Blade Runner 2049

In the Dickian mode - which is often the most paranoid possibility - she could have been testing K to see if he responded to her attempt at intimate conversation. "Being asked questions makes one feel...desired. Do you enjoy your job, Officer?" It's hardly a subtle come on. Then again, she was pretty desperate for affection/approval.

 

I'm willing to bet she's not sick, or at least doesn't know it, and keeping her hidden in sight was part of the plan.
If she is to some day lead the resistance,better it be on earth.

 

What's your opinion on CG Racheal; as a layman, I thought she looked spectacular !

 

Personally, as someone who teaches Animation/VFX for a living, I instantly clocked that she was CG. Some people mooted that it might be a digitally de-aged Sean Young, but for me the eyes gave it away (and for Deckard, as it turned out).

That said, I was willing to forgive the use of CG in this case since it was for a genuine plot point (unlike the CG Tarkin/Peter Cushing in Rogue One, which I thought was shockingly poor).

 

Ah, BUT IF he WAS a replicant you have no idea how long he was out. His glorious past as the best BR, his wife-all implant memories AND some po-po playing of those lies.

 

Wouldn't it be wonderful-unlikely, of course-if an executive said "not Titanic or Avatar or one of those Marvel Universe megamovies but let's give it a shot." We just don't have enough mass-market, audience-pleasing films. I thought Ford fit into the narrative as a recluse hiding a secret and owned the screen when revealed, and not a big Ford fan here. And it seems like a contest here on how much we think we can cut.

 

I lean toward the "under the nose": I plan to listen for any clues on that my next viewing. As of now I'm not sure, but the woman talking about her leading the revolution hints at the latter. All respect for those with immune deficiencies but hard to lead an uprising from a protective bubble-and I get she wouldn't be a line soldier or even field general but some standard mobility is implied by that role.

 

I've noticed that. I wouldn't cut a single frame from the film.

 

The best reason I've heard for not accepting Deckard as a replicant is that it basically negates the character arc of the first movie. Granted, the first movie has its flaws and it's only given time, repeated viewings, and reading feedback on the thing that it's really come across to me, so I wouldn't blame anyone else for not seeing this.

In the first movie, Deckard is basically living his life in a "falling forward" way at the start. He's almost an automaton himself - no emotional responses to what's going on around him, etc. You could go down the road of saying he's been dehumanized by his work. By the end of it, via Rachel and witnessing Roy Batty's sudden about-face, he regains an emotional connection to the outside world. If he's human, this is huge (and plays heavily into the role-reversal of replicants who seek to live longer and who cherish their memories). If he's a replicant, the whole thing can be dismissed as programming or the outcome of implanted memories. It not only negates Deckard's development, but it also casts doubt on the replicants more human moments.

That out of the way, there's room for multiple interpretations, but this is one that not only makes sense, but resonates in a pleasing way to me. Carving that out definitely diminishes the original in my view.

Seconded fully. Granted, with Rachel, it was more convincing than Peter Cushing, but I'm at an utter loss as to how they can't find a near lookalike and just use advanced makeup to fill in the gaps, so to speak. It'd probably be easier and more convincing to say nothing of more cost-effective to do it "old school" than this this nonsense.

I will admit though, I thought Rachel was a lookalike rather than CG, but I only saw the film once, so I might see more "tells" on repeat viewings.

 

Are we certain Freya knows where the daughter is? Could she have been there to help give birth, but then moved on after helping cover for their escape? I didn't think there was much said on this point leaving a whole lot to interpretation.

 

Rouge One Lea/Tarkin was dreadful; the uncanny valley was painfully obvious to me,but for some people, like my childhood friend (who's usually very good at observation) had no clue Tarkin was a CG character.

 

I think so. Obviously somebody involved in the conspiracy was at the orphanage at some point after Daughter left, or maybe before that but after she had been there awhile, because the data for that time period had been torn from the records books. I'll need to review Freya's talk near the end with the "show" of the resistance, but IIRC she strongly indicated she could lays hands on Daughter quickly when ready.

 

That does sound vaguely familiar. I was not focused on this point. I would think removing the pages from the orphanage records wouldn't be too hard and doesn't even require someone who knows too much other than to take care of that detail. However, if your memory is correct, it would make the rest of your assertions regarding the resistance sensible.

Would that this ever became sequalized, I still think it would be a fitting time to show some Off World action. Even if a return to Earth was necessary to fulfill the revolution. Not that I'm really asking for any of this....

 

That first approach to her questioning is what I took from the scene. I believed she was trying to elicit a response to test him / manipulate him. The scene tells us a lot about K. It builds more on him being a replicant by his response and then I think it leads to an expanded emotion in the next, more genuinely intimate scene with Joi. If it isn't exactly next it is close. This all builds on the theme of being human and what are the parts that make us so. IMO

 

See, the rock as replicant angle always made sense to me, though I never paid attention to the overdub version: Castillo's origami, the drunk dream, etc. so when it was confirmed by Ridley, it made sense to me. I think the overdub version was meant to appeal to the non thinking public, and so the love story/human development angle comes from there, not what was intended to be (director's cut)... joker's point that the whole meeting was preordained is brilliant, and totally fits (even if it was thought of after the fact)... deckard and Rachael meeting could just have been a way for tyrell to stroke his ego - note that the test Han Solo administers is much less rigorous than the baseline that k deals with, so it is quite possible that seeing Han admin the test to Rachael is an ego stroke for tyrell, too. Point is, the replicant rick angle holds up in the first movie, as well...

And it speaks volumes (to me) that discussion like this can happen with this story/movie(s). How cool is that..?

 

I concur !

As a fan of the Directors and Final cut, I try to ignore the unicorn sequence ( I'm sure there is a fan edit that cuts it out); If Deckard is a replicant- what would be the point in caring about the first movie and its characters ?
Roy would be saving the life of a fellow replicant, completely ruining the " Living In Fear/Slave line and the "Tears In The Rain" speech for me.I think it's more interesting for Deckard to lose his humanity,while the replicants gain their own.

Rick gets the crap beat out of him - he's a Blade Runner and should be a least as strong as the combat models - why would Tyrell have an inferior in the strength model built for the purpose of retiring rebellious ones ?
Pris is a pleasure model, and comes close to ending his existence.

 

The definition of identity. I appreciate your preference but a human losing his humanity and then finding it and then concluding he may not be human, or whatever-is the label really that freakin important...the point being, quite relevant today, we have more in common than apart. And a less-than-super replicant? Discussed supra.

 

Yes !
That is one of the big problems with OUR world... we are more alike than not.
Divide and Conquer is the phrase that comes to mind...

However, if Deckard was a replicant, I would still feel empathy for him,it just doesn't work for me with Roy's end...

 

I do not know how much the "other than US market" will help boost the take on this film, but I wish I could thank those who green-lighted this film and probably got powers-that-be to feel it would take in a lot more than it was likely to ever do, at least in the US. Thanks for trusting the audience to make a deliberate movie that did not whiz by on non-stop shoot-ups and smart-ass characters but rather developed and expanded to fill the world it created for the viewer. That is my biggest concern-the original movie(s) work ok on a small screen for viewing, a bit more claustrophobic, but will the wide-open spaces loose some enjoyment in the months ahead, when I snatch up the home release, especially if I can't hit the lottery and build my own screening room or buy the drive-in back home that is for sale.

 

No is does not... he's a living, breathing being (synthetic or not) that has thoughts,feelings and deserves to be treated equally with dignity,compassion, etc... and not enslaved ,or destroyed.
So like you've said more eloquently than I - He is human - born of a mother, or not... it does not matter.

I have much empathy and compassion for Rachael - that's what made her return in 2049 so powerful.
Was reminded of the scene in BR when Deckard reveals her identity,and the the pain she felt in its revelation- the piano score and the tears in her eyes... quite heartbreaking.
Even tho it was not her technically, because of her physical death 30 years prior, the replicant re-born was a living person, and I felt it in my gut when Luv pulled the trigger.
Same could be said for the newborn being destroyed.

 

Explained in detail here:



‘Blade Runner 2049’: How VFX Masters Replicated Sean Young as Rachael
How 'Blade Runner 2049' Was Able to Pull Off That One Incredible Cameo
How 'Blade Runner 2049' made Sean Young young again

I was looking very hard for it and it was clear to me it was CG. But I think it was done very well, on the level of Paul Walker in Fast & Furious, but it's still not a human character. They did their best to disguise it, since the characters were in a room with rippling reflective backgrounds and a lot of shadows, and that helped hide some of the flaws. I think it works perfectly about 2/3 of the time, but then it's a little "off" and the Uncanny Valley slips in. The CG Carrie Fisher in the recent Star Wars film was awful, rubbery and glassy-eyed, not believable at all to me.

 

You're right - it's not a human character.

 

Some photos of the actress here, then they added the CGI. That scene did not do much for me.





Interview of Sean Young (see below)

 

It was kind of a throwaway scene. I agree.

 

This gets at why I think the Deckard-is-a-replicant-too thesis is BS that Scott foisted onto the narrative in subsequent edits to create a cheap surprise twist. Recontextualized with Deckard as a replicant, BLADE RUNNER makes no dramatic or literal sense unless we start creating absurd, self-correcting rationalizations for newly formed plot holes, like Deckard being weaker and more fragile than the replicants he pursues. And that's before we get into larger narrative issues like, What's the point of the movie if Deckard-the-replicant learns to love replicants?