MovieChat Forums > Loveman > Replies
Loveman's Replies
I’ve only watched it once so I might need to re-watch but I felt it was implied or stated that the future people were able to and intended to invert the entire planet and a side effect of doing that was that it would kill everyone at the same time. I only mentioned the universe since, if the process can be made to invert the planet, perhaps it could work like a ‘chain reaction’ and affect all of spacetime. Really though, if you try to apply too much logical or scientific thinking to it, it can’t make sense - science says a particle moving backward through time is the anti-particle of the forward moving one. Remembering to put your mask on would not be much use to a person composed of anti-matter.
Once the entire planet (universe?) has been inverted, it is not made clear whether the people then need to be non-inverted (‘verted’!?) or can themselves remain inverted and therefore not need masks. Of course, they might be a bit annoyed when they all get younger and turn into foetuses but don’t grow mothers to absorb them. The bit about the ice-age was just to point out the irony that their society would eventually be destroyed by climate change no matter what they do. They wouldn’t really need to be reversed for more than 200 years - that is how long (short a time) it has taken us to mess up the Earth.
The antagonists were planning on living inverted. We saw how inverted people experience bombs unexploding and collapsed buildings re-assembling. They would also experience pollution un-polluting - so although there would initially be the same level of pollution, it would gradually improve.....for about 10,000 years, then they would go into a glacial period as they head backward through the current ice-age. But perhaps they would reverse again at that point.
Unlike Interstellar, Tenet does not have a sound basis in science, but the plot is self-consistent.
He sure has. If he had died at this point and not come out of the water that would have made a great and surprising scene. Shown from Deckard’s POV this scene is clichéd. We have seen it done in many films: is the protagonist dead? We wait ten seconds and discover they are alive. I think it would have been better shown from K’s POV: beams of light from the car picking out K’s blood in the water as he struggles back to land.
Indeed you can diminish the meaning and value of any subject through oversimplification.
However, that was not my intent. I am interested to know whether or not anyone else found this scene to be clichéd. Sat in the cinema I thought: “This has been done too many times.” Sometimes it is done well, for example when Indiana Jones rides the tank over the cliff in The Last Crusade but here I did not think it worked.
Are the replicants grown on Earth? If they procreate when they get to the offworld colonies rather than on Earth, then you don’t have to transport as many ‘units’ across space, which presumably is expensive. However, it seems more likely they are already grown off-world.
Replicants born through procreation might be emotionally more stable not requiring implanted memories. Of course, humans are all completely stable, Neander Wallace is a prime example.
I never liked the title, it doesn’t make sense. Nothing wrong with the book title except it doesn’t really roll off the tongue.
The film could have been called ‘Nexus.’
Then there would have been a great excuse to make five sequels...
I prefer ‘father.’ I think it carries more weight. It’s accusatory: “You made me, this is your fault.” It asks the (rhetorical) question: “Just what kind of a father are you?” And it suggests this symmetry: “You created me, now I am going to destroy you.”
Plus it reminds me of ‘The End’ by The Doors:
“Father,”
“Yes, son?”
“I’ve come to kill you.”
Of course, Tyrell is a total fucker, so either is good.
We witness Wallace using a scalpel to slice open a conscious (meaning unanaesthetised) person, he allows them to bleed to death. There is no question as to the notions of good and evil here: This is the bad guy doing his deranged evil stuff. We see it and we instantly know he is evil.
The fact Wallace was trying to create replicants capable of procreation is a great idea which could have been played in a more subtle manner so as to leave the audience uncertain as to his motives and what the eventual outcome of his actions might be.
Yes. I found it a shame and to the detriment of the movie that we are presented with a psychotic mega-villain in Wallace. In the original movie, Roy Batty asks of Deckard: “Aren’t you the good-man?” And we are left to think about it. In 2049, we have this spelled out for us: Wallace is utterly evil, end of.
Thanks for sharing this link - I hadn’t noticed the feeders (which are hanging right there!) - explains how the bees might survive. Nice one.
‘Real bees could not survive in that situation and would abscond.’ That is what I thought as I watched the movie and it distracted me.
Yes, you’ve hit the nail on the head: Harrison Ford was a carpenter in real life, then he played two different characters who were both well-chiseled policemen who wore plane-clothes. So he wood obviously know how to beehive himself.
Do you think the OP meant 10 months when they said they didn’t want to wait too long to watch the original?
Sorry - just having fun. Final Cut for me please, I never liked the voiceover in the theatrical release of the original and the ‘happy ending’ scene, driving through some nice green landscape didn’t make sense.
Assuming the bees didn’t build the hives (which look manmade but you could engineer bees to do that for some bizarre reason) then it seems that Deckard must be keeping the bees and he built the hives (He used to be a carpenter, right? And he made that neat wooden toy in Witness.) The usual reason for keeping bees is to eat their honey, which is a good alternative to starving.
However, since we don’t see any plants, we don’t know how the bees could survive or make honey.
We know the bees are genetically engineered so it is possible they could survive on some other energy source (bourbon!) and even have some purpose we wouldn’t normally associate with bees.
K’s reaction to the bees was as if he had never seen bees before and was curious (possible) and maybe didn’t know what they were or that they might sting (though he might be impervious to bee stings anyway).
For me this scene was distracting- I was just thinking ‘How are those bees supposed to be able to survive?’ If they were anything like real bees they would abscond in search of somewhere better to live, probably in an offworld colony.
It seems out of order to me that anyone describe Stephen Hawking living with ALS as an ‘idiosyncrasy’. It is hardly a character quirk.
I don’t think there was anything. Deckard’s status as a ‘possibly or maybe not’ replicant remains.
When Wallace brings out the fake Rachel (Fakechel?) I think he says something along the lines of ‘You were designed for each other’? This could be taken as a hint at Deckard being a replicant. However, we have no reason to believe anything Wallace says.