Blade Runner Star Rutger Hauer Isn’t a Fan of Blade Runner 2049

you've really buried the lede here in that apparently we now have the technology to interview dead people.

he stole my words

then again chickenheads love scenary / ambient / soundscaping / atmosphere / A E S T H E T I C S.

>In many ways, Blade Runner wasn’t about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human? It’s like E.T.. But I’m not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner.
Is he senile? The sequel literally explores that question further

BASED RUTGER HAUER

NUMALES BTFO

the part where Deckard talks like a fag to the slut bot in the stripper changing room was very funny

>I'm not a fan of this move they didn't put me in

hahahahahahaha what a fag

2049 is almost all about love, meanwhile the original has one rapey sex scene.

>>In many ways, Blade Runner wasn’t about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human? It’s like E.T.. But I’m not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner.

dumb criticism. blade runner is about mortality and freedom, 2049 is about authenticity and responsibility. both are about empathy and compassion.

>It's not a character driven movie
It is though?

did you miss the sea beams in space speech?

He's a moron, it's better than the original.

Oh i agree

what the fuck is he talking about? is he senile?

>Brought back Ford
>Brought back Olmos
>Brought back crazy ass Young
>Rutger Hauer did a 2 min cameo in Valerian instead
lmao@his life

He's right when he says the movie is soulless, like most villeneuve movies

What is the best version of the original Blade Runner to watch and why are there so many different versions?

>"The big movies now are such an industry where the money has to come back as soon as possible.With a little movie you have a little more room to move"
>"The eye of the director and the point of view of the filmmaker has suffered (in big films) in the past decades. I look for hard balls."
>"And I don't see much balls in most films today."

Based Hauer dropping bombs on Hollywood.

>implying false implications

Well said. I completely agree with his sentiments.

you mean just like the first movie?

>love: deckard austic borderline rape make out scene
>humor: ?
>soul, what does it mean to be human? : find your creator, murder his eyes out. Then talk about space lazers.

B A S E D

He's 74.

final

Final Cut.
The original "theatrical" version was fucked by the studios. The so-called "director's cut" isn't really a director's cut at all, the name is completely misleading and the director had no involvement with it.

>He's a moron
He's objectively not though you brainlet.

K has a good arc and his plot amounts to something poignant. But everything else is bland and uninspired, from Leto and the resistance to Rachel's miracle baby

fucking kek i forgot all about this scene
>have you done anything lewd or unsavory or otherwise repulsive to your person?

shitskin Cred Forumsedditors blown out

"If only you could see what I have seen, with your eyes."

what a fucking pleb

>In many ways, Blade Runner wasn’t about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human? It’s like E.T.. But I’m not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner.
2049 explores the exact same question even further
>It's not a character driven movie and there's no humor
It is a character driven movie? The entire focus is on K. There isn't much humor but there are little tidbits here and there, more so than the original if I remember correctly.
>No Love, no soul
Again, the main focus of the film is on K and a big part Joi, whether or not her love for him was real is a huge question it raised and has garnered a lot of discussion. K not having a soul is literally brought up in the movie. Everyone looks down on him because he's a blade runner.; he kills his own kind, he hates himself. In the end he decides to die with a purpose, giving the illusion that he had a "soul". This and love are the main factors in K completing his character arc.

>I just think if something is so beautiful, you should just leave it alone and make another film. Don’t lean with one elbow on the success of that was earned over 30 years in the underground.
I really liked 2049 but totally agree with this and have since I first heard a sequel was in the works. It's a good movie but just another example of modern Hollywood being unable to be truly creative.

Wait he did? Wtf

What modern movie would you consider creative?

This. I liked the movie, one of my favorites from last year, but I'm constantly baffled by all these people trying to talk about it like its the most flawless piece of cinema ever to be made.
I just assume It's a bunch of babyfigs and their first low key/slow paced sci fi.

Not him, but I think everything Wes Anderson does is creative and original even if you think he's a meme director

>modern Hollywood being unable to be truly creative.
Are you forgetting the original was a book adaptation? It changed around a lot, but still many of the precise details/sequences/dialogues were lifted from PKD's novel

Nigga how delusional do you have to be to even think for one second that Windows Ana could "love"

There's even a scene where she says she's only ones and zeroes compared to his DNA sequence. And Ryan says half as much but twice as elegant as a half ass cop out of telling her, No she doesn't look fat in that dress c'mon

Not that user, but something like swiss army man comes to mind as something more interested in being creative and original than it is in pleasing normalfag audiences.

Goltzius and the Pelican Company

That's a fair one I think, Wes Anderson is actually pretty creative.

>dude.... I SAW A SPACESHIP

wow... amazing writing...

>I just think if something is so beautiful, you should just leave it alone and make another film. Don’t lean with one elbow on the success of that was earned over 30 years in the underground.
Nerds will never understand this, sorry Rutger.

pleb

A Ghost Story

He's right you know. BR 2049 was strong in direction, visuals and (some) performances, but the story was rather lacking.

2049 is still very much about what it is to be human. Discarded

>there’s no love
I still believe...

so was the original blade runner

Ruther Hauer obviously fails on making smart decisions on which scripts to do. You shouldn't trust this FAILED actor.

That part wasn't written tho.
This man is correct.

There was practically zero story in the original

>That part wasn't written tho.
Yes, it was.

>>Mfw roy was only 4 years old when he killed his father, saw battleships on fire, and save your would be murderer and give him a new perspective on life

>>mfw you're about to go 40 and still haven't left your mother's basement

>It's not a character driven movie

Lmao wtf? K's arc is vastly superior and more interesting than any character in the original aside from Roy Batty who comes somewhat close but who is also pushed off to the side 90% of the time.

No he came up with it on the spot, and everyone pretends it's profound just for that reason

Same fag. And new fag. At least wait 10 minutes or so to bump your own thread.

I still need to see that movie, I actually really like Daniel Radcliffe

Is this a good movie? it sounds good are the average review scores just normies?

Haven't seen it but I've liked some of David Lowery's other movies so I'll have to see.

All very original looking films, thanks for the tips anons

Nice projection.

I've scene things you redditors wouldnt believe.

Not to insult Rutger Hauer or anything, guy's pretty based, but that quote reads like a shitposter from Cred Forums typed it up who didn't actually watch the movie. Like, it's not a character driven movie? Is he for real?

>K's progress from antihero to non-nero
>Luvs failure as the classic "from within" protagonist
>but also not character driven

2049 is a replicant of the oringal Blade Runner .

It's a metaphor.

>>mfw everyone looks down on K because he's a spineless fuck who can't think for himself

>>mfw alpha roy fucks everyones shit up on his path to better himself, even if he knows it's futile

This. The film could be literally called "K's Character Development", if anything it's more character driven than the original.
Hauer sadly turned into a brainlet

I think old Rutger needs to join Ridley in the retirement home

Pretty much this

Stop spouting bullshit. Takes just a google search to find out you're wrong.
Also, it wasn't supposed to be "profound", and nobody pretends it is. You're retarded.

I agree with him and I actually really liked the film.
I would have rather seen a whole new film universe than one based on it.
The film as it is semi stands on its own. A few changes to deeply routed themes would make it fully stand on its own.

silly reddit

you fucked up

>and nobody pretends it is
Really? I don't think even you believe this

>chickenheads
Stealth anthead detected

Jordan Peterson would not approve.

But 2049 was better.

Yes, really. You might not know what the word "profound" means. Is it supposed to be poetic? Yes. Poignant, yes. Nobody thinks it's profound, and all you're doing is reinforcing what was already clear, that you're a pleb.

Bullshit analysis, he's just mad that they remade his movie. There are new characters, in fact a new class of characters - Holographic AI - which takes it to the next philosophical level of consciousness

He's right
>DUDE EVERY CHARACTER IS A REPLICATANT LMAO
How are you supposed to empathise with any of them?

Finally, Cred Forumsedditors and nu males BTFO

the police chief isn't a replicant and it remains ambiguous about Deckard. it's not that hard.
also, i was able to connect to K. but maybe that's just because i'm emotionally damaged
pic may or may not be related

I completely agree on this point. The film in my mind would do better sans the baggage incumbent on a sequel. The Tears in the Rain homage, in particular, seemed belabored as did the Rachel/Deckerd reunion. The baseline sequences with K on the other hand seemed wholey novel and capitivating

Are you implying that you can only empathise with human beings? What kind of retarded logic is that?
Why do people empathise with cartoon animals like in The Lion King then?

J U S T

Because they are gay furries?
Are you retarded, you gigantic redditor?

Don't get me started on that retarded baseline test. If it wasn't for Ryan saying the same word over and over again how would that scene be remotely memorable

I think the point is that BR didn't need to be redone, and didn't require a sequel. It was a great movie to be sure, top 10 for me, but it was basically cut and dry and said everything it needed to say.

2049 was pretty to be sure, but I put it in Mad Max tier. Visually stunning but said nothing. So I agree with Rutger.

>But I’m not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner.

Just more of the same. What does it mean to be human, with a new twist of reproduction. Anyway, I liked 2049, I might even say it is technically better than the original, but it didn't really do anything new. More like refining what Blade Runner did and doing it again.

>Don’t lean with one elbow on the success of that was earned over 30 years in the underground.

Pretty much this.

t. psychopath
you did not even conceive what he was saying

Nope, thy focused more on memory, illusions and only partially to humanity and belonging.
Watch the movie next time

This line is fucking hilarious. What did he mean by this?

The original could have been better if there was less narration and no Harrison Ford. The second explored what it means to be human even further though, so his argument about there being no message was wrong before he even conjured up that silly thought.

>muh robots and animals are just like hooman beings
t. Vegan peta faggot

>It's not a character-driven movie
It's more character driven than the first one.

So all kids are gay furries? user your logic is non existent.
Why do people empathise with E.T.? Gollum? Hell, even with HAL from 2001?
Are you that much of a turboautist that someone needs to be a humanoid in order to empathise with him? Did you not empathise with Roy Batty in BR then? What if in BR2049 there was a retarded ass "le twist" ending where he actually is a born human being, would you suddenly empathise with him then?

In his defense what made 1982 better than 2049 was the duality of it all. The juxtaposition of man and machine and blurring the lines between human and not human, right and wrong

Brainlet

FUCKING BASED

>man pissed off he is irrelevant

he didn't age so good

>less narration
Did.. did you watch the theatrical version?

>there's no humor

Has he seen the original in the last 30 years?

Jesus Christ.

>i empathise with aliens and robots
Are you otherkin?

This just makes him sound bitter for not having been relevant for the last 30 years.

you're a literal sociopath, most likely don't empathise with anyone at all

The characters in the Lion king are human personalities transposed onto animals. The replicants in Blade Runner are super-strong, near-invincible psychopaths. Any interesting aspects of their characters doesn't make sense anyway. Why would Luv be designed to be petty, vindictive, and deceitful when Wallace needed her calm and trustworthy for important business matters? Why would K have any desires for companionship or family built into him, if he's only made to kill other replicants? If a real human had to do that job, then the emotional strain and baseline testing would make sense (and make a good story), but a machine like K shouldn't waver or care. What sense does giving him a monetary bonus make? Why should we care about his fake girlfriend not having real feelings, when it's highly debatable if even he has them?

As long as we can agree that Jared Leto is a hack, I have no problem with this.

The first movie had Rutger Hauer, nerd

No
I only empathise with humans and human emotions
Sorry I'm not some otherkin who feels a connection with inhuman things

Nope. I am far from being a vegan but you have no concept of empathy, the post is clear.
Trying to explain it to you would be like explain colours to someone blind from the birth.
Nice argument buddy

He dies on the original so why would he come back, brainlet?

>unimportant old fart who rolled downhill after the original suddenly became a cult classic is salty he wasn't invited for seconds.

But I agree that we would live perfectly without 2049. It's entitely different story that uses BR skin to tell itself. It's about purpose and meaning of life. Pretty beautifully made.

>Why would Luv be designed to be petty, vindictive, and deceitful when Wallace needed her calm and trustworthy for important business matters? Why would K have any desires for companionship or family built into him, if he's only made to kill other replicants?
Imagine missing the point this much
user you have issues, like the amygdala not working or some shit. Your answer was jarring.

>I'm never sad when I hear about pet animals dying or being abused IRL or in media
wow it's ACTUAL autism

>Why would K have any desires for companionship or family built into him
Did you even watch the film? He literally got real life memories implanted into him on accident (or maybe on purpose by Ana, we can only speculate). And because of those memories he expresses the desire to be special and like you said the desire for companionship

The rest of your points are just straight dumb since you ignored the point above entirely, if you even saw the film.

"Nothing useless can truly be beautiful".

>muh copypasting of human emotions on animals and robots makes them just like me
Pathetic

It sucks but the problem is that Hollywood studios don't want to fund original Hollywood movies. They want to make movies with pre-installed fan bases to assure a bigger profit.

Let's say Villeneuve a big ambitious sci-fi film that was similar in appearance or theme to Blade Runner. Well some executive would just say, "Well why not just make it another Blade Runner?" And its because 99% of the time a sequel/reboot/spin off will make much more than an original film. Movies cost way to much to market nowadays with a huge global market, so studios can't bank on originality.

Again, it sucks, but it's just how things are and why smaller budget films from studios like A24 or others I can't think of are where true creativity are flourishing.

The only good thing he said is that the sequel was unnecessary. The rest of his points are literal Cred Forums tier brainlet posts with no correlation with the film and it's narrative at all

Pets are dime a dozen
Not everyone has the inane bond you have with your shitty pet
I bet your the type of faggot to shiver at the thought of eating dogs

this

It was better than the original.

I couldn't wait for his scenes to be over

I thought most of 2049 was dumb desu. I made a review about it on youtube but the two times I posted it didn't get any positive responses so I figured it was just me

>>I sniff and scratch at it. It looks great but I struggle to see what that film was necessary. I just think if something is so beautiful, you should just leave it alone and make another film. Don’t lean with one elbow on the success of that was earned over 30 years in the underground.
>>In many ways, Blade Runner wasn’t about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human? It’s like E.T.. But I’m not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner. It’s not a character-driven movie and there’s no humor, there’s no love, there’s no soul. You can see the homage to the original. But that’s not enough to me. I knew that wasn’t going to work
He's right

>Don’t lean with one elbow on the success of that was earned over 30 years in the underground
>You can see the homage to the original. But that’s not enough to me.
My exact thoughts these past few months. It offers nothing new while taking everything from a timeless classic.
Roy was truly multidimensional and at times expressed joy like a puppy might.

Villeplebbit BTFO

based spic runner 2049 pleb from twitter!

youtube.com/watch?v=OrAgNlOfeoU

Yeah okay. How's that film career going you old fuck?

It's one of the best scenes in the entire film, primarily because of it's execution.

It's a new version of the Voight-Kampff test from the original, the difference is in the original they tested to see non human responses while here they are testing to see if the replicant is showing any human emotional responses by asking him highly personal emotional questions, while he has to just reply unphased by the previous question. Keeps the new replicants in check, at their emotional "baseline"

Those specific used sentences are the verses are from third canto in Pale Fire by Nabokov that tells a story of a man who sees a surreal fountain in his dream and later discovers a precise description of that exact fountain in a paper. He takes it as some important cosmic sign and tries to get in touch with the author, but it turns out she's already dead and the poem was actually misprinted (fountain instead of mountain). Same as the "you're not special" theme in the narrative of the film.
It's great in every possible way, the writing, the "dropping in" performance delivery, the context of the used literature, the closing in framing and composition, the immaculate sound design with the camera shutter speeding up and the high pitched sound becoming more aggravating, the uncomfortable amount of unase and tension achieved through all of this, everything.

>but a machine like K
>Machine like K
>Machine

You don't get it

>one implanted memory of a wooden horse = an entire personality

Vangelis>Zimmer's understudy
Batty>Luv
Rachael>Jerk off encouragement
Deckard>Real human bean

he looks like a budget anthony hopkins now

spotted the legitimate sociopath
>tfw disregard for animals and abuse of pets is one of the clearest signs of sociopathy

who cares what some soyboy faggot thinks

>In many ways, Blade Runner wasn’t about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human?
2049 is about that

>It’s not a character-driven movie
Huh?

>and there’s no humor
When did Rutger Hauer become a brainlet?

he is 74, what do you think someone at that age should look like?

This guy

You've copypasted this before

The scene still pales in comparison to Sean young blowing a screen full of cigarette smoke asking Harrison Ford if her test is about whether she's a lesbian or a replicant

That is only his dearest most cherished memory. And yes, such a strong and impactful memory would be character defining for literally anyone

The animals in the screen on TLK are not animals, they are functionally human for the emotional responses that they are supposed to elicit.
Your answer betrays the fact that you simulate emotional answers in regard of humans because you are trained to do so.
Psychopath.

>Vangelis>Zimmer's understudy
I completely agree, though it was Benjamin Wallfisch with Zimmer, not just Zimmer and his minions.
>Batty>Luv
Also agree, though Luv was an exceptionally tragic character aswell.
>Rachael>Jerk off encouragement
mehh
>Deckard>Real human bean
now this is just plain wrong, Deckard is barely even a character at all

Elaborate, you fucking turdlet!

Do you know what is the Macdonald triad?
a perfectly memeable thing, now that I think about it

No it wasn't

>I’m not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner
what a fucking brainlet

>Let's remake Robocop
>Let's remake IT
>Let's remake Blade Runner
Let's face it they weren't as good as the originals.

>Don’t lean with one elbow on the success of that was earned over 30 years in the underground

this, Rachel and Deckard were such shit characters

FUCK YOU WHITE MAN ITS KINO

Fkn retard he is referring to e.t.

How ?

>hurr some retard liked this movie so you aren't allowed to like it

>Let's remake IT
And it's better than the original.
>Let's remake Blade Runner
And it's better than the original.

You could've picked some stronger comparisons user

As much as this scene is made fun of here, it actually was the zenith of the whole film. He had a purposeful method of acting where he would try to use his facial expressions to instill a kaleidoscope of emotion. He actually wrote the lines to this scene in his trailer on set. He IS blade runner if you think about it.

No one wants to be associated with retards user

i don't disagree, but i think that 2049 was still
1. a great sequel
2. a great action movie
i think that just throwing in crazy shit all the time is good for an action movie. they really told the story well and it was great

>Let's remake Blade Runner
Is not a remake, you are answering emotionally to it.
This is a non-sequitur.

We are still talking with you user

Honestly, Ryan Goslings performance (which was outstanding imo), the soundtrack (which was almost as good as the original) and the visual effects and art design of the film was what made blade runner 2049. The plot was ok but kind of stupid in many ways, especially the antagonists who were more like cartoon villains here.

> It’s not a character-driven movie
Did he even watched the movie?
> there’s no humor
What? Is he a Marvel fan or something?

You are fkn delusional.
A projector in overdrive.

>hurr durr was her love really, real XD ???
>hurr durr does he hav da soul!?

Fuck you. Fkn mongrell brainlet and your ideological scum aids of a movie. A shitty star trek episode has more nuance and intellectual ambition that this garbage.

Hauer strips naked and howls like a wolf at one point

They wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the original

Sequels are only good if they bring new life to the original, not falling too far from the tree, yet far enough that it has merits to stand on its own right

Best examples I can think of right now is terminator 1 and 2

In music its like bob dylan's and jimi hendrix's all along the watchtower

Nigger, there will always be some sort of undesirable attached to whatever you liked. There is no avoiding their existence, so there's no point caring about their opinions or pointing at them as a reason to not like a thing.

>fkn
>hurr durr
>da
Are you 12 or just mentally challenged?

>I sniff and scratch at it.
what is he talking about here?

>Are you implying that you can only empathise with human beings? What kind of retarded logic is that?
human logic

>especially the antagonists
There is only one antagonist and that is Luv. And she is one of the more tragic character in recent cinema history

>I sniff and scratch at it. It looks great but I struggle to see what that film was necessary. I just think if something is so beautiful, you should just leave it alone and make another film.
he is right of course

>I struggle to see what that film was necessary.
pretty simple: money.

They are both not original though. They are based on books.

I've seen thing you people would find incomprehensible...like lights in space...and spaceships exploding in space...all these moments gone...like tears in rain.

You have to make the ideological leap of faith like evry good leftist does.

>does it really matter XD !? He looks and acts human *shrug*

Fkn scum people and their cinematic ass births.

>pretty simple: money.

entertainment.ie/cinema/news/Denis-Villeneuve-says-hell-never-make-a-film-like-Blade-Runner-2049-again/401975.htm

By leading us to question how we as humans form identity and what is important to us. It's not just 'WHAT IS HUMAN?' but a question of how we determine who we are in the world.

The transition from paper to picture is OK

Gee, what if we were discussing a movie in which such concept is blurred..
But this is not the case, don't mind mi comment

Not really, book is almost always better.

>look at a dog curled up under a tree trying to get out if the rain while shivering.
>thank god I can't emphasize with this potentially sad situation because my logic forbids it.

Friendly reminder that hating on BR 2049 is literally r*ddit

BR2049 is just the story of Pinocchio set in a Blade Runner world, that's completely clear and straightforward.
Hauer is now a senile demented old fool sadly.

The Shining

uhhh.... ok i guess

Nothing of this was conveyed.

Only a robot dude who acts like a normal dude but knows that he isn't.

But also the normal people can't define what "the soul" is. It's a garbage premise executed in a garbage way.

HE SEH U BRADE RUNNA

>2049 explores the exact same question even further
It doesn't. 2049 twists the simple but powerful themes of the original into something completely contrived, with fanfiction notions of "soul", "the wall", and us-versus-humans sentiments, all of which amount to nothing. Then there's the never ending bombardment of emotional pandering, with closeup after closeup of K's bloodied, sad face shown. There is no subtlety whatsoever.
>The entire focus is on K
K is a non-character, a self-insert for the "tfw no gf" audience, and has been depicted in one form or another in many a film before. Every revelation he has is utterly insignificant, and all pale in comparison to the original where Roy discovers Tyrel can't save him.
>In the end he decides to die with a purpose
K dies without purpose, in one last selfish act that harms the replicants as a whole while saving only one single person. Deckard is now alone, Wallace is undoubtedly furious and on his tracks, nobody in the LAPD know about anything besides there being dead bodies in their own building, and, most importantly, the replicant resistance ordered Deckard's death, and so they won't help Deckard like they did him and Rachael the first time round. Everything points to Deckard and his daughter being found within weeks or months by either the replicants or Wallace, the film's own narrative established this. So K's "arc" doesn't go anywhere, because he spends the entire time selfishly chasing a red herring, and then, instead of coming to terms with being ordinary, he latches on to the one bit of special knowledge he has. He slights everyone in the process, leaving literally a wake of bodies behind on all sides (recall that Deckard in the original killed no one). You're not supposed to sympathize with K in the snow, you're supposed to laugh at how pathetic he is as a character and how pointless his struggle was. When the music from the original starts playing, it's like a parody, a joke.

You are just dense.
You are one that would have hated the original.

replicants aren't robots

I think both movies are stupid, but you're more

useless projection onto the dog

>Nothing of this was conveyed.
How? It's literally what the entire film is about.
>Only a robot dude who acts like a normal dude but knows that he isn't.
Replicants are not robots. Also the premise of the film is that he wants to be/become special, not "normal"
Also nice reddit spacing.

Her performance and her character was shit and so was Leto.

Comparing paper medium to picture medium is stupid though. It's like comparing a bicycle to a motorcycle

Bicycles have been around longer sure, and might give you a real experience and sense of accomplishment when youre done.

But a Ducati is expensive, fast and looks and sounds good

Do you also start thinking about how similar you both are when a dog eats its own vomit?

Rutger Hauer is literally one of the 3 good things in cinema that my country produced

Great movie, bad adaptation.

>In many ways, Blade Runner wasn’t about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human? It’s like E.T.. But I’m not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner. It’s not a character-driven movie
did he watch the movie?

The weakest part of Bladerunner 2049 was the forced insertion of Harrison Ford and his tough guy act.
It seemed like a desperate move to appease the fans, it was fan-service and it wasn't done well.

I also believe the destinction between replicant and human should have been even more apparent because the audience has become dumber with this generation. There are people here ITT that believe replicants are actually legit humans. Where as in the original the audience sympathized and pitied them for knowing they weren't but showed an incredible desire to become 'real'.. like the story of Pinocchio

sequel shat the bed as it confirm there is a space war

while original and novel never comfirm or deny it
its just propaganda while mars its still terraformed and the andys are just bored to tears while reading old pulp science fiction.

>K is a non-character, a self-insert for the "tfw no gf" audience,
Imagine missing the point of Joi this much.
You are so triggered by waifufags that you did not bother to sit and think.
Sad.

why is almost every gosling film
>i stand there with blank stare while the camera remains on me for minutes for no reason
why is he the only actor they do this with
i just don't get it

>if I say replicants aren't robots, then all the plot holes around them magically disappear

That scene with his Ai gf on the roof made me laugh so hard.

Just imagining a dude hugging his ai hologram. Fkn pathetic.
Also that ceiling aparatus thay projects her and the the fkn pen that is universal and works evrywhere.

Who tf oked this shit !? Lul

>tough guy act.
???????????????????????????

>None of this was conveyed
>K's face of devastation after the giant Joi calls him her Joe isn't indication of exploration of our identity and the validity of the things from which we draw importance.
>His decision to forgo either competing side and just get Deckard to his daughter isn't a clear indication of him deciding what is important for himself.
>His breakdown after he dared to let himself feel important only for it to be dashed away wasn't conveyed.

Did you watch with your eyes closed or what?

Its the only thing he can do

hehehehe agree'd man =))) epic. fkn truth,lol!

>I struggle to see what that film was necessary
>what that

Typo detected, opinion invalidated

>if I call shit that went over my head plot holes, maybe I will look smart

Nice try.
I didn't love but I also didn't hate the original. The final scene was awesome.

It is you who is dense and doesn't see the ideological platitudes on which he operates like an automaton.

Watch some star trek kid

Tough guy act.

I didn't miss the point, there's nothing to miss. But even if I did, it's irrelevant when the core audience itself misses the point. How many Joi/Luv/waifu circlejerk threads have there been?

Rachael and deckard are shit

>I can respond to all criticism by just telling people they didn't get it

He was great in La La land at least, dynamic as fuck.

I don't respect this movie enought to care.

he mad he didn't get invited to a cameo, like voicing a computer or something.

Not reading the thread, has someone posted this and BTFOd the anti BR2049 redditors yet?

>with fanfiction notions of "soul", "the wall", and us-versus-humans sentiments, all of which amount to nothing
These are all one second lines made by side characters and not at all the "main themes" of the film.
The first one is about what it means to be human, while the sequel expands on that and deals with what it means to be "special" and individual, and does it matter if you're programmed or not.
It's a Pinocchio story set in the BR world, but you can believe in your headcanon delusions all you want.
>K is a non-character
I believe you're talking about Deckard here, not K.
>all pale in comparison to the original where Roy discovers Tyrel can't save him.
Why do you make such dumb unrelated comparisons?
>K dies without purpose
Reuniting a father with his daughter is no purpose?
>Everything points to Deckard and his daughter being found within weeks or months by either the replicants or Wallace,
user Deckard and Rachel have put her in that dome, pretty sure it is implied that Deckard takes Ana with him right away. The immune system disorder is most probably just a ruse to keep her safe all these years also.
> So K's "arc" doesn't go anywhere
A factory produced average replicant Blade Runner denying both Wallace and the rebellion to do a moral self-sacrifice for the greater good and become "special" in the process is not enough of an "arc" for you?

This is the desired effect.
It is pure leftist ideology.

This leaf of faith. You are supposed to make it otherwise evrything falls apart.

Not who you're talking with originally pal but if you only like the fucking last scene of the first film you have no claim to this conversation.

>BR 2049 was strong in direction, visuals and (some) performances
No it wasn't, the visuals were pathetic and if the direction was good the performances wouldn't be "(some)".

>I didn't love but I also didn't hate the original.
then fuck off

>bawww why didn't they hire me again???

2049 directly references the original all throughout. The bone autopsy scene parallels the photo-enhance scene in the original, K realizing the truth about his memory and having a tantrum parallels Roy finding out Tyrel can't help him, etc. Not to mention the imagery in 2049 has all been defined in the original. All you can think when watching 2049 is how similar it is, and how much of a rehash it is under the guise of a sequel.

>Her performance and her character was shit
Nice meme user, there is not a single performance in the original BR that is as subtle as this one

?????????????????????????????
Not an argument. The fact that people liked Stalker because "dude, water is awesome" (which is partially true in a way, but ignores deeper meaning of the movie) does not make the movie bad.
This is a huge giveaway of your lack of a genuine opinion. You want to just feel superior to compensate what you are lacking in other aspects. You sad little fuck.

>the face of dishonestposting is a fucking Cred Forumsermin redditor capeshitter
OH NONONONO

>woah a sequel bases it's story on the first film
riveting information user bravo

thats how i felt about 2049 - good movie but bad sequel

youtube.com/watch?v=EFudzSsAZDI&t=2s

We discussed to death user. Some user is more patient I see But probably wastes his time because you are a fool and an intentionally obtuse hypocrite.

The original wasn't subtle though. Roy's monologue in the end was shameless exposition explaining main theme of the movie to retards.

How are replicants so much stronger than humans if they're not robots?

It wasn't even subtle...and it doesn't even explain why she has such strong feelings for him when she barely even knows him. I guess you could say she was programmed to, but that wasn't even hinted at in the movie. It's just like she randomly loves him for no reason. Yet she almost kills him multiple times. Her character makes no sense.

Stop shilling this retard is not even able to tell the role of Joshi, he thinks she is an antagonist.
This guy could have problems analysing Peppa Pig. Just ignore him.

>why she has such strong feelings for him
she has not feeling for him, she has her frustration and desires, a fire under the ashes.
K is just there at the right/wrong moment.

Hit the nail on the forhead

Final cut but skip the dream sequence.

Nothing of this matters if the movie doesn't clearly define where the line is.

All of this is part of his programming and you literally can not prove this wrong. Even his boss bitch thay is human can't say anything when he asks about his soul.

This shitty movie is just presenting another human who is in another arbitrary category. There is nothing about his replicant existence that makes him distinct from a normal human so why the fuck would I believe that he is !?

The movie fucked up and is a self indulgent mess. Why is it never explained why his ai decides to act against its programing ?

Why does he even care about beeing special ? How does it change anything ? If he at first can pass that exam but after learning some information he can't then he is just conditioned and not inherently different.

And so on and so forth. Regardless of stupid debates about this shit. The movie royaly fucked up. I didn't know shit and I gave it a chance. I was even a little bit exited seeing it but it was bad.

Luv doesn't want to just kill K, if that was true then she wouldn't kiss him, she wouldn't say "I'm the best", Luv was the exact mirror of K, and her relationship to Wallace mirrors K's relationship to both the LAPD and the Resistance.
For K, his identity is formed wholly by his role as blade runner for the LAPD. Within his role, he had purpose and his whole identity is forged by it as an external force. For Luv, her identity is wholly formed by her role as Wallace's "best angel." K is satisfied in his fantasy with Joi, which Luv doesn't have, and he is subsequently able to evolve and channel his fantasies through her ("You're special," etc) whereas Luv's specialness is all from Wallace.
She simultaneously fears him and can't leave him because he gives her purpose and she relishes being The Best One. While she is clearly upset and traumatized by his actions, he is the only thing that gives her identity, same as the LAPD. Luv is a reflection of what K would be like without Joi. Wallace is all Luv has, for better or worse, and that's her whole world. She struggles against it the entire movie while K feels comfortable within his fantasy as an outlet.
When Luv destroys Joi, it's possibly out of jealousy for what K has that she lacks. At that point she is fully reaffirmed in her identity, while it shatters K. This is why the Resistance helps form his identity as well as that of a free replicant. The choice is his to remain a slave to his fantasy and former life, or become a slave to a movement where he loses his sense of self. Within the resistance they all had his dreams, they all think they're special like K. Ultimately he is allowed a choice, and goes with an alternative to both. Luv never got the choice at all, and where she frees K by breaking him down with killing Joi, this is what ultimately locks her into her own identity and sense of self for good. She fully becomes Wallace's best angel despite her dissonance with him.

>In many ways, Blade Runner wasn’t about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human?

BR2049 does this much better.

>It's not a character-driven movie and there's no humor, there's no love, there's no soul.

2049 is much more driven by character than the first one. There original is all cliche archetypes and lacks any real emotion. In 2049 a replicants love for an AI is much more impactful than anything in the original. My man is just butthurt.

they probably retired that whole line of replicants considering he went awol, killed like 30 people and tyrell

>>>>>>>in the original deckard killed no one
Had me till there, he kills at least 2 or 3 people

Famke Janssen, Verhoeven and based Rutger Hauer then?

>There is nothing about his replicant existence that makes him distinct from a normal human
what the fuck

Don't watch final cut, it's completely fucked with retarded color correction.

I'm sure these pseudo-intellectual redditors will still find a way to shit on the best movie of 2017.

>Roy's monologue in the end was shameless exposition explaining main theme of the movie to retards.
thats where you didnt get it

the war is a fachade to make the humans explore the space, there is no war the planets are terraformed but at very slow rate
androids are given free to space settlers but eventually die and you are forced to buy more. Roy wasnt a space warrior he was a clerk at a space drugstore
he returned to earth ´coz 1.- there is an android revolution 2.- met his maker 3.- demand more life span 4.- keep reading more science fiction pulps

in the end roy lived a fake full life.

>it's completely fucked
I love how this board is only able to make overstatemnt

>All of this is part of his programming and you literally can not prove this wrong.
How is him literally lying to his own boss a part of his programming? How is denying both Wallace and the rebellion and actually saving Deckard a part of his programming? Reuniting him with his daughter?

Let's see you do the retarded mental gymnastics on this one.

2049 is a good example of a movie trying to imitate itself. I actually enjoyed 2049 more, but it's visuals were defiantly worse

Luv doesn't mirror K at all

She lives in a "wood" mansion getting manicures while nuking people from orbit

K lives in squalor with a bunch of hungarians

>Not an argument
>proceeds to conjure up and attack some strawman
>projection
The fact that people latch onto these aspects in 2049 isn't coincidental: the film spends countless shots and scenes emotionally pandering to the audience, as if cheaply depicting K's sad face as an insight into his inner turmoil somehow constitutes substance. No, it's a purely manufactured film that aims to hit all the buttons, because the modern filmgoer is too stupid to comprehend subtlety and instead needs timely reminders of a characters emotional state. The result is that all most get out of it is the circklejerk reactionary sentiments that I described, and for that it's a bad film.

>Why is it never explained why his ai decides to act against its programing ?
Because he has real memories implanted into him.

You're a brainlet supreme.

>But I think it’s not important what I think.
Damn right, especially when you were asking for quips in the previous sentence Rutty boy. Also the question of being special and important or generic and irrelevant is better portrayed in the second movie. The first one is more about the acceptance of fate (Roy facing the inevitability of death, Rachel facing her replicant condition) than about the "what does it mean to be human?" question.

I don't see it as "leftist", I see it as stupid.
I guess you can call it neo-leftism. Soft-headed, naive, immature with fantasy based disney channel idealism.

They even have nose rings, a symbolic gesture. That they're ready to be lead like oxen

Not gonna read this thread because its too long.

Just give me the conclusion. Do we, as a collective, agree or disagree with him?

he killed replicants user, they weren't real people

>But I think it’s not important what I think.
He's right

> But I’m not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner.

I guess he just missed the whole point of K and Joi's relationship.

Those are their settings, but their motivations are the same. Both want to be special, Luv wants to be special just as much as K wants to be special.
But her only way of becoming special is by being "the best one" to Wallace, which is the tragic existence of her character.

How is it not ?
All of this has to be part of the potential of his programmed character. You can not prove that it isn't and I can't that it is. But i have the fact that he is a replicant on my side. It is you who has to make the leap of faith. You can't prove me wrong so you retreat to this desperate potion of ...no. YOU!

Sad

Cred Forums agrees
reddit and Cred Forums are upset

>Robin Wright was a villain

He was doing fine up until that point

Disagree.

We agree that it was unnecessary to make a sequel, we disagree on literally every single other point he made like that the film is "not character-driven", Rutger sadly became a senile demented old fool

Strong disagree, the board has already spoken on this subject

I think you’re just butthurt that your tfw no gf hero was built pretty poorly. Original is smart because it builds and audience perception of replicants as inhuman and then turns it on it its head when you realize batty is the most human and moral character in the whole thing. 2049 just has him being a robot that slowly and poorly tries to become human, fails miserably, and is told that nothing he does matters and you’re going to die, which I think was the biggest slap cause of the message of the first. 2049 is definitely very modern, and the tone is overall very nihilistic and self-centered; either you’re the chosen one or you’re no one. Original was very pro-humanity, reminding us instead that we’re all the chosen ones and that each life has meaning and purpose to it. I didn’t hate 2049, but it was nothing like the first.

He's mostly right. No need for the film to exist. Story sucks. Missing that special something due to being a sequel.

this

With his ai I am referring to joy brainlet. Also the movie doesn't explain what the real difference between fake and real memories is beside hurr durr le details.

This isn't enought to justify his actions.

...

....

Did you learn nothing? Are you literally retarded? How can you defend the original and yet miss the mark so much?

>shameless
Hardly. It's the climax of the film, and all throughout both the audience and Deckard as a character are convinced that Nexus replicants are mindless killing machines. The monologue then serves to show contrary to that understanding, and is what allows Deckard to save Rachael in the end. It also shows that Deckard was himself the monster between the two, with Roy questioning Deckard with "how does it feel to be hunted". 2049 takes everything from this pivotal scene by building off of it in continuity, or did you forget?

what are you talking about

Luv is a replicant who is pre-programmed to be a subservient slave just like K is and presumably all the shit slave tier replicants they have working the cotton fields all day

Any deviation to that was explained in the first movie which is why roy had a 4 year lifespan to begin with - when you mix prefabricated memories with new ones, you start to develop individuality which is dangerous for a slave

besides if she acted up any she'd prob get 2 shots to the back of the skull and jared leto would just make a new secretary

...

>Original is smart because it builds and audience perception of replicants as inhuman and then turns it on it its head when you realize batty is the most human and moral character in the whole thing.
And the sequel is smart because it builds the audience perception of a replicant being a special chosen one born child and then turns it on it's head when you realize K is just a yet another factory produced replicant and still the most human moral character in the whole thing.

In the context of the narrative, he retired them. He operated within the law and never murdered a human being. It's only towards the end, with Roy, that replicant humanity is addressed.
Meanwhile, K literally murders people all throughout, like the scavengers, and the innocent drivers just doing their job when rescuing Deckard.

Literally everything you said about the original can be said about the sequel too.
Shove that iphone up your ass user.

We agree.

The bullshit is strong with this one.

I call it leftist ideology because I have seem this shit so any times. The structure is identical just the superficialities change.

It's like they censor the cruel and gruesome parts of nature to portray it as hurr durr le mother nature.

I hate it so fkn much. It is incredible how much the intellectual ambitions have degenerated since the star trek times. But I guess intellectual ambition is an ideological servant as well.

>we disagree on literally every single other point he made like that the film is "not character-driven", Rutger sadly became a senile demented old fool
No, we don't. K isn't a character, he's a self-insert. 2049 is a video game in film form. Villeneuve pretty much gives you the game controller in sickening fashion.

Dude, you are saying we should not like a movie because some people likes too much a character played by a cute actress.
This was your last argument. Shut the fuck up with your
>reee strawman
you cannot teach logic to anyone.
Now fuck off you maggot

>In many ways, Blade Runner wasn’t about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human?
And this one is too.

>It’s not a character-driven movie
Except that it is. It's all about K.

>there’s no love, there’s no soul
And once again, but there is. Everything K goes through with Joi brings up questions about humanity, love and soul.

Was it necessary? No. But what film is?

It's funny that there's an interview of Ryan and Ford where Ford says he thinks Ryan would be perfect for the lead role and they say they've already been talking to him for months. Ford reacts by saying they've only been talking to him for a couple weeks. This really didn't need to be a Blade Runner movie, but this is a business and tying it in with Blade Runner definitely brought them more money than if they didn't.

Considering both movies blur the line between humans and replicants and both movies makes you care more about robots and a latina girlfriend experience AI prostitute, it's the same fucking thing. How can someone not get these movies? They aren't really that complex

>tfw no gf
that's not the fucking point of the character oyu dunce

why was she such a bitch to K the entire film??

About as useful as star wars 7,8 and 9

>K isn't a character
Explain this objetively false statement and be quick before I dismiss you as a contrarian brainlet forever

Based

Nice meme buzzwords user, try an actual argument next time.

>he's a self-insert
So Ridley Scott and Fancher are self.inserting themselves as K here?

Holy shit the ass devastation ITT

He's wrong about everything except that this film didn't really have to exist.

But that doesn’t make it good? That’s like saying last Jedi was genius because you weren’t expecting it to be so awful, K was a fucking faggot loner living with his robowaifu (who literally didn’t have free will and wasn’t human) that thinks he’s special, is told he isn’t, then needlessly lets himself die. If the tone here was more that he’s sacrificing himself for a cause greater than his own life that’d be good, but instead it was a half-formed mess where he accepts he’s a robot and dies. He wasn’t moral at all, he just goes where he goes and kills who he needs to. Batty starts with a moral compass set only on living longer and does evil things because of it, but in realizing life is short and there’s nothing to do he sees the worth of his and every other life, and dies satisfied that his life, though no one will tell stories about it, was lived to the fullest, as all lives should.

No.

It’s a shorthand man, see the larger point.

>Not an argument

This is who you're arguing with..

Nope.

>he's a self-insert
self insert for who

.....

Really? You did WATCH the movies, right? I can’t believe someone missed the point this hard

Disagree, the guy says he doesn't think it was necessary as if art required a justification to exist or be expanded. Then he misses the point of not only the sequel, also the original, thinking it's about the meme question "hurr machines look like humans so are we machines now or what lmao" literally better and then asks for more humor and love as in relationship subplot.

The guy looks pretty stupid, almost as much as the guys ITT trying to defend his abortion of an argument

I agree fully.

This.

He's right.

BR2049 is in their top 3 films of all time, of course they're devastated that someone disagree with their shit taste and offers substantial criticism.

>dishonestposting
>him
It was a happa you fucking newfag blade redditor

>That’s like saying last Jedi was genius because you weren’t expecting it to be so awful
What? How does this sentence have anything to do with my post?

You must be an actual turboautist, talking about starshit all of a sudden

>literally better explored in fucking animes
Fixed

>AquaFreshest

youtube.com/watch?v=X5AfjAXcBXY

Batty starts with a moral compass set only on living longer and does evil things because of it, but in realizing life is short and there’s nothing to do he sees the worth of his and every other life, and dies satisfied that his life, though no one will tell stories about it, was lived to the fullest, as all lives should.

you forget the peak about it all, the irony that no one but deckard will know or remember his trials and tribulations

Even Villeneuve admitted the movie is garbo and that he won't do something like that again lel.

>It’s a shorthand man, see the larger point.
your larger point is even dumber.
You missed every fucking aspect of the movie.
You are obsessed with K life.

Nice strawman buddy but we're just educating some brainlets here. Also stop replying to yourself, it's sad

>Even Villeneuve admitted the movie is garbo
You are functionally illiterate.

Villeneuve is disgusting, he treats his own films like products. He goes on about the box-office, about this and that. What kind of an auteur does that? I guess Hollywood does that to a director, makes everything about numbers and results with artistic merit only a secondary consideration.

>K was a fucking faggot loner living with his robowaifu
Are you 12?
>who literally didn’t have free will and wasn’t human
Yes, because she's an extension of K's character development.
>If the tone here was more that he’s sacrificing himself for a cause greater than his own life that’d be good
And it is that exactly. Is not giving your life as a moral self-sacrifice just so you can reunite a father with his daughter a good enough cause?
>where he accepts he’s a robot and dies
No, through his moral self-sacrifice act that he made individually while denying both Wallace and the rebellion he becomes special like he always longed to. With that he finds the meaning and purpose to his life and dies in full content.

Reddit getting BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

...

Literally fake news.

>He goes on about the box-office, about this and that. What kind of an auteur does that?
Ridley Scott after the release of the first Blade Runner

>actually using photon
I pity your eyes.

>anime pic
Cringe

>>No, through his moral self-sacrifice act that he made individually while denying both Wallace and the rebellion he becomes special like he always longed to. With that he finds the meaning and purpose to his life and dies in full content.

you do realize that K was arrested outside bubble girl's house right? and he dies infront of it too? it won't take long to put the pieces together

what with the rebels and wallace who has more money than god, K probably did more harm than good

2049 is incredibly shallow and lacks a single memorable moment. Its just pretty enough to fool brainlets into thinking its pretentious art.

He's 100% right. Only Cred Forumseddit soycucks disagree with him.

Great argument you have there, my man.

>IP count doesn't go up
Why are redditors so triggered about this movie being the best of 2017?

ur anus

This but unironically.

a man becoming old and demented is such a sad thing

>Cred Forumseddit soycucks
Nice projection but we have proofs about who's the Cred Forumsedditor here

I’m taking about your comment that
>”the sequel is smart because it builds the audience perception of a replicant being a special chosen one born child and then turns it on it's head”
This isn’t smart, it’s subversive. The point of BR is fundamentally to show that replicants and humans are both people, and from that remind that living life with meaning and purpose is what’s important. 2049 doesn’t do this at all, and while I agree the twist could have been cool the message of the film didn’t work with it (comes out as him realizing he’s not the one and then decides he’s not a bean, so he lets himself die).

True.

I disagree, but if you perceived the movie that way I agree it’d be a lot better; Villeneuve didn’t set it up like that, he made the plot go like
>I’m real Hooman bean
>no i not
>oh noes
>I better go help the ACTUAL human
>time to die
>realhero.jpg
And that was it. It was like he’s going to help the “actual” people while he just lets himself die. I see more what you’re saying you got from it, but Villeneuve very clearly didn’t do that. And I don’t think he wanted to either

>this movie being the best of 2017
Except this is a reddit opinion, and a pleb one at that. For one, Ryan Gosling's other 2017 film, Song to Song, is far more worthwhile than 2049. But of course spewing plebs like yourself having seen it.

>villeneuve
>auteur
haha

Uh

Get your own basement. You can blast anime as loud as you want, as late as you want.

>and from that remind that living life with meaning and purpose is what’s important. 2049 doesn’t do this at all,
How? Literally how?
The entire film is about K trying to find meaning and purpose in his life and finally finding it at the end.

>screencap from Cred Forums
Nice confession bud but there was no need

looks like reddit is furious over over 2049 getting shit on.

No, it's Cred Forums opinion, get over it

This man is 72 and he still gets more pussy than you.

>reddit opinion
It's spelled Cred Forums, we had a poll and it won
>Song to Song
Malick is done for, S2S was the nadir of his career

>>I’m real Hooman bean
>>no i not
>>oh noes
>>I better go help the ACTUAL human
>>time to die
>>realhero.jpg
No seriously user, are you 12?
You can make braindead over generalisations like these about any film. You argument is on the same level as that meme of "I'VE SEEN LAZERS IN SPACE LMAO" Roy monologue, but the intent of that meme is to be funny, while you are here literally trying to give arguments with the same approach.
Embarassing.

>over over
This redditor is literally seething right now lmao

>A poll that was taken when Cred Forums had hundreds of cross posters here for SW8 from not only the site, but all over the internet is an accurate representation of the boards taste. And a graph showing that Cred Forums is being flooded with crossposters during this same period is wrong
Reminder redditors actually believe that poll is accurate of Cred Forums

How does that make him more right, brainlet?

Explain then what the point is? He does to.... let the real people keep living? I’m not simplifying it any more than the film did, take off the fancy lights and face shots and the plot was very simple and not deep at all

So you think the majority of the internet thinks BR2049 is the greatest film of 2017? Then why did it flop so hard, why did no one go see it?
Why isn't it even the second best film on reddit?

>a poll taken in Cred Forums doesn't represent Cred Forums but Review Screw and his reddit crew's opinion does
Imagine being this much of an exposed videogame playing capeshit watching redditor wow

If you weren't new you would know that this board gets injected with new users every time something big happens/comes out. We are given a steady stream of new users through /GoT/ though
Star Wars has been the biggest problem this board has faced as it becomes the hub for people from sites like buzzfeed, facebook, star wars fan forum #345

Again you would know this if you weren't new and watched this board speed up faster and faster each year.

>Why isn't it even the second best film on reddit?
Careful now, he'd try to mental gymnast his way out this. The natural state of the Cred Forumsedditor is arguing over which console or capeshit company is better, they know how to avoid actual arguments to win these kind of internet wars

Lack of pussy is giving you a boner over android girl user

>all these replies
>no one asking for the source

>“All the best memories are hers...”
>“Why? Who am I to you?”

This is the emotional apex of the film and I was surprised to learn how many people miss the nuance and importance here: As far as K’s memories are concerned, Deckard is his father. If there’s anything the first film taught us, it’s that we are but a collection memories. Implanted or not, they are real in the mind. Remember that line earlier in the film, from Deckard to K: “to love someone you have to be a stranger”? This moment is a direct callback to that. K’s smirk says it all. By saying nothing, he shows his transformation; his ability to love selflessly. And given all the references to fairy tales throughout the film, it is fitting that our Pinocchio has become a real boy by the film’s end. K sitting on the stoop, watching snow fall around him as special unique snowflakes fall on his hand only to melt away forver is also foreshadowed earlier in the film. The significance here being the dichotomy between K and the girl. She is “real” yet she lives in a bubble with fake snow and in isolation. K, the “skinjob”, has been the one to have lived a full life, complete with bouts of Luv and Joi.
So, as ever, Blade Runner is utterly existential in its message - it is how you live that truly matters.

So why didn't it win in r*ddit if the only people voting for it were redditors? Prove it to me than this poll doesn't represent Cred Forums despite being consistent with the praise the movie received when it was released

Remember locals

The main pusher of blade runner 2049 being a Cred Forums movie spent months saying Cred Forums would get blown the fuck out. This is who you're dealing with. Outsiders that pretend to be locals

but the majority of starshit viewers hated the film?
if they liked it the movie would make a billion

The push for BR2049 being a reddit movie came from Review Screw and we know for a fact he's a redditor, also BR2049 won the poll here and not in reddit

and this is you