Blade Runner 2049

Everything Luv does screams Abuse Victim and Daddy Issues.

If they had remade Blade Runner I think it would have done better with younger audiences; as it is, 2049 is a sequel to a 34 year old movie that itself underperformed at the box office, only becoming a cult classic in the home video market.

My dad wants me to watch 2049 with him. I want to see the first movie beforehand; he insists that it's not going to be that important to the sequel (which I sincerely doubt) and that we'll never find a copy to watch in a reasonable amount of time anyways (which is almost certainly true). Penny for y'all's thoughts?

I think anyone who watched 2049 would probably be able to keep track of things alright, but a lot of the last part of the film would probably lose some of its weight for them. And while it'd flow alright seen by itself and follows a new protagonist, a large part of the film is investigating what sort of things have happened between the end of Blade Runner and the start of this film; so, yes, the first film does hold a lot of relevance.

Hm. I'll keep that in mind, but maybe I will end up seeing the sequel this weekend anyways.

I'd go so far as to say don't bother watching the new one if you haven't watched the original.

Okay, it wasn't bad. Okay sequel, but not that great movie as some other people claimed.

Good parts:

- Mostly, Joi. First I considered the whole character extraneous, but the final scene where K encounters the ad gives that particular subplot suddenly more depth. SEE WHAT YOU WANT. HEAR WHAT YOU WANT. Was the AI truly a Turing-complete independent person, or was all of that merely a product that responded to K's desires? Sadly her subplot wasn't that well incorporated to the main story.

- Visually it's gorgeous.

- It manages to be quite clever in some sections. can K be a real boy? how on Earth that would be possible, you'd expect LAPD would receive their replicants right from factory? and then you learn, of course he is not.

Bad parts:

- It's far too long, I was bored. Some people claim that audiences won't understand it because it's slow, philosophical and devoid of explosions and action scenes. Maybe I live on a different planet, but I was bored watching overtly long action scenes that either didn't advance the story or didn't have any suspense to them.

Seriously, the part where K's craft is shot down and he has shootout with scavengers would have been better left out. The purpose of the sequence appeared to be "let's have some unnecessary explosions so that let the she-replicant may look cool saying "Fire" while getting her nails done". Then K reaches the orphanage as he planned.

Also the grand fight with Deckard was boring. Likewise, the final fight in the sea. Both lacked any true suspense. Some people like to watch fight scenes for choreography alone, but I'm not one of them.

- Character motivations, ehh. The intro text says the new replicants obey. Luv simply obeys. K does not. I sort of wished they would have explored the psychology more. How did the corporation create replicants like that? What was the difference to previous ones that were empathy-tested?

- The thrid act as a whole was lackluster because it was so straightforward, answering directly questions that didn't need that too much of a feel-good happy ending. ooh there's going to be a grand replicant revolution. aww he goes to see his daughter

edited 16th Oct '17 3:21:25 AM by maus42

For character motivations, I got the impression that Luv was acting out in several instances, defying her programming much like K, in a more twisted way. As for exploring the psychology and creation process, I think that might have been helped by improving what I thought was the film's weakest aspect: Wallace. I think his character could've used a little more fleshing out.

On a somewhat related side note, the references to replicants as "angels" (including in the short films), reminded me of Time Of Eve, which I think handles the parallel better via androids that are Three Laws-Compliant (which Replicants are not, even by Wallace's design).

Overall I really liked it. I got the vibe I was looking for, and while I can definitely see how it can drag on for some, I had no problem with having more of it.

edited 16th Oct '17 3:54:09 AM by Eschaton

Blade Runner 2049 finally manages to break even

Does anyone else think that the whole reproducing replicants thing makes no sense at all? I have a few contentions:

1. Replicants are based on dna. (Which makes K's line about being binary utter bs, btw.) They have to eat and drink. They have to go through mating and pregnancy for birth, which, as we see in the movie, is risky and expensive. Not to mention all the emotional issues it involves. There just is no way that this is more effective than producing them out whole cloth.

2. How are they non-reproductive to start with, if that is not by design? If it is by design, and if it was Rachael whom they obviously have in their archive, how were Tyrell or Wallace unable to reproduce their success in 35 years? In such an important undertaking, you don't just make one test and then give up.

3. What if the power of reproduction really lies with Deckard (and he is human), and not with Rachael?

4. Okay, we now have Rachael's daughter, the grand symbol of the ~~robot~~replicant revolution. Umm. But she lives in a bubble which she can never leave. She can't easily make a big speech. She's under complete and utter control by Wallace. How is that useful to the replicants? Actually, how had anything the protagonists did have any impact on anyone, except being useful for Wallace?

5. Also, she is the child, not the parent. Who is to say that anyone else can reproduce? It might have been a freak accident. And if Tyrell had planned it all, chances are the research still lies buried in Wallace's archive, so he's still the winner.

6. If there is this huge ~~robot~~replicant army, and reproduction was not outright limited to Rachael by design, then shouldn't a few of them be able to reproduce by sheer coincidence, thus rendering Rachael's daughter unnecessary? But if it WAS limited to Rachael, how could this ever be useful to the revolution?

7. Why would Tyrell manipulate Deckard into being with Rachael (assuming...)? The guy was fairly ruthless to start with, so why not just buy some semen off him?

So many headache inducing moments in this one, I'm afraid. So so many. Ugh.

Just to add one more because it's so fundamental and bugs me: Obedient replicants are utterly nonsensical. You can either make your own decisions (which they obviously need), which obviously includes the ability to disobey - or you're unable to act on your own. Even if you think it was a lie by Wallace Corp., it's utterly unbelievable nobody called them out on it and there were no major incidents that showed it to be false.

edited 18th Oct '17 3:40:38 AM by betlamed

Seems like you missed a lot here.

K never said he was based on binary. Joi said she was based on binary. We don't know exactly how making new Replicants works, but in real life we've had a lot of trouble perfecting even the most basic types of cloning, while births are perfectly easy. Yes, Rachel died in childbirth, but that's just bad luck, combined with a lack of proper medical care.

Something in the normal production process means their reproductive system is screwed up beyond repair. It's a fragile system, easy to damage. As for why Tyrell and Wallace didn't continue the reproduction research once they figured it out, Tyrell went bankrupt soon after Rachel was produced, and there was the blackout that heavily damaged all their data storage. Wallace bought the company and has been trying to repeat the success ever since, but he's had no success.

Still not guaranteed that Decker is human. Regardless, Wallace wanted him too, and would have discovered if he was the important part of the equation. The rebels are operating on faith that Rachel was the important part.

Rachel's daughter is implied to have faked the disease (with the help of the rebels, of course) to give an excuse for why she's in the safest place in the world. And she is explicitly not under Wallace's thumb. He offered to buy her out, but she politely refused. She's just a subcontractor who does especially good work for him.

Again, the rebels are operating on faith. It's not like they have anything else to go on. And also again, the blackout means that Wallace doesn't have anything else to go on. Yes, he would prefer to have the original Rachel, but that's not an option, so the child is the next best thing.

A natural-born replicant is a symbol for the rebels, not a pragmatic solution to the problem. They've been told that they're not real, they're just machines made out of flesh and blood, and now they find out that for one at least, that's not true. "We all wish we were the one."

Because Tyrell was also performing an experiment on how human he could make Rachel. If that experiment had failed, then maybe he would have shrugged and offered to pay Deckard, as suggested, but that's much more likely to attract attention and scrutiny than some random cop falling for a random girl.

The obedience was caused by the baseline test. If they deviate too much from baseline, they're killed, which happens long before they have the chance to make any major rebellions. The replicants, in turn, are willing to obey because now they have longer lifespans which give them something to fight for, as well as fake memories telling them to (non-violently) fight for such things. The replicants from the original movie had shorter lifespans, so when push came to shove they just launched suicidal rebellions because they were going to die soon anyway.

Making the same amount of money as it's production budget is not breaking even.

I forgot to retract my statement after a while but yes, I did forget about marketing money. Circumstances differ but a rule of thumb is double the budget.

edited 19th Oct '17 4:39:41 AM by UltraWanker

As someone in "the younger audience" (well I just turned 21) who knew about the importance of the original Blade Runner but never actually sat down and watched it until now (I went in with no prior knowledge into The Final Cut about two days ago, then saw 2049 the first thing the day after), I'll say this

The first Blade Runner is still a petty damn good film all things considered, and even though it's visual novelty suffers from Seinfeld Is Unfunny due to all the movies that have subsequently bitten its style in the coming decades, I think the core story itself is still really interesting and for a movie that meanders and takes its sweet time with setting up atmosphere, it still feels remarkably succinct. Even watching it knowing that there was a second one in theaters right now, I still felt like the movie said what it needed to and didn't really need a sequel

Hell, even after watching 2049, which I also liked quite a bit, I still feel that I don't really think Blade Runner needed a sequel. It wasn't a story begging for a continuation or a further exploration of its themes, although mind you, I think 2049 does the latter very well.

I have some more actual thoughts on the themes of the two movies themselves and how they compare and contrast, but if you want an answer to "why those god damn kids aren't seeing Blade Runner?"

Alright, I go to a nerd ass university where like, I'm pretty sure multiple people I know use TV Tropes on the regular. What I'm gonna say is, like, admittedly totally empirical and based solely on me looking at what people are into and extrapolating from that.

From what I can tell, people just seemed to be more tuned into fantasy at this point and aren't that into sci-fi much anymore. It's not a matter of people not liking it because it's "too metaphorical and smart" cause people seem to love stuff like... I dunno Game of Thrones or some shit.

I mean, shit, I noticed earlier when Ghost In The Shell came out, the anime crowd (and trust me we got a LARGE anime crowd here) were just.... indifferent. They were neither praising it as "the anime come to life" nor admonishing it for the whitewashing, they just barely knew it existed (the movie itself being just a little worse than So Okay, It's Average doesn't help in that regard IMO). Again, that's a crowd that seems to dig fantasy stuff (like Re:Zero or whatever that show with the Rem girl is) and the moe/idol/Love Live stuff, yet like even Gundam, which is barely actual sci-fi, isn't huge among the anime crowd.

I mean, yeah Star Wars is a thing, but frankly Star Wars is just fantasy with some sci-fi visual stuff bolted on so I'm not counting it.

If you want an answer to why "those goddamn kids that need to get off my lawn" aren't super into sci-fi and Blade Runner by extension..... shit I dunno.

edited 22nd Oct '17 1:07:15 PM by RoboZombie

I think it's nowhere nearly as clear-cut as a simple fantasy versus sci-fi divide. The original Blade Runner was based on Philip K Dick's Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, a product of the '50s-'60s sci-fi movement that emphasised high concepts and a grounded layman's perspective, as opposed to the swashbuckling space captains and flashy futurism that dominated the pulp works of the '40s. Looking at contemporary works of sci-fi, like 2001, Soylent Green and various Asimov and Bradbury shorts, you can spot a common thread: the world of the story is structured around a core sociological theme, not in service of aesthetics or for the sake of worldbuilding by itself. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter - but when A New Hope arrived on the scene, it completely redefined the audience's expectation of what sci-fi is supposed to be like. Now sci-fi means action and spectacle. There's less emphasis on using the world as a thesis on how society would function under a certain, technology-driven situation, and more on using it as a tool for a heroic narrative. You don't need to care about the duality of power, the cyclic nature of revenge and the temptation of evil to appreciate the fact that lightsabers, X-Wings and a telekinetic little green man are all freaking cool.

And that's the problem with Blade Runner. Even if it's a visual and musical masterpiece, its aesthetics were never meant to stand on its own - it's meant to unwind along the plot, setting the atmosphere of dehumanisation and decay that hangs over Deckard's hunt rather than simply being the backdrop to the story beats. The world is the story. It's not just a way to give the story cooler swordfights, or rampaging dinosaurs, or hordes of green-skinned space chicks climbing into the protagonist's bed. It's a portrait of us, ground down by an over-reliance on technology and increasingly detached from one another. In a way, the movie was a late echo of a movement where the science and fiction are wrapped into one another, instead of the former being subservient to the latter. As a downside, it makes the story less accessible from the get-go, as it asks and examines a very specific set of questions rather than universal heroic themes. Perhaps most importantly, it means that the spectacle and big setpieces - or in troper parlance, Moments Of Awesome - are no longer front and centre. Blade Runner has no space battle, no chestburster, no bicycle taking flight against the full moon to make it instantly recognisable to modern viewers. And even though its visuals ended up being massively influential on the whole cyberpunk sub-genre, I suspect that it also saddled the cyberpunk works that followed it with a tight link between narrative and aesthetics, which makes them somewhat anachronistic and less accessible in an era where most other sci-fi opt for an archetypal Hero's Journey. Here's a little drinking game: browse through our page on Cyberpunk, click on the listed work pages one by one and take a sip for any that gets described as a "cult classic". Heck, The Matrix, one of the most successful works of cyberpunk at release, has a shockingly undersized cultural impact twenty years on.

That's my theory, at least. Of course, it could be that viewers are still reeling from the Ghost in the Shell fiasco and feeling burned out over the whole cyberpunk sub-genre at the moment.

(It's also quite a trip to look at how high-concept works of sci-fi have fared since the original Blade Runner. There's obviously been a lot of great sci-fi movies made in the last 35 years, but compared to it, you'll notice a higher emphasis on action and personal/heroic narratives instead of layman/societal ones. Try to take a look at Children Of Men, Minority Report, Paprika, Inception and Interstellar to see what I mean.)

I think there's something to be said about the appeal of personal narratives. I love the unique style of classic sci-fi and the exploration of concepts you really wouldn't see in other sorts of narratives, but it's hard for them to really tug at your soul like character-focused journeys do.

On that note, I'd like to announce that since I watched the original Blade Runner and the three 2049 prequel shorts, I went to the movies with my father last night to watch 2049.

It is quite possibly the best-directed and best-written film I've ever seen.

Just got back from this. I've been bored before, but never like this. I have my problems with the original film, but it's earned its place in cinema history nonetheless, and of course Rutger Hauer's performance as Roy is deserving of every accolade its gotten.

This conversely, was an absolute waste of time. A long, dull slog that telegraphed every move it was going to make long before it made it. Did I know JOI would die? Yes, of course. Did I know K wasn't Deckard's kid? Yes I did. Was I aware K was dying before the film told us? Yep. The lead actor is a stunningly uninspiring performer, and man oh man, are there plot holes that you could fit a truck through. My fiancee, her best friend and I actually left the film laughing hysterically at the incompetence and cliche nature of the ending scene.

The visuals should be the film's saving grace...but they're so cluttered with creepy (and entirely unsexy) images of women, be it in hologram form or giant statue, as to poison the experience. In fact the way the film handles its female cast is depressing on all sorts of levels, and I frankly feel like I need a shower. I'm somewhere between bored and sleazed out and that's not a great place to be.

edited 27th Oct '17 9:36:38 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Well. Wasn’t expecting that.

Well, I hadn't really run into any harsh reviews before this.

I'm not sure about telegraphed but I guess about the representation of women? This is a pretty crap sack world, so I'm not really surprised by the exploitation and marginalization.

While I see what could cause those views, I don't agree. BR 2049 is, among other things, about dehumanization and objectification; of not just women.

Joshi, Stelline and that rebel replicant leader as positive examples?

edited 28th Oct '17 11:44:39 AM by googlebot

I'd go so far as to say that the constant objectification, dehumanization, and mutilation of women in particular is to show a metaphor for real-world misogyny by transplanting an exaggerated version onto Wallace in particular and his organization in general. Note how of the two members of the Replicant resistance movement we actually get to know, both are female- as is the individual they see as a symbol of their movement.

I will also mention that no matter how you slice it, this movie is still better-written than 95% of all films released these days by actually knowing how to show instead of tell. It's not exactly subtle, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

In regards to the film's treatment of women, I did appreciate that the movie's at least well-populated by major female characters. The women in major roles may even outnumber the men.

edited 30th Oct '17 8:39:06 AM by DrDougsh