Blade Runner 2049

Am I the only one not getting the pregnancy thing for a replicant? To me the plot was just quite nonsense on that matter. I mean how many replicants were out there (some models being more evolved than Rachael as well) and just only one got the capability to carry a child. Nice try though but sometimes I wonder about people writing stories.

As for Rachael, there was NO way it could have been a deaged Sean Young. Have you seen her recently? She looks nothing like she used to. (Badly aged I must say compared to Ford who did pretty well I thought)

 

I conquer !

As one of my best friends said to me about the characters,replicant or otherwise : "if you feel emotional pain, sorrow, loneliness, disappointment,you deserve to have those feelings respected... and don’t you also deserve the freedom to pursue your desires? Does an entity’s origins or physical composition have any impact on how that entity should be treated?
D.B.

 

Tyrell created Rachel as the only replicant who could reproduce. He died with the knowledge of how to do that presumably. Wallace has never been able to repeat this one 'trick' as he refers to it. He made obedient replicants that never threatened humanity (as long as they maintain their 'baseline' responses.) I offer this quick explanation without quibbling over how believable it may or may not be. It is a story, after all.

 

It isn't "nonsense" - it's core to the philosophical conversation that both films present: what does it really mean to be human? The achievement of creating beings that can procreate is a central component of the God complex exhibited by Tyrell and Wallace.

 

The first movie never dealt with that at all. At least this is not how I see it. Yes the replicants want to live longer and are afraid of death (as most humans are) but I feel the procreation concept was mainly introduced to link some characters appearing in both movies (specially Rachel and Deckard).

I went to see the movie twice (IMAX first time, regular theater second time), it would have been great to cut movie by at least 30 min. Some long and uncessary sequences that do not enhance the dynamics of the movie. The replicants rebellion was pretty much useless. I really like the first movie. The second one not so much. Definitely not a masterpiece to my standards (I never cared much for Arrival either). Oh well.

 

I saw it last weekend. I was a huge fan of the first and saw that in the first couple weeks of release back in '81. Remains one of my favorite films of that decade.
I enjoyed the sequel a great deal but like many feel it was too long and up to 30 minutes could've been cut. I find the pacing of most Hollywood films too fast now as a rule so I should probably welcome the more deliberate editing in 2049. But in this case a good chunk could've wound up on the cutting room floor and the film would've been better for it.

 

Just saw it... The visuals and sounds were great, the story has its weaknesses and the acting was fine. I think it can be edited to a great two-hour movie with a bit more pace.

 

I kinda agree. I really love the film (got my Loot Crate Wallace Corp shirt), but there is a slight cheese element at work here with the baby. I also like the purity of the original as nothing but a detective/cop movie. Now it's more speculative, would Philip K. Dick write about robot babies? I have no idea.

The undergound? Badly done. Were they all Nexus 8 who managed to live? That would have been interesting. Where have they been? How did they survive? What do they know about each other? They could have done that so much better. A side story with K having to find someone under a false identity -- tough to hard to find: A Nexus 8 in hiding. I would have introduced the aging explanation there, too. Nexus were engineered to age naturally,,, but slooowly. How delicious that fantasy!

 

It's more or less what is shown to us with the sex scene with JOI!

 

Ok, I am legitimately ashamed of this but I've never been able to make it all the way through the original in one sitting. The visual aesthetics always depressed me somehow I guess.

Is this film worth seeing in theaters if I barely remember the events of the first film?

 

If the visual aesthetics of the first movie depressed you, this one could make you suicidal. The world is even darker, grimier and grimmer in the sequel. I also think you need a basic grounding in the first one to begin to grasp this one.

 

Saw it again and still love it. Deckard must be human to father a child since the only replicant able to reproduce was Rachel (at least this was inferred by Leto). But Deckard did really well in his fight with "Joe" which..... I still think a bit of editing was needed.

Also I am still wondering if "Joe" died or not. Perhaps he was exhausted or did he really die. The replicant underground was needed because they protected the identity of the child and of course all replicants want to live so it is necessary to have some organization in order to survive.

Seems to me a sequel may be in the works. If so, I hope they take their time and do both the original and this one credit.

 

watched closely both times, especially the second, and I would bet a nickel against a cat turd "he ded." Deckard did "ok" in his fight, especially for an old fart, but I wouldn't go as far as "really well"-really well-done interaction in which he MIGHT be a slightly enhanced replicant (not full-on superhuman) but not necessarily so. IF Deckard was replicant THEN he might be also "programmed" to be fertile, since they were apparently meant at some point, to be together in that respect.

 

Intrigued by the brutal efficiency with which Joe fought. Vicious multiple throat strikes to the initial replicant kill in the opening scene-such a vulnerable area, ignored in many real-life and cinematic life-or-death struggles. In high school I took a throat shot in a fight-he wasn't very good so it only hurt like hell-but learned my lesson and tucked the chin from then on. And in the massive dump/scavenge ground-the initial hand-to-hand combatant, he snapped like celery over his leg.

 

A sequel in which K/Joe comes back and teams up with ol' Deckard to join the resistance and bring down the Dark Forces will be disastrous, I think.

 

K wasn't trying to kill him, so wasn't fighting his best. It's more open ended in 2049 whether Deckard is a replicant.

 

Any ideas of why K was chosen as the name in this film?

Kafka's K on a fitile search?

K for Kubrick as there seemed to be a few hommages to the master.

K-9 as an obedient canine?

 

Deckard did okay in his fight against Joe because Joe was letting him. Joe wanted to talk, and let Deckard punch himself out as he didn't want to hurt Deckard. As for Deckard having to be human - yeah, probably. Though if Tyrell can create a female reproductive system in Rachel, why couldn't he have also made Deckard fertile and then arranged for them to meet to see if they fall for each other.

"Joe" is probably dead. I posted earlier that I wondered if he was going to kill Deckard after taking him to see his daughter in order to protect her identity, but everyone else seems to think its a lock Joe died on the steps.

Given the disappointing box office, I don't see a sequel in the works for quite some time.

 

I agree it is ambiguous, but re: the fight, it was basically Deckard punching Joe all-out in the face and Joe shrugging it off till Deckard got tired. Threw some mean punches, but not really anything to show he was replicant or not.

 

I'm sticking with, "every time I text 'K', I think of K."

 

K's Choice???

 

I think it's Kafka's K because Joi calls him "Joe" and in The Trial it's Josef K. And, like in The Trial, K in Blade Runner 2049 is caught up in something bigger than himself that's existential in nature. It's an allusion, for sure.