I'm only three questions in, but here's a terrific interview with 2049's editor:
https://www.provideocoalition.com/AOTC-Bladerunner-2049

Edit: reading on, there are some gems in there:

Quote:

---

the three-some scene, there were no green screens, no elements. The actors would run the same shot twice with the same choreography. One complication from that was that you had two Ryan Goslings in the shot and two backgrounds of the apartment and you had to pick which to use. There was a lot of craft involved in finessing that. But the fundamental thing was that they could get instant gratification on set by seeing blended images and go "yeah, we got it". During the shoot, my cut used 50/50 blends and I did a few motion effects and picture-in-pictures position shifts to improve the actors' sync with each other. Then my temp team would roto everything in order to finesse it in Nuke.

Because of the difference in the actors' faces, if you matched the right eye up, the left eye would be out of register, making three eyes in all, a spidery quality. Denis chose to enable accidents. For two seconds Joi and Mariette's choreography will be identical and the next they'll be adrift, which creates a kind of ghost in the machine that we cherished. A fantastic accident I really loved I don't know whether Denis sees it as a failure or not but I certainly see it as an unexpected treasure was a moment where the two women walk behind K's back to take his coat off and he no longer has eye contact with them. That was one section where their body positions never sync'd well and despite every trick in the Effects palette I couldn't get a match. In the end, the VFX House D-Neg used an animated CGI Joi for that shot. It's subtle, but it feels like the program conserves energy when she's not being watched she defaults to something more robotic. A beautiful happy accident.

---

GiveEmHellBill said:

---

JCRebel13 said:

---

This movie will go down as a cult and science fiction classic that surpasses it's predecessor. Sad that it has done very poorly financially however. It deserves better.

---

That's what makes it a cult and science fiction classic......it did poorly financially. Any film that does great box office is written off by "serious" film people as popcorn fluff.

---

Pretty cool...

I HATED the original. Loved the new one.
I don't think I've ever had a sequel so surpass the original.

Finally saw this last night.

Loved it.

Finally got a chance to see this. Best movie of 2017 for me, tied with Dunkirk.

Was amazed to see how poorly it did at the box office, but most people are idiots.

I had to buy it and am about 30 minutes in. Pretty beautifully made. The chick dropping from the womb thing is sort of gross but hey.

pfo said:

---

So many times sequels don't live up to the original but this Blade Runner did in every way. It was every bit as awful as the first one. Confusing, boring, very slow, 3 painful hours long, drab, without color and almost always raining.

Blade Runner evoked almost no sympathy for any of the characters. Jarad Leto is just a freaky Hollywood weirdo and if he's in a movie it's probably going to be freaky and weird and not good just like him.

Blade Runner 2 just left us ice cold.

---

The first was about the best sci-fi movie ever made.

JCRebel13 said:

---

Just saw it late with my wife. Absolutely superb, breathtaking film. Dennis is a top director. Have loved his work and this film only underlined it. This movie will go down as a cult and science fiction classic that surpasses it's predecessor. Sad that it has done very poorly financially however. It deserves better.

---

I feel like modern crowds need fast paced movies with non stop action and suspense in these types of flicks.

This movie was amazing and one of my instant all time favs. I'll watch it on mute as i'm falling asleep sometimes just for the cinematography. Villaneuve is a genius and absolutely nailed it...as he has done with all his movies.

The Debt said:

---

I just saw it. Was supremely worried it would ruin or take away from the philosophical complexities of PKD. And that fear is gone.

Let's talk about the syncing scene for a moment. It gave me chills, not "omg this is so well done" but "oh sht this tears in me."

There are different levels to unpack.

1. We live in a time with porn. The women are not there with you. Using a prostitute to illicit textile stimulation of a fantasy: wut!

2. What is real for K, was it the prostitute? Was it joi? How would one interpret who you slept with?

3. Maybe I'm an asshle but I think everyone has been with someone, and imagined they were someone else. This thought brought about extreme conviction and dehumanization of my so.

4. And this is the one that kills: joi recognizes her inadequacies and finds a way to make K happy despite those inadequacies, even to the point of what WE would consider adultery.

5. Without the prostitute he is, in a real sense, isolated sexually and relationally but not emotionally. Notice the moment robin Wright tried to fk him, or the prostitute on the street, K retreated into his false relationship (isolation).

6. Those inadequacies of "not being there" but being present in his mind is a parallel to a widower (which he actually becomes). The romantic longing of an untouchable lover is often the drive of a widow(er).

The scene challenges your concept of love and humanity, intimacy vs throwaway, isolation vs interaction. And wtf is interaction if not THIS?

It's such a hard scene to process (emotionally and intellectually).

---

This scene was incredible in every way...but I still don't know if I understand Joi. She doesn't have free will and the ability to make decisions on behalf of K does she? This may be stupid but I understood Joi to be a machine that knows the owner's preferences and just gives them what they want. Did she really surprise K with the "3-some" or was that basically booked by him through her? She says something like "I could see you liked her" or something along those lines if I recall correctly. Were his preferences just updated once he came across the hooker and Joi knew what to do as a computer program? Basically...he wanted it to happen so it happened?

I may be overthinking this

Unpacking that scene is a mindfk

The Debt said:

---

Unpacking that scene is a mindfk

---

It really is. As charming and likable as she is (and obviously smoking hot), when you realize she's just programmed to be a reflection of his preferences...It's actually deeply sad. They did such a good job with her in the movie that I would forget this at times and then every once in a while I'd remind myself of this and get sad. Can't remember which moment it was...may have been when she froze up on him...but my eyes actually got watery for a sec. Never thought something like that could bring me to the verge of tears.

Boo Weekley said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Unpacking that scene is a mindfk

---

It really is. As charming and likable as she is (and obviously smoking hot), when you realize she's just programmed to be a reflection of his preferences...It's actually deeply sad. They did such a good job with her in the movie that I would forget this at times and then every once in a while I'd remind myself of this and get sad. Can't remember which moment it was...may have been when she froze up on him...but my eyes actually got watery for a sec. Never thought something like that could bring me to the verge of tears.

---

To a certain degree, I think there was a hell of a lot going on with not only K and Joi, but also the other replicants which was pretty much directly explained in this movie. Joi I think began, just like all good AI horror/apocalyptic stories start out, started to grow beyond her programming. Her wanting to please K was largely programmed, but I think as the movie progressed and especially when she transferred to the imaging device where she could be destroyed and her life was finite, that she actually grew attached to K and went beyond her intended programming. Just my opinion there.

Really, this is a beautiful movie. I literally hadn't seen anything beyond the previews for this movie. Hadn't read anything, no reviews, and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Unpacking that scene is a mindfk

---

It really is. As charming and likable as she is (and obviously smoking hot), when you realize she's just programmed to be a reflection of his preferences...It's actually deeply sad. They did such a good job with her in the movie that I would forget this at times and then every once in a while I'd remind myself of this and get sad. Can't remember which moment it was...may have been when she froze up on him...but my eyes actually got watery for a sec. Never thought something like that could bring me to the verge of tears.

---

To a certain degree, I think there was a hell of a lot going on with not only K and Joi, but also the other replicants which was pretty much directly explained in this movie. Joi I think began, just like all good AI horror/apocalyptic stories start out, started to grow beyond her programming. Her wanting to please K was largely programmed, but I think as the movie progressed and especially when she transferred to the imaging device where she could be destroyed and her life was finite, that she actually grew attached to K and went beyond her intended programming. Just my opinion there.

Really, this is a beautiful movie. I literally hadn't seen anything beyond the previews for this movie. Hadn't read anything, no reviews, and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

---

Interesting, I could definitely see that

Quote:

---

Joi I think began, just like all good AI horror/apocalyptic stories start out, started to grow beyond her programming. Her wanting to please K was largely programmed, but I think as the movie progressed and especially when she transferred to the imaging device where she could be destroyed and her life was finite, that she actually grew attached to K and went beyond her intended programming. Just my opinion there.

---

I disagree completely, but your point of view is totally valid. That I disagree with but could totally accept your view is another sign that this movie is so incredible. I don't think she ever went beyond her "programming." Her character is perhaps the epitome of "machine-learning" (I had pointed out previously how perfectly they visualized this when her projection "learned" how to adapt to the rain). Her base purpose was that of a subservient female companion and she never really veers from that (I'm going off a few months old memory so I might be misremembering). Her ability to perform that main purpose gets better over time as she observes and gains more experiences to learn from, but those experiences are really all just new data points to how she can be a better companion to K. And, the story brings her arc to a perfect climax in that regard - her ultimate servitude to K is dying for him.

I had written quite a bit about K and how he on the other hand is that next step that achieves sentience, but I ended up deleting, because I haven't really made up my mind if he's truly sentient or not.

Does Joi have any sense of touch whatsoever? Either her "touching" something or someone "touching" her? I ask only because of that quick bit where her finger somehow produced enough heat to light up K's cigarette. She obviously couldn't solidify or harness mass in any way, hence the sex scene, but I could never tell if her hologram gave off any kind of physical sensation, even if only very slightly. In other words, could K get any sensation at all from "touching" her face, or was he literally just going through the motions of doing so? In the same way Joi could produce sound waves via her voice from wherever she was standing, could she also produce the slightest sensation of touch in any way?

As for *why* K was with/owned Joi, save for the obvious, maybe certain replicants aren't allowed relationships with humans or other replicants. Sure, the companion models wouldn't fall into that category, but I'm wondering if a replicant like K simply wasn't allowed an actual, physical relationship for whatever reason.

I figured as much. Still, how does her finger produce heat or her hologram produce sound?

That makes sense. But in her free/remote form, being able to hear her from across the room has me scratching my head.

Granted, how something in K's pocket projected something across a room with the proper lighting and what not is just as perplexing, and it can all be chalked up to "future tech," was just curious though.

Then sign me up. Sure, a hologram like Joi as replacement for an actual relationship is one thing, but assuming you're in a healthy, physical relationship with an actual person, or have a family, having one of those things around as basically a visible Siri/Alexa would be pretty bad ass.

I only watched it once (so far) but i thought of it as an ecig and her action was coordinated with a wireless signal to "ignite" it. I need to see that scene again though.

New NY Times article on Roger Denkins, who was responsible for cinematography. Lots of nice shots in the article:

The Bright (and Dark) Side of Roger Deakins
The cinematographer Roger Deakins has been nominated 13 times for an Oscar but has never won. Here's why he should.


https://nyti.ms/2EbpCT7

Just finished it and really really enjoyed it.

Beautiful movie.

I only saw the original about 6 months ago and really didn't care for it. It felt VERY dated to me and overly artsy with a lack of emotion to me. I know it's a classic but it just didn't connect with me.

I thought this was worlds better. Great acting, beautifully shot, the score was fantastic. I enjoyed the plot as well. I liked the twist with Gosling and the daughter.

Definitely in my top 10 of the year. Have to let it marinate before a final ranking.

Great to hear.

I rewatched a good chunk of it last night (my third time seeing it) on 4K Blu-ray and it really is one of the most visually stunning movies I've ever seen. And might possibly one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time. I love everything about it.

But really, if anyone has the opportunity to check it out on 4K Blu-ray, absolutely do so. It's jaw dropping at that resolution.

The original bladerunner was true, cult; brilliant sci fi. Profound in some ways. Beautiful in all.

Just saw 2049 again, and I liked it even much more than the first viewing. It truly is a profound, beautiful sci fy movie.

Great job and inspiring that such a good movie can still be made

I would hope it is a lock for Best Cinematography and it should at least get a Best Score nomination as well. Music was great.