, cynical consumerism has stripped experiences of any deeper meaning, and said consumerism holds an incredibly tight grip on society at large, people manage to live meaningful lives and have profound experiences in spite of this.  Like in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Mercerism is on one level a fraudulent religion which capitulates to a deeply unjust ultra-consumerist society, but people still derive meaning and experience personal growth from practicing the faith.  Or when Deckard finds a toad at the end of the novel, but learns its another fake, and yet is able to use it to cope with his experiences instead of continuing to obsess over getting a higher-status real pet.  Likewise, in BR2049, there's something very depressing and creepy about the very concept of an AI spouse, and Joi's aforementioned emotional helpmate personality is deeply fucked up, but in spite of this, she and Joe are able to form an at least seemingly genuine relationship, which, "authentic" or not, is meaningful for Joe, and at the very least helps Joe to see himself as a person by adopting an actual name instead of a serial number.  Also, despite it basically comprising about 10% of the film, the relationship between Joe and Joi manages to be way more compelling and moving than the relationship between Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson in Her.

Or, when they dug up the box under the tree, they found that it was just 20th century Woods Porn?

Well, the question/statement is about Rachel, and after the events of that film, she goes on to create life: something no other synth has ever done. She has impact on the world even 30 years later, after her death.

Deckard has moved past the whole "is he a synth or not" question; it's moot. He's lived 30 years further. He brought life into the world and fought and sacrificed and lost for an ideal higher than himself.

K's arc in the entire film is first finding out that he might be "special", then finding out he isn't, then realizing that that wasn't what gave him motivation anyways. He still felt those things, regardless; they were still real to him. He still formed a bond with Joi, they felt love for each other. He gave his life, too, for this higher ideal, to save Deckard, to let him reunite with his daughter.

Maybe not an "answer" per se to the "who really lives" question, but a further exploration of it.

I'm pretty sure at some point it was established that Wallace Corp. contracted memory creation work from Deckard's daughter, but I don't remember for certain.  As to the other ambiguities, I think those were deliberate, and honestly, with most of them, I'd have been a bit disappointed if they had been resolved.  One of the things that I was afraid about but which fortunately didn't come to pass with BR2049 was that the film would go about answering questions about the original that really didn't need to be answered.  Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? ends with a lot of uncertainty regarding Deckard's identity as a replicant, and as a person, and regarding issues which are totally beyond his control, so I think it's a good thing that there's a lot which is left unanswered in this film.  Furthermore, I think the uncertainty about what happens with Deckard and his daughter at the end makes Joe's decision not to kill Deckard more poignant.  Joe has spent the vast majority of his life believing himself to be a slave incapable of exercising agency; in refusing to follow the orders of the replicant army leader, he both fully establishes himself as his own person, sacrificing himself for the one semi-parental figure he has ever known, and then giving Deckard the chance to meet his daughter, even though it's a risky thing to do.  So it wasn't just that Joe was disobeying orders to do what was obviously the right thing, as he did when he lied to his Blade Runner captain, he was able to make his own morally ambiguous decision.  Because his daughter may well end up being found as a result of Joe's decision.

Apparently, though, there are tentative plans for a sequel, as according to Wikipedia:  "In October 2017, Villeneuve said that he expected a third film would be made if 2049 was successful. Hampton Fancher, the writer of both Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, also revealed that he was considering reviving an old story idea involving Deckard travelling to another country, and Ford said that he would be open to returning if he liked the script."  I think it'll be fine if the sequel doesn't happen though.

He's credited as "K" on Wikipedia, which is what I think people are relying on, here.

Also... don't forget that "Joe" is literally only one letter away from "Joi"... and that it's Joi who suggests the name to him.

As someone else mentioned, that scene with the new replicant being birthed may have been plot-insignificant, but it was great as horror.  Even before Leto slices her:  Can you imagine being an adult and therefore able to remember the birth trauma?  There's a scene in Mass Effect which brings that up, and all I could think about during that scene was how incredibly frightening everything would have been for the poor new replicant. 


I'm not sure:  I think that such memories would be overwritten in most replicants, but I don't know for sure.  It's an intriguing thought as world-building goes.