Blade Runner 2049

I think it's good that unlike the 2001 "Apes", the newer films don't try to remake the original(s). They share similarities, of course, and the newer ones reflect/wink at the older ones, but they go their own way...

 

As someone who came of age during the early internet age and saw how quickly it degraded.. Yeah, I'll second this one.

Unfortunately, I don't see reason to give much credit to my generation or any subsequent for blinding self-awareness... One can dream though.

Seconded. Prometheus and Alien: Covenant raise interesting ideas, but don't really manage to explore them. Blade Runner 2049 is considerably better in that arena, even if it doesn't manage to be as deep as it clearly wants to be.

 

You've read Dick's novel ?
How would you compare the book to the original film ?
Is it possible that one could argue the original BR may not be as deep as we (the collective fans) think,if your seeing things from a readers perspective ?

I'm here to learn... and will admit - I've not read the novel, (I get the synopsis ) so not burdened with the knowledge of the depth it may contain.
Because of this knowledge, it is hard for you to see depth in 2049 ,while others,such as
myself do ?

Still.. much better than Prometheus.

 

That was my big beef with Star Wars: The Force Awakens. It felt like such a lazy retread of the plot from A New Hope, with the obvious goal of bridging the old characters to a younger set so that Disney can continue to milk the franchise ad infinitum.

BR 2049, meanwhile, expanded upon the themes and imagery of the original and made it even more contemporary and relevant. It didn't feel like we were being just set up for an endless future franchise.

 

I have to disagree, as I loved "Force Awakens". I get the criticisms and share them to a degree, but the more I've watched "Awakens", the less I've cared about the "rehashed" elements. I just enjoy the story, action and characters too much!

Here's my longwinded review if you're curious!

Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Collector's Edition [Blu-Ray 3D] (2015)

 

Yes sir,that is correct !

However, found TFA do be quite entertaining - much better than those god awful prequels.. a sucker for nostalgia,I am.

 

I couldn't really connect to any of the new characters and didn't care for the unabashedly derivative storyline. Part of it, I suppose, is knowing intellectually that the series is now going to continue on forever, so there really isn't any tension left. At least with the sequels (as poorly executed as they were), it added some intrigue to the development since we knew where it was ultimately headed. And when ROTJ ends, it feels like there was closure to the narrative. Now, all of that is just thrown out and it's just any old endless serial sci-fi/action franchise with a familiar name.

I had no reaction whatsoever to the trailer for the Last Jedi, so I guess I'm sort of done with the franchise altogether. Maybe I'm alone in feeling that way, but oh well.

I just hope BR 2049 doesn't lead to a bunch of unnecessary spin-off sequels about the replicant resistance...

 

Seems unlikely we'll get one additional "Blade Runner" film, given the iffy box office receipts for "2049".

I'll be curious to see if Episode IX is the last "episode". While I agree we'll get "Star Wars" movies for years to come, it's unclear to me if they'll keep doing "episodes" in the future or they'll concentrate on "related stories" like "Rogue One".

I hope E9 is the last "episode" but won't be shocked if it isn't...

 

Not a chance in hell,unless something drastic happens overseas; find the conclusion of 2049 to be quite rewarding , just like its predecessor (prior to 2049's release), and would not be interested in countless spin-offs... how do you top 2049 ?

As far as SW is concerned, I'm in it until episode. 9, regardless...
Unless the franchise tanks, a guarantee of at least 12 main episodes,plus spin-offs of the next trilogy and so on... the children of the children of Rey and Kylo, it's sickening to think about.

I don't think Blade Runner will take this path...possibly one more film.

 

Just saw this on IMAX 2D.
Mind. BLOWN.
Now THAT’s how to make s sequel 30 years out.
Blows any of the latter day Star Wars sequels out of the water in terms of matching the quality of the original.
I hope the new Empire Strikes Back is as good..
THE VISUALS! LOVED L.A. ..

I agree it could have been cut to 2:15 tops.

 

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. Showing her framed photo in Deckard's hideout was completely adequate. Bringing in the Rachel clone for that one very short scene was overkill.

 

Just got back from seeing this for the second time. I enjoyed it even more the second go around and think this is one I'll enjoy revisiting from time to time for years to come. Just me and one other guy alone in the big Imax theater. Sad so few are watching this. A few questions:

How was that Freysa in the picture with Rachel and Deckard's baby? She looked much younger. The replicants age like humans now?

After Luv thinks she has defeated K and returns to the shuttle with Deckard, she says something to him right before K re-appears and attacks, but I couldn't make it out over the loud noise of the waves. What did she say?

Why did Wallace immediately kill the replicant we saw "born" from the plastic bag? Was there some flaw in her, or was it just a case of him wanting to see one from the assembly line of the latest batch before they ship out, sorta like opening a candy bar and taking a bite? I guess once they're "born", its not worth it to put her back in the sack or find some use for her?

Is there any explanation at all for Rachel being able to get pregnant and give birth? Was it just a sudden mutation that caused her to develop an active womb? Cause if this is possible, it seems like there would be a lot more hybrid babies given all the people having sex with replicants.

Was Mister Cotton (Lennie James) a replicant? He said a few things that seemed to suggest this.

Is K going to kill Deckard as soon as he comes out of the building where his daughter is? If his goal is to protect the girl, leaving Deckard alive doesn't seem an option. Eventually Wallace will figure out he's alive and re-capture him. I know it looked like K might be laying down to die but we don't see that happen.

 

I loved it, even though I don't totally understand. It's such an amazing looking film. Villeneuve is simply my favourite director today.

 

K's dead. Watch closely. Wallace indicated Tyrell created Rachel with the ability to become pregnant. Some lines of replicants apparently age. What did Cotton say that made you think that he is a replicant? I think Luv says "Off-world, baby" or something like that, letting Deckard know the rescue was merely a delay. As for the killing of the replicant, I thought it was written in just to show how detached and cold Wallace was-his new toy wouldn't do what he wants, so he breaks it, with a symbolically-located cut.

 

SPOILER ALERT !

1. If we are to believe Deckard is a replicant( still debatable) than yes, aging is part of the newer models.

2. I'm the best -- she has a real identy crisis , a special model, as K refers to her name sake, and wants to please her master, conflicted within as he destroys a new born -- her own kind, as she looks on,in tears.

3. Out of frustration... Wallace had not been able to create a replicant that could bore a child, (notice were he cuts her) as Tyrell did , and to keep Luv in line through intimidation and fear.

4. No Tyrell had created her that way-- she was special... no termination date, and if you believe Wallace -- programed to fall in love with Deckard for the purpose of creating an offspring.

Q5. I don't think he was,and I don't remember what he said to make you question it.

Q6. Listen to the music que,K is...

 

overall accord except for #2--poster queried what Luv said to Deckard and not K-K, yeas, she said she was the best, echoing Wallace's calling her "the best angel."

 

whoops,that was a mistake... sorry about that.

 

"The Replicant As Post-Modern Pinocchio."

 

I'm not sure there was any reason to think the original replicants didn't age. With a 4 year life span it wouldn't be noticeable. Sapper Morton wasn't exactly a spring chicken so I don't think the aging sheds any light on the Decker replicant argument.

I enjoyed it more the second time too. Knowing the plot I could see how well the movie foreshadowed things. I could have done without the plot summary flashbacks near the end and the water fight went on way too long. Minor criticisms. Also thought the 3D detracted by making the dark scenes even darker.

I didn't see it in IMAX but I did see it in a well run theater that has a great sound system and didn't need earplugs at all, unlike at my local cineplex. It was loud at times but it wasn't harsh or distorted so the volume was ok.

 

all cool-I was all too ready to jump that way as well

 

Good one. I thought of that too when Joi called him a real boy.

Fun cross movie reference about how he couldn't love a "real girl" too. I guess if Joi named him Lars it would have been too much.

 

Honestly, that went right over my head !

 

This is going to be a little difficult to explain as I'm a few months out from reading the book and, frankly, it's a little disjointed (kind of a normal thing for PKD). I'll need to make a few passes before I've got a proper understanding of the original story.

That out of the way, the best I can explain it, I want you to imagine the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament in the bible. Yeah, they're both spiritual tomes and they both relate to the same progression, but from different angles (this may win the award for "clumsiest comparison ever"). The book and the original Blade Runner movie are like this. The movie is essentially a detective/action movie with replicants and what we're loosely led to believe is a post-apocalyptic Earth. The book, on the other hand, is an exploration of dehumanization and empathy along with a healthy dose of "Is this even real?" set against a backdrop of a barren Earth and replicants.

Deckard is 100% unlikable in the book. I hated the guy. He also doesn't have much of an arc as a character in the story. To put it in perspective, one of the first things you witness him attempting to do is feed his wife (yes, he's married in the book) a drug designed to make her more agreeable. Yeah, not exactly someone you're going to root for.

In the movie, he's got some charm to him. His most loathsome act is being forceful with Rachel, but we're led to believe that was awkward, but ultimately consensual, so it's not quite the same animal.

Now, to flip this, Rachel doesn't get a lot of screen time in the movie, but she's largely a character you want to sympathize with. In the book, she's a manipulator who sleeps with Deckard to try to dissuade him from his mission. My interpretation is that she's cold and machine-like in the book. Also, she kills his pet, which is a big deal in an Earth where animals are revered and borderline worshiped due to their rarity. She does this simply to hurt him.

There's also the presence of the "empathy box" in the book, which is part of a shared religion and figures heavily into the book's narrative. Empathy for all living things (except replicants) is a big theme and, frankly, it's a convoluted mess.

So, I trust you see where this is kind of... difficult to compare. These are almost two totally different beasts that almost share a portion of a premise.

The new movie is hard to take at points because it seems to be based in the world of the book more than the original film, but those moments dart in and out seemingly at random. As for the remark about the movie not being as deep as it wants to be, that's more down to it bringing up these big ideas, but only kind of skimming them. Yeah, they're present and they're brought up, but they're never really explored in any depth or detail. That's left almost entirely to the audience and feels like a sleight of hand.

All of this said, it's entirely possible that a second viewing or a re-read of the book would leave me with a totally different set of takeaway points.

This was probably as clear as mud, but does it address any of what you were asking?

 

I saw the original in the theater in 1982 @ 13. My Dad took me. It made quite an impression. This sequel is an utter turkey when compared to the original Director's Cut. I almost walked out.
/2 cents

 

Yeah, I get that K was probably dead. And him lying down to die in snow echoes back to Batty dying in the rain. It was just a thought I had after the second viewing. But if its a certainty that K is dead, he really put the child at risk then by leaving Deckard alive, no? If Freysa thinks Deckard needs to die, maybe she'll just keep sending replicants to kill him. I guess K thinks he has protected Deckard from both Freyssa and Wallace.

So if Tyrell intentionally created Rachel with a fully functional reproductive system, its just the case that he (way back then) had a technological skill that Wallace hasn't been able to duplicate.

I've always liked Deckard as a replicant for the original, though I accept it probably wasn't the original intent. I'd never thought of aging naturally to be a feature of the replicants, but maybe that is.

Thanks for the responses (you and others) on what Luv said to Deckard - "I'm the best". I get that as callback to what Wallace would say to Luv, I just couldn't hear her.

Regarding Cotton - I think it was K saying something like "I'll bet guys like you have a long memory" that put that in my mind. Asking a human who deals with thousands of kids a year to remember one particular one from 30 years ago doesn't seem reasonable, but it seemed like K expecting Cotton to remember the details was suggesting he was "robotic" in some way. There may have been one other thing, like Cotton using the term "we" talking about himself, as if he were the same as K, but I can't remember now.