Spoilers Blade Runner 2049 - Grading and Discussion

Indeed. The story is about K and his place in the world. Not Deckard (even though we get a continuation of his journey), not a replicant uprising, not Wallace's' Biblical vision. Those are supporting components of the film, but not the core story.

Honestly, the only thing I would be interested seeing more of is Ana's story, but even that's a stretch. There's no need for a sequel. Granted there was no need for Blade Runner: 2049 and yet we got an incredible film nonetheless. But perhaps that further strengthens the point: The odds of finding a strong story to a unneeded sequel a second time is unlikely and even more unnecessary.

 

Maybe in 35 years?

 

I've been wondering about this too, but so far it looks like they're all unique. We haven't really gotten any indication that there are more Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, or Ryan Gosling's running around. I'm thinking the reference to models is more of just a reference to which generation they were part of, rather than the way that was used in BSG to refer to groups that all had the same appearance.

Yeah, that was pretty much how I read it too, that she was just referring to the fact that she was an actual physical woman, rather than a hologram specifically programed to be K's ideal girlfriend/wife.

I don't think it's going to have that big of an effect, we've already gotten plenty of succesfull prestige SF movies, and we know several are in the works, including Annihilation, which had it's trailer with BR2049. Villeneuve and the cast have all had succesfull careers that one flop isn't going to end them. The only thing I see this killing is Blade Runner's time as a movie franchise, although there's always the very slight chance it could continue in some other form, like TV, comics, or novels.

 

I also thought the line might mean that it had become a thing, that there were some who actually preferred virtual sex to real, and that was unwelcome competition for her and her co-workers.

Question 1: Did K's flyer have a big gun on it, with which he shot down the others? I thought that's what was shown. Because it seems odd he'd still have access to something like that, if he had to turn in his badge and sidearm. The original pistol, BTW, looked so much better than the new designs.

Question 2: What did the title say before K left Greater LA to visit the orphanage? It came up on the right side of the screen and by the time I noticed it it was gone and I didn't read it.

Overall, a good movie but not a great movie. A little long, a little predictable, but it had an emotional heart and served it quite well. I found the bad guys, Wallace and his henchwoman, to be kind of supervillain-y, without much nuance. I enjoyed it, but things have changed so much in the 30-plus years since I saw the first one, the sequel could never have that mind-blowing, game-changing impact. It was somewhat like 2001 and 2010 for me. They did a good job with the sequel, but I don't see myself thinking about it and revisiting it over and over like the original. I gave it a B+.

 

An important lesson in filmmaking is to not introduce elements into the story unless they matter.

The film felt it was important enough to introduce the rebels and have them solicit K, only for K to sort of go rogue on his own and the rebels are never even seen again. Sure, the rebels provide some background character to the worldbuilding, but in the end it feels like a loose thread.

Also, the enigmatic nature of Wallace builds curiosity in the viewer. You know he's some eccentric bad guy, but you don't know why. They build this whole back-story of him buying up the remains of Tyrell corporation, but you don't...know...why. He's nothing but a scene-stealing cypher now. It's a loose thread.

So no, they didn't need to resolve these elements in this film, but they sure as heck point to the intention to wrap them up in a followup film.

 

They do matter.
But not everything has to be spoonfed and literally explained with diagrams and flowcharts and then tied up in a neat bow...

 

My thoughts on the rebels would be to show that there are other Replicants besides K who are going against their programing. In the beginning they talk about how the new Replicants are all obedient, so once K starts to do his own thing, we are lead to believe that it was because he was natural born, but the reveal of who Deckard and Rachel's child really is, and the rebels shows that it's possible for regular replicants to go against their programing.

 

Saw this yesterday in full-size IMAX. Loved it. I'm a huge fan of the original (had the pleasure of attending a midnight screening of the Director's Cut years ago with Rutger Hauer giving us 90 minutes of storytelling and Q&A afterwards). Will definitely be watching this again and again. A+

 

Yup, the first Blade Runner wasn't all that successful when it was going around. That thing was a cult film that happened to cultivate the right people to get an equally atmospheric and dystopian film made. It has never been the stuff of block busters. The success of Interstellar, The Martian, and other prestige films, and this one's moderate success will ensure more such films are made. Maybe not another Blade Runner anytime soon, but more hi-concept sci-fi will come down the pike.

 

Walking into the building where Deckerd is hiding? Good luck.

 

I don't really feel Wallace needs further explanation, He wants to create as he views it, a perfect race of replicants that treats him as their God. He wanted Deckard (sp?) and Rachels child, because apparently she was a prototype for a Replicant that could bear children, and I'm guessing after Batty's Rebellion in the first film, all Data and Research concerning Rachel's model were destroyed because obviously they didn't want to make a few million self Reproducing Replicant's just to have them possibly revolt. It could also be that Rachel was a one off creation just to see if such a thing were even possible. But Back to Wallace, I don't think he really cares about what happen's to Humanity....I think he basically want's to achieve Immortality by being a God Figure to his breed of Replicant's.

EDIT: After thinking for a little bit, I wonder if Wallace was a metaphor for actual God, because he claims to love his Replicant's (they are his children) but he won't hesitate to slaughter them to prove a point or show off his own "Greatness" (and it's mentioned he averted a famine)

 

I gave it a B+ just for that scene where his dear departed virtual girlfriend appears to him as a giant building-sized postergirl. Awww.

 

Yeah I thought that was kinda Sad when she called him "Joe" you could see it in his face that he came to the conclusion that she probably never actually "loved" him, that she was being what he wanted her, as was her design. That's some SIRI 2.0 right there. (It was great not to see any Apple Logo's in the future)

 

You can't just say "they do matter". Prove it. I didn't see any reason why they mattered. They were sort of background color, like moving through a videogame that allows you to zig and you zag instead. Critics already slammed the runtime and a big part of that padded runtime had to do with superfluous elements that didn't really impact the plot.

That's his current motivation but you don't know why it became his motivation. Without fleshing him out more he's nothing more than a B-movie heavy with hammy acting. For a long film with so many talky monologues, where he came from could have been explained more. Roy Batty's motivation to be a ruthless killer was much better examined in the original, with the big payoff at the end with his monologue.

 

Your point is that things "don't matter" unless they're fully explained and resolved.
I completely disagree with that notion.

As for "proof", I obviously can't explain my view of the movie under your rules which I disagree to begin with. Others already did that and you rejected them out of hand so...

Critics who only talk about the plot in a movie like this are plonkers.

 

In said scene where he sees her as a giant billboard, you see her name Joi written with what seems like "JOi", kinda like the i as in ipod/iphone etc... So it was kinda Jo-i.... I don't know.. I just wondered if that was where she plucked "Joe" from, and adding to the sadness factor that it wasn't that random at all and connected to her programming.
Maybe. Just wondered.


I loved the film so haven't really been interested in reading negative reviews. So there are those "slamming" the run time? It's not that long. Two random films I watched again this week were The Departed and Django Unchained. Did critics "slam" them too for the same reason? They're the same length as BR2049. And seen as both those two have Leo in them- Wolf of Wall Street for example is a full 3 hours long. That was a big hit which everyone I've ever spoken to enjoyed.
Shrug.

 

Or all the data on the project was lost in the EMP blackout.

 

Yeah, having not watched any of the "mini films" prior to writing that I now see that the Blackout did indeed occur in 2022. However, even now we posses the technology to preserve sensitive data in the event of an EMP, surely the cutting edge research data to create Rachel could have been preserved unless it was intentionally ordered destroyed as a result of multiple replicant rebellions AND the result of the experiment itself running away, I think the data concerning Rachel was destroyed as the result of a cover up by Tyrell Corp. I also think Rachel was created to be impregnated by Tyrell himself, not Deckard. Of course, when the original movie was written, there was no intention of Rachel becoming pregnant, but now that the sequel has introduced that into the mix, I think Tyrell wanted to create a stronger, smarter Heir to his corporation, but was not interested in mass producing Replicants that could breed. vs. Wallace who wanted to create a new race of super beings that would immortalize him as a God. of course this is all speculation based on my recent viewing of the two films.

 

According to the background material those were hit too.

 

In 2049 you use your AtariPhone to buy your PanAm ticket.