That said, though, I think a lot of the scenes with the hologram girl could've been cut or trimmed without losing much. As cool as the "sex scene" was, it could've been removed and not have lost much. That's one of the bigger problems with this movie for me, it's pretty slowly paced and there seems to be a lot of excess in it. Like when he's scanning over Las Vegas with his drone and there's an extended scene from the drone's POV with him making camera orders. The scene was "interesting" from the look, feel and vibe of it but at the same time really got us nothing but, well, wasted time.
While you could certainly cut a bunch of stuff without harming the central narrative plot, a lot of what you're calling wasted time is really the heart of the film. K's relationship with Joi, in particular seeing him choose it over being with a "real girl" is really the driving force of his motivation. It's at the heart of what he wants and what he's longing for.
Similarly, the drone scene is an interesting one because it does feel wasted. But how different is the drone from K? From Joi? We never get a sense that the drone is intelligent at all, but it is a tool to be used. Much like how humans see replicants. It informs the atmosphere of the film, and creates an underlying current of questions. What is near enough to human to be considered "real"? How do we interact with our technology, and at what point does it become so advanced that the relationship changes?
While I ultimately agree that the film was overlong, and some of the materiel would have to end up on the cutting room floor by definition if you trimmed it, I'm also not at all sure what I would be willing to cut. The mood and texture is such a deeply significant part of the film. It's an interesting dilemma to have.
Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. As important as K's journey was (and as much as that was my favorite aspect), it was the mystery surrounding the replicant child that felt to me like what the entire story really revolved around. Especially since the movie spends most of it's time making us think HE is that child.
We're not talking about a MacGuffin like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction here; this was something a whole lot bigger than that.
I don't agree with your last point. Bigger in the context of the world, sure. But not in terms of the story. K's journey IS the story. The reason the film dwells on his belief that he's the child isn't because the child is significant, it's because K's hopes, his deepest dreams, revolve around being a real boy.
The film introduces a lot of world building. Wallace. The replicant resistance. Even Deckard. But all of that is merely to facilitate K's journey. K doesn't dwell on the resistance. He doesn't fundamentally care about it. He seems to agree with their aims by the end, but only as an extension of his own growth as (or into) a person. Wallace is a threat to the larger world because of what he'd do with or to replicants. But he's a threat to K because his larger scheming interferes with, and imperils, K's search. I would argue that K is the film. The rest is window dressing. Pretty window dressing, but that's it. It might as well be a briefcase.
.
