Whut?
Bladerunner 2 (Spoilers!)
- Thread starter ThundyCat
- Start date
Whut?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,218
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Re watch it. It's plain obvious
Again, whut?
K likely died after the credits rolled, but that's not what we're discussing. Nitefly was referring to the scene where Luv and co went to Deckards hotel and kidnapped him.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,676
She kicked his head in and left him with shrapnel in him.
She should have just shot him in the head, but then it's end of movie
She should have just shot him in the head, but then it's end of movie
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,218
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
yea i was not talking about that part
@DrToffnar
Yes - I thought both points were 'because filmz' too. As the film was abstract in other ways, I'm not going to get too upset over either because both could have been explained with a couple of lines that may have otherwised ruined the flow... or something. My preference would have been a decent explanation though. Interesting thoughts re: being taken to another world.
Perhaps Luv was programmed not to kill K or was otherwise playing god with him. I noted that when she tried to kill K she kissed him, much like Wallace kissed the new model. Anyway, if she had any common sense she would have killed K after scooping up Decard.
Perhaps Luv was programmed not to kill K or was otherwise playing god with him. I noted that when she tried to kill K she kissed him, much like Wallace kissed the new model. Anyway, if she had any common sense she would have killed K after scooping up Decard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason Luv was following K was because they suspected he didn't reveal everything he found out about "miracle". Considering they had no idea what Deckard knows, the plot hole in this case was leaving K behind after they grabbed Deckard, not them not killing K, if you will? Also - inept search party - for a man in hiding for a long time, Deckard's location turned out to be a beacon glowing on all blade runner screens in (literally) a vast desert. 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason Luv was following K was because they suspected he didn't reveal everything he found out about "miracle". Considering they had no idea what Deckard knows, the plot hole in this case was leaving K behind after they grabbed Deckard, not them not killing K, if you will? Also - inept search party - for a man in hiding for a long time, Deckard's location turned out to be a beacon glowing on all blade runner screens in (literally) a vast desert.
Luv was following K because he was the police officer who found the chest with Rachel's remains buried under the tree. The remains showed that Rachel had given birth. K was assigned by Joshi to find the child and kill it, possibly by first finding Dekard as a lead. Wallace wanted the child to figure out how to make replicants breed (so he could effectively take over humanity), Joshi wanted the child dead and everything covered up so as not to start a civil war between humans and replicants like the ones that cause the big blackout.
K should have been killed at Dekard's hotel, but it's possible that Luv is pretty emotionally unhinged. She cries when Wallace kills the Joi replicant, she cries when she kills Joshi. She takes delight in killing K's Joi, but leaves him to die at the hotel, with a big piece of shrapnel in him, and no way of getting back for help. If not for the replicant underground tracking K down (via the bug planted by Mariette) and rescuing him, K would have died there.
K should have been killed at Dekard's hotel, but it's possible that Luv is pretty emotionally unhinged. She cries when Wallace kills the Joi replicant, she cries when she kills Joshi. She takes delight in killing K's Joi, but leaves him to die at the hotel, with a big piece of shrapnel in him, and no way of getting back for help. If not for the replicant underground tracking K down (via the bug planted by Mariette) and rescuing him, K would have died there.
You are summarising the overall plot (thanks I guess? -¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ), instead - recall why Luv and henchmen were there, in Vegas, then let's think for a second why on earth would they kill off K after landing, it makes no sense to the task at hand there and then. Neither does armed hostility towards him or leaving him behind.
It's been over two weeks since premiere, how soon can we drop the spoiler tags, it breaks the flow of the conversion like nothing else...
They were following K to get to Dekard (via the transponder in his car). Once they had Dekard and not the police, why would they need K who was (a) shooting at them and (b) would know they had taken Dekard and could report it back to Joshi. You wouldn't leave K alive, especially if you wanted to hide that you had Dekard, and the way that Luv leaves him to die I explained above - K was badly injured with no hope for rescue, and Luv wanted him to suffer after killing Joi.
Yeah, I reckon the reason she left him was literally because she wanted him to suffer. That explains it.
I saw it last night. I never much liked the original but this was brilliant. Will DV ever make a bad film? And Deakins. My gosh, the man is incredible. What a beautiful film. Will it be, er... 14th time lucky for the Oscar? lol...
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
I too think it is time to drop spoilers, and a mod did suggest we do so a week ago!
So anyway, yes, I think Luv is somewhat deranged, doesn't have control of her emotions, deviates from her baseline so to speak, as she is clearly a different model type. (I'm the only one now, etc)
I think she wanted him to suffer.
She made some random sort of a pass at him, after he explained to her that Rachel had baited Deckard all those years before.
He just moved on. the she finds his close attachment to Joi.
She 'murders' his Joi, and wants to leave him slowly suffering his fate.
For all she knows Deckard was her goal in that part of the quest, and she had retrieved him, so on they move. K is now surplus to requirements, and (unlike me at that stage of the film - he isn't the child they are looking for - which I think the replicant manufacturer would know) I must admit I caught on very late that the memory maker was the child, right about the time K realised he wasn't the child.
So anyway, yes, I think Luv is somewhat deranged, doesn't have control of her emotions, deviates from her baseline so to speak, as she is clearly a different model type. (I'm the only one now, etc)
I think she wanted him to suffer.
She made some random sort of a pass at him, after he explained to her that Rachel had baited Deckard all those years before.
He just moved on. the she finds his close attachment to Joi.
She 'murders' his Joi, and wants to leave him slowly suffering his fate.
For all she knows Deckard was her goal in that part of the quest, and she had retrieved him, so on they move. K is now surplus to requirements, and (unlike me at that stage of the film - he isn't the child they are looking for - which I think the replicant manufacturer would know) I must admit I caught on very late that the memory maker was the child, right about the time K realised he wasn't the child.
@Hikari Kisugi
I'd be surprised if many people (or perhaps 'anyone') actually guessed whom the child was before it was revealed that K was NOT the child... the only clue would have been the scene in which K is 'confirmed' to be the child in the first place!
I actually think that K not being they child was one of the best left turns in any film I've seen.
I actually think that K not being they child was one of the best left turns in any film I've seen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Good.
I thought the same.
Ponderd after if I was just being slow.
I thought the same.
Ponderd after if I was just being slow.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,676
Someone on Kermode and Mayo last week wrote in to say they thought it was obvious - I literally can't see how anyone could have gotten it.
I did have a brief thought when they showed the identical male/female DNA and said the girl died that it might be a switchero later down the line, but then when the film "confirmed" that K's dream was real, I thought 100% it was him.
I did have a brief thought when they showed the identical male/female DNA and said the girl died that it might be a switchero later down the line, but then when the film "confirmed" that K's dream was real, I thought 100% it was him.
I never really questioned myself until you raised this point, but for some reason I assumed that the child would have its own serial number... I thought such serial numbers were etched in genetically rather than through physical manufacturing, so the child would have its own number. I further thought that K's number was just the number of the child. I don't know... it wasn't expressly dealt with either way, but that's what I assumed, which is a bit of a leap and somewhat bonkers
@VincentHanna - same. As a lot of the film was abstract you never really question that the point isn't expressly dealt with in dialogue.
I thought it seemed fairly obvious when she started crying whilst watching the memory. She said that's definitely someone's memory (aka saying it wasn't his but it was real) only seconds before she had said there is a piece of every artist in their work.
It was virtually spelt out for you there and then to work it out. Some might not but it was there to be seen. Me and misses both turned to each other and mentioned it's blatantly her.
It was virtually spelt out for you there and then to work it out. Some might not but it was there to be seen. Me and misses both turned to each other and mentioned it's blatantly her.
Pffft schenanigans I say!
When a character is seemingly 'head in the clouds' and rather happy despite their obviously lonely existence, has just shown you a memory she's created of a happy birthday party, said she has an extremely good imagination, then expressly tells you 'I can tell whether a memory is real or fake', the natural inference that everyone correctly draws from that is "she is upset because it's a sad memory". It's far from spelled out until later in the film when it's later revealed that "the best memories come from their creators", completely with a cut away flashback to showing her crying (at which point it's like a big neon arrow saying it's her).
Ultimately it's extremely good misdirection and because I didn't spot it you MUST be lying