Humans do create computers which create other computers though. Humans also create assembly line robots that create other assembly line robots. If you look at the current computer design and manufacturing process, 90% of it is automated. Before you counter with the example of 3rd world sweatshops, that is a very small part of the manufacturing process, namely assembly. Consumer electronics are only so cheap and constantly becoming cheaper because so much of it is automated.

My main beef is that there is a multitude of more logical and nuanced reasons Wallace would seek to find a birthed replicant aside from "I cant make them fast enough". The need for genetic heterogeneity. The need for non implanted memories.

His character was just a bit too one note and fairly unconvincing as a supergenius.

Actions, not memories, define us in others eyes. But memories most certainly define us in our own.

I choose to forget GITS 2017.

I don't believe it would be simpler, or just as simple, to continue making replicants rather than finding a way for them to reproduce on their own.

The problem is not just one of scale but of logistics. Get replicants to the planet you want to populate. Obviously you prefer replicants. They are stronger. They are smarter. And best of all, the initial replicants can be programmed with whatever memories, identity, aptitudes, and purpose you desire.

We will assume that of course each planet will need some level of terraforming to make it hospitable and sustainable for human/relicant life.

But how to grow their numbers? Now here is the dilemma. Just getting people to new planets is in itself a huge task. Now you have to build whatever factory is necessary to construct replicants.

Whereas if they can reproduce on their own, you have solved the problem far more simply by making the replicants themselves the factories responsible for producing new replicants.

Great post

At first look, this looks like a blockbuster. Hearing lots of good things about the movie, probably watch it this weekend.

Out of 124 students in the UNLV freshmen comp classes I teach, exactly 6 had even heard of the movie. None had seen it. Probably not a blockbuster.

Not trying to be combative... but I can not agree, not even a little.

I think that this ^ view is a very westernized ideology, and while I was born here in the USA, I don't have a strictly westernized outlook on such things.

I am not impressed with the "look at me" idea of lifestyle.

Doing things out of the light of scrutiny is done because the believers idea is that they are truly doing the right thing... Doing the right thing because others are watching is only lying to oneself that they are genuine.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post...I'm talking about the idea of self, not how we are viewed by others.

I rewatched the trailers - they're pretty much meaningless to someone who hasn't seen the original. The entire marketing effort seems to have over-estimated the audience's familiarity with Blade Runner. Villeneuve can't be excused of all blame as he didn't want 2049 to play at festivals for fear of spoilers.

Off to see this now, looking forward to reading the review afterwards.

Speechless, really. My sky-high expectations were more than surpassed; an absolute sci-fi masterpiece. Masterful OP, too.

I'm not good at catching this kind of thing, but I also noticed how the characters constantly explore their world and each other with their hands: feeling raindrops, snowflakes, bees, old piano keys and statues; caressing, searching, giving pedicures and even strangling each other with their hands. It's the most tactile movie I've ever seen --can't you just feel that ancient wooden horse in your hands? If it starts with an eye, it ends with Deckard putting his hand against glass wanting to touch his daughter to see if she's really there. What these characters can sense with their hands is more real to them than what they see with their eyes or even their mind's eye.

Good point, Cranberry!

I think I found someone who will go see it with me.��

Which sort of means how unpopular this seems to be.

Great post Dom, kind of embarrassed how much of that went over my head when I saw it.

IMO the birthing of replicants being easier than manufacture makes sense. I think on earth where the infrastructure is already set up then indeed replicants making replicants is easier. They have all the parts they need mass produced and sent to where they need to be.

If you go to a new planet though, none of this infrastructure is in place. You now have to build who knows how many factories in order to produce all of the necessary parts required, as well as find the raw materials required by the factories. Or you could send as few two replicants with enough sustenance to procreate.

My one major problem with this movie was Joi. I'm glad to see Dom mentioned her in comparison with Samantha in the op, because that is all I could think about. Anytime they were together I kept thinking "Wow this is a little too similar to Her" and then there was the prostitute scene which was more or less an exact copy of the situation presented in Her. I feel like calling that storyline derivative of Her is being generous, it was pretty much a direct copy with a few minor tweaks.

More thoughts.

There is a lot of mirroring between K and Roy Batty, especially in their respective death scenes:

Batty is trying to figure out a way to expand the his and the other replicants' life spans. When he finds out that he cannot do so, either because Tyrell won't or can't "fix" him, his untamed emotions lead him to kill his god and his god's helper (Sebastian). His mission is life but really turns to death.

K's mission is to find the child born of replicant parents and kill it. Not out of anger or revenge, but to protect the world order - to save lives. His mission is death, but to save life.

K quickly begins to believe that he is the child he is supposed to kill, and he searches for the proof. When he thinks he has found that proof at Ana's lab, we see the only real explosion of emotion from K in the whole movie - he angrily shouts "goddammit!" and storms out. Is he really feeling this emotion or is "trying it out" as a "real" human?

When Batty "plays" with Deckard, hunting him through the Bradbury, until finally cornering him on the rooftops, his goal is to kill Deckard - out of revenge. But Batty is "raging against the dying of the light," and when he sees Deckard - his enemy - struggling to hang on literally by the fingertips to just a few more seconds of precious life, he saves Deckard. Out of respect for Life. The life that is ending for him. He scarifices himself, in a way, so that Deckard may live.

K also sacrifices himself so that Deckard may live, repeatedly saving him from Luv and Wallace's cohorts. He doesn't have to go back for him, but he does - why? He now knows that Deckard is not really his father. So why does he go?

Batty dying...the blood washing off his body by the pouring stream of water, washing away his life force. His life disappearing like "tears in rain." Overwhelmed.

K dying...this time, it's not rain, but snow, and it softly falls down upon him, into his open wound...but this time instead of his life force being dissolved in a torrent or rain, it's the opposite - the snow falls into his open wound, dissolving in the life force of his all-to-human blood. Like Batty, he has saved Deckard - but his sacrifice is real and more poignant. Batty was dying either way - he saves Deckard out of a need for a witness to his death - and life.

K sacrifices himself fully for Deckard - and that wound that is killing him is also pulsing with life - dissolving the snow. He will not be "washed away," and neither will he sacrifice.

Is Wallace a villain? He is portrayed as one but objectively I am not sure he is. In a certain light, he could be the hero of the story.

i only saw the original 35 years ago. no sequels at all. i mostly forgot most of the movie. do i need to re watch it and sequels to get all this out of the new movie before i go see it if i do or not. im lost.

A visual masterpiece thats for sure. Its own movie while respecting the first. Its definitely not for everyone just because of the slow rythym of the movie (at least until the hunt for K begins). Nonetheless, good movie that has a ton of rewatchability.

They're not sequels, only different cuts. Watch The final Cut and then 2049.

I think the 3 short films added to the experience as well.

Don't know if I need spoiler or if this has been asked, but

I think its fairly obvious he is a run of the mill replicant.

Well, it wasn't obvious to me

I don't always follow movies well the first time but it seemed like they said "it's a boy" no, "it's a girl, but maybe it's really twins? I dunno.

If he really was a child, then the memory of the wooden horse does not make sense. Because that memory was implanted, there is no way K was "birthed".