You've seriously misunderstood large story points I'm afraid. Firstly we find out in the opening scene that K is a replicant. Second, the child is known to be a replicant child; that's what worries Joshi about a war between Humans and replicants, and is why Wallace is interested in the child (because he thinks replicant reproduction will allow him to lead massively accelerated colonisation efforts).

The shock of finding out that Rachel had a girl is simply that it precludes K from being that child, which he had only just accepted as true.

lol

Uh, thanks. I'll get right on that!

Invidia I realy like how detailed and insightful your theory is. However it does have one major flaw and that is if K is Deckard's child then in the end he is dead, the entire struggle in the movie has been in vain and that makes for a horrible ending of the main character K. Not to mention that Deckard would have known if he had a son or a daughter, this isn't Star Wars and Ford was never Vader who despite his awesome command of the force couldn't even see that Padme was carrying twins (I guess they didn't have ultrasound "along time ago"), however BR is set in the future and there they do have ultrasounds and Deckard definitively must have known he had a daughter. So, by logical exclusion K is not his kid and the only remaining option is that the memory doctor is.

Despite all of this, I really like how in depth you present your theory and that is what talking about movies in forums like this really is about. Cheers

@Invidia

lolol !

I want whatever you're smoking.

@Invidia I really appreciate your thoughts! You obviously have put some thought and detail behind your posts. I really thank you and respect your thoughts. May I ask something though? I find it hard to read your posts after a while because of the random words being capitalized. Is it possible to have the words lowercase please? I'd truly love to read all your posts and gain more insight but it is kind of giving me a headache, just the visualization, not the concepts. It's like a commercial where every other word is really loud and the opposite words really soft. No disrespect, I mean all the respect and want to read more but I cannot. Thank you so much.

@Invidia said:

So what K is later told is most likely a LIE that was invented to PROTECT K (who's most likely also a HYBRID (HALF HUMAN/ HALF REPLICANT being).

Interesting theory. But if the rebel leader was so concerned with protecting K then why did she immediately send him into harms way by sending him to kill Deckard?

And yes, the memories can be copied but surely the actual biological entity that holds those memories would be far more important to them than it's memories copied into a man-made replicant.

@Invidia said:

So apparently killing DECKARD is more important to the REBEL LEADER than protecting the life of K???

Also, why would she specifically want K and only K to go and kill Deckard when she has an army of replicants?

It's great that you can read all sorts of implied meanings into the film but I think I prefer it if K is not actually Deckard's son. I think the story is more satisfying. That although K is not physically Deckard's son and Deckard would not see him as such, Deckard is K's father because K's memories tell him he is. And it's memories that make something real.

I like this exploration of memories as determining who we are and what we do.

As Stelline says- 'If we have authentic memories we have real human responses.' and 'We recall with our feelings.'

We've had 3 great explorations of consciousness and what makes us human recently. All suggesting that a different key element is responsible. While 2049 suggested it's memories, in Ex Machina it was motivation and in Westworld it was suffering. It seems a very prevalent subject and I find it fascinating.

It's a shame that 2049 was the only one to flop.

But it also looks like we might never know the ANSWERS to questions we have or if there were TWINS born or not with the film not making enough for someone to make another SEQUEL story to 2049.

It's probably for the best. It's better left up to our imaginations. And would we want a third film to tarnish the awesomeness of the films we already have?

@Invidia said:

DIDN'T people also ARGUE to say 2049 would TARNISH the 2019 STORY???

I'm sure you'll get naysayers for every film that's being made. But I had a lot of faith in 2049 because Denis Villeneuve was attached and he's always very careful and tasteful. And I think a lot of people in the know did too.

The trouble with third films is that you're entering franchise territory. And when studios start to think in franchise terms that's when they start to compromise and dilute the vision.

That's also the REASON why one would LOVE to have another STORY told to us.

Maybe one where the HOLOGRAPHIC TWIN SISTER of K makes a HOLOGRAPHIC image of K (which would also give him EQUAL STATUS with JOY).

And/or maybe she could also create another NEW REPLICANT VERSION of K ...

ESPECIALLY IF she was also BUSY DOWNLOADING HIS MEMORY into something when DECKARD walks into the ROOM to meet her???

Because we also see the SAME SNOW STUFF falling down around her that we see K looking at OUTSIDE on the front steps.

And that also seems to indicate that's what she may have been doing.

And that may also explain the REASON why she said how BEAUTIFUL it was???

Because maybe she was also TALKING about the MEMORIES of K that she was capturing in that scene???

And that also means he can be RESURRECTED and brought back to LIFE again.

Which also means LUV lost the BATTLE that she had with him where she WOUNDED him.

And one also HATES to think that battle scene ended in a TIE SITUATION.

Because, imo, LUV was also a VERY NASTY and HATEFUL Bitch.

And isn't it more fun to speculate?

An HBO series of Blade Runner could be awesome. Probably very expensive though.

Yeah, I'm watching Twin Peaks. Loved the old Twin Peaks. Not so sure about the new one yet. I'm only about 6 episodes in so I'm reserving judgement for now.

@Invidia said:

If you don't mind being SPOILED check out the DISCUSSIONS we've had.

I'm sure I will when I've finished it. I always look at the threads when I've finished a tv show.

I think The Leftovers is more like the Twin Peaks of today. I do prefer that so far, it was perfect from beginning to end.

@Invidia said:

So what's your opinion of the ENDING of LO???

Did NORA LIE when she told the story about how the MACHINE took her to a place where EVERYTHING was INVERTED and 98 Percent of the POPULATION was missing???

Then she also got the guy to build a machine for her so she could COME BACK to this other place again because she HIDES and saw how happy her former husband and kids were with the NEW WOMAN in their lives???

Or did she pass out from the EFFECT of the DRUGS they PUMPED into her arm, and then WAKE UP NAKED on the road because they also left her there when they moved the truck away (after also showing her brother another one of those see through things with the body in it that they claimed was what remained of NORA)???

The NUN also LIED and said THE STORY she told was better than the TRUTH.

And the OTHER story about the TOWER GUY was also a LIE.

So was the other story the people who stood on top of the ROOF waiting for the WORLD to END were told.

So did NORA also LIE to KEVIN at the END when she told him HER STORY???

I like to enjoy the ambiguity. Both possibilities are very interesting so I don't like to decide either way. I'd probably say that I'd prefer it if Nora's story was true. It makes for a more satisfying end to the story. But then that's exactly the point isn't it? The whole show is an examination of how people react to the unexplained. The need for closure. So it would stand to reason why I as a viewer would find that closure more satisfying.

So the possibility of her lying makes it even more interesting.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Invidia said:

So what K is later told is most likely a LIE that was invented to PROTECT K (who's most likely also a HYBRID (HALF HUMAN/ HALF REPLICANT being).

Interesting theory. But if the rebel leader was so concerned with protecting K then why did she immediately send him into harms way by sending him to kill Deckard?

And yes, the memories can be copied but surely the actual biological entity that holds those memories would be far more important to them than it's memories copied into a man-made replicant.

When Ana asked to read K's memory, she was clearly touched and started to cry and said something like "yes, this memory was lived", as in, this is my memory. They talked about her putting real memories into Replicants but that it was illegal, therefore she couldn't say anything. She implanted the memory in all Replicants where it laid dormant with a trigger: the date on the tree. It just happened to be K.

There's no doubt in my mind that Ana is Rachel and Deckard's only child. The records were scrambled meaning Ana was assigned the same DNA profile as some random boy at the orphanage, then they "killed" her and placed her in the bubble. Whether or not Ana did in fact suffer from an immune system deficiency or if it was a trick to keep Tyrell off their back, I don't know. As long as she did her job they would never ask questions.

@diadara said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Invidia said:

So what K is later told is most likely a LIE that was invented to PROTECT K (who's most likely also a HYBRID (HALF HUMAN/ HALF REPLICANT being).

Interesting theory. But if the rebel leader was so concerned with protecting K then why did she immediately send him into harms way by sending him to kill Deckard?

And yes, the memories can be copied but surely the actual biological entity that holds those memories would be far more important to them than it's memories copied into a man-made replicant.

When Ana asked to read K's memory, she was clearly touched and started to cry and said something like "yes, this memory was lived", as in, this is my memory. They talked about her putting real memories into Replicants but that it was illegal, therefore she couldn't say anything. She implanted the memory in all Replicants where it laid dormant with a trigger: the date on the tree. It just happened to be K.

There's no doubt in my mind that Ana is Rachel and Deckard's only child. The records were scrambled meaning Ana was assigned the same DNA profile as some random boy at the orphanage, then they "killed" her and placed her in the bubble. Whether or not Ana did in fact suffer from an immune system deficiency or if it was a trick to keep Tyrell off their back, I don't know. As long as she did her job they would never ask questions.

Yes, that's what I assumed when I watched it. And I think I already mentioned that I prefer the story that way. But it's good that people have alternative interpretations.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@diadara said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Invidia said:

So what K is later told is most likely a LIE that was invented to PROTECT K (who's most likely also a HYBRID (HALF HUMAN/ HALF REPLICANT being).

Interesting theory. But if the rebel leader was so concerned with protecting K then why did she immediately send him into harms way by sending him to kill Deckard?

And yes, the memories can be copied but surely the actual biological entity that holds those memories would be far more important to them than it's memories copied into a man-made replicant.

When Ana asked to read K's memory, she was clearly touched and started to cry and said something like "yes, this memory was lived", as in, this is my memory. They talked about her putting real memories into Replicants but that it was illegal, therefore she couldn't say anything. She implanted the memory in all Replicants where it laid dormant with a trigger: the date on the tree. It just happened to be K.

There's no doubt in my mind that Ana is Rachel and Deckard's only child. The records were scrambled meaning Ana was assigned the same DNA profile as some random boy at the orphanage, then they "killed" her and placed her in the bubble. Whether or not Ana did in fact suffer from an immune system deficiency or if it was a trick to keep Tyrell off their back, I don't know. As long as she did her job they would never ask questions.

Yes, that's what I assumed when I watched it. And I think I already mentioned that I prefer the story that way. But it's good that people have alternative interpretations.

Movies like these will always spark interpretations and theories and I can be up for it, but in this case all those "what ifs" didn't make any sense to me because I thought it was open and shut. There are movies that to this day still haunt me, like "Donnie Darko", "Primer" and "Pi", and though I love them and must have watched them 20 times, I still don't get them. That's the beauty with those kinds of movies. Blade Runner 2049 was an excellent piece of cinema but it didn't keep me up at night. But like you said, different interpretations is good for the community, the thread over on IMDb for "Donnie Darko" was a hundred miles long.