Spoilers Blade Runner 2049 - Grading and Discussion

[Evil Twin]

Eh... I still prefer the original. I mean, this definitely had a better story, but the biggest appeal of Blade Runner for me is the aesthetics, and I feel the original is far superior in that regard. 2049 is visually very cold and bleak, and I really missed all the neon-soaked street scenes of the original. We only really had one scene like that here. Plus, L.A. felt very empty here as well. It sort of reminded me of the world of Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence. Overly slow film as well. Watching K in the factory, I'm thinking "YES, WE KNOW! HE FINDS THE HORSE! LET'S MOVE ON WITH THE STORY!" So yeah good but not great film, and it definitely won't stick with me the way the original has.

I rewatched the "Dangerous Days" documentary earlier this week, and I found it interesting that the opening scene in the farmhouse was actually taken from an early draft of the original film. The scene was storyboarded but never filmed.

 

[auntiehill]

I gave it an A-. I really enjoyed it--it's a lot like the original, maintaining the film noir style and pacing. It's just as atmospheric, with long, beautiful shots of dreary yet impressive landscapes. I liked the message--that the "fake" person finds meaning and "realness" in sacrifice, bringing a man and his daughter together.

If you liked the original, I don't think you'll be at all disappointed with this sequel.

 

[Pauln6]

Hm, maybe. I'll definitely have to play close attention to her scenes again to see how my reading fits with what actually happened.

As for the clarity of the memory of hiding the horse so it wouldn't be taken away by the bullies, I completely buy it. I clearly recall when I was kid where I once hid a slap bracelet in a hole on the side of our house. I had no reason to do it, other than curiosity, and then I later discovered I couldn't retrieve it. For all I know, it's still there unless subsequent tenants remodeled the house in that area and discovered it. In this memory's case, there was a strong reason to hide the horse and that would lead to a vivid recollection.



Oooh, that's an interesting take on their relationship and perhaps a more accurate one than what I took from it. I'll have to keep both of yours insights in mind when I see the film again. I particularly like the notion of K dying for a family that is not his because he craves a real one so much.

But I think he does find something 'real'. The horse and enjoyment of the snow are 'real' even though the memories weren't originally his. It isn't until he realises that the horse is real that he takes a step beyond obedience. The knowledge lets him take that first step to freedom, signified by his first spontaneous display of strong emotion. We also see at the end that his genuine enjoyment of snow falling, which was also teased earlier in the movie, is also as a consequence of having a 'real' memory implanted. His enjoyment in that moment, however, is his own, even if it's just a crumb of reality, and that gives him some peace in the end IMO.

 

[David cgc]

One thing I particularly liked was the "baseline" test updating the Voight-Kampff machine, because I could actually understand what the hell it was testing for, rather than the somewhat more perversely arbitrary interrogation of the original which seemed to be testing not whether replicants felt, but whether they felt "correctly."

Speaking of being "correct," I think they also handled the Deckard question perfectly, with a line revealing he is, followed by a line revealing that the prior line was just fucking with him. Probably. Everyone gets to be right!

I didn't really get why open-ended life-spans would be so acceptable just because the modern models are designed to obedient. Obedient to whom? Obedience to an evil master can still do a lot of damage and, over time, replicants will learn more and more but the movie did a masterful job of toying with our expectations of just how far that obedience extended. It's certainly hard to understand how any kind of 'resistance' could have evolved from just a few rogue Nexus 8 rogues if everyone is so obedient.

It was the Wallace replicants that were built to be perfectly obedient (for whatever that's worth, considering K could be pushed out of obedience, and Luv reveled in her ability to flout her instructions when she killed K's boss. The last Tyrell models (including the 8s) were apparently as free as Batty and co were. In his scene with Batty in the original film, Tyrell says that the four-year limit being intended to prevent rebellion was bullshit, and it was actually because they hadn't figured out how to make replicants live longer. It was always possible that Tyrell was lying then to try and mollify Roy but, well, I guess it was true. It looks like the main "safeguard" in the 8 series was that they began putting visible serial numbers on them. I got the impression from the anime that Tyrell Corp was hoping to integrate replicants more fully into human society, which didn't quite work out.

Plus, L.A. felt very empty here as well. It sort of reminded me of the world of Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence.

When I rewatched the original last night, I got some clues that most people had already left for the off-world colonies, and L.A.'s ultra-urbanization was a relic of a bygone age. Mostly the lack of traffic, and the way J.F. Sebastian talks about how he can have an entire five-story office building to himself since there's no shortage of space for everyone. The planet seems to be a bit of a ghost town.

 

[Tosk]

In his scene with Batty in the original film, Tyrell says that the four-year limit being intended to prevent rebellion was bullshit, and it was actually because they hadn't figured out how to make replicants live longer.

He what when? I don't recall that at all.

 

[David cgc]

He what when? I don't recall that at all.

Roy's suggesting all these ideas for giving him a normal lifespan, and Tyrell shoots them all down as having been tried and failed. At first it sounds like it's just things that wouldn't work for Roy since he'd already been born, but by the end, Tyrell seems to be talking about making long-lived replicants in general.

Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfonate as an alkylating agent a potent mutagen It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.

 

[Evil Twin]

When I rewatched the original last night, I got some clues that most people had already left for the off-world colonies, and L.A.'s ultra-urbanization was a relic of a bygone age. Mostly the lack of traffic, and the way J.F. Sebastian talks about how he can have an entire five-story office building to himself since there's no shortage of space for everyone. The planet seems to be a bit of a ghost town.

Oh no, I totally got that, but at the same time you've got the huge crush of pedestrians during Deckard's hunt for Zhora (the snake scale getting examined through to Zhora's death is probably my favorite chunk of the movie) and aside from the scene with K and the hookers, I really missed that in 2049.

BTW who else here has played the 1997 Blade Runner PC game? Fantastic (and gorgeous) game with lots of replayability, since each time you start a new game it randomizes who is and isn't a replicant, including yourself, resulting in multiple possible endings.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

God, that was the longest movie ever. Towards the end with the soundtrack going brrrrnh brrrrrrnh constantly I was just sitting there thinking just drown already. It had some great visuals but I didn't think the movie's questions and mysteries were compelling enough for the story being told. Obviously, most of you liked this better but this left me with more numb than my butt. Maybe maybe if I watch it at home with time to absorb it and what not but I don't think so.

 

[Tosk]

Roy's suggesting all these ideas for giving him a normal lifespan, and Tyrell shoots them all down as having been tried and failed. At first it sounds like it's just things that wouldn't work for Roy since he'd already been born, but by the end, Tyrell seems to be talking about making long-lived replicants in general.

I guess I just disagree with your read on that last sentence. "You were made as well as we could make you" seems more like a "This discussion is moot, you are what you are" as opposed to "We can't make you live longer so we made up a bullshit story." If the lifespan thing is just a story, then why did the earlier Nexus models not have a four year lifespan?

BTW who else here has played the 1997 Blade Runner PC game? Fantastic (and gorgeous) game with lots of replayability, since each time you start a new game it randomizes who is and isn't a replicant, including yourself, resulting in multiple possible endings.

Absolutely. One of the best movie-to-games ever.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

One thing I particularly liked was the "baseline" test updating the Voight-Kampff machine, because I could actually understand what the hell it was testing for, rather than the somewhat more perversely arbitrary interrogation of the original which seemed to be testing not whether replicants felt, but whether they felt "correctly."

I initially found that sequence a little confusing (partially because I was trying to read the title card at the same time and was distracted), but I agree those scenes were a nice touch.

When I rewatched the original last night, I got some clues that most people had already left for the off-world colonies, and L.A.'s ultra-urbanization was a relic of a bygone age. Mostly the lack of traffic, and the way J.F. Sebastian talks about how he can have an entire five-story office building to himself since there's no shortage of space for everyone. The planet seems to be a bit of a ghost town.

Which itself is a callback to the novel, where that's a major set piece of the story, along with animal scarcity and ownership is a status symbol, which becomes only a background piece, too, along with the absence of the population.

 

[Trekker4747]

Just got back from it. Been a long time since I've seen the first one, don't own it on home video and didn't get a chance to to rewatch it on DVD before going.

I thought it was pretty good, but I might give it a Flat-B. The movie has a lot of pacing problems, some scenes drug out way more than they probably should have and I think there's bits that probably could have been removed without losing anything.

But visually a very good looking movie and decent work by the cast.

 

[davejames]

B+ for me.

Thought it was a really good movie, but I definitely can't put it at the level of the original. I think the biggest problem was that I just didn't find the central conceit of the movie-- Deckard and Rachel had a kid and it now represents this huge threat to the world-- to be nearly as interesting as it was meant to be (not to mention that how exactly this unlikely pregnancy happened is never once explained). And the fact we're three steps ahead of Detective K for the entire movie, waiting for him to finally piece everything together and track down Deckard, was kind of frustrating as well.

That said, I did really like the twist involving K, and how he was only part of their plan to protect the real child. And there were plenty of scenes that were incredibly compelling to watch on their own, with Deckard encountering a new Rachel being the clear standout. And the relationship between K and his holographic girlfriend was surprisingly touching to watch too.

It's possible the movie will grow on me over time, but right now I can only consider it just a really solid scifi movie. And not the masterful scifi classic that the original is.

 

[EyalM]

A good movie.
The thing that lingered in my mind the most though, weren't the replicants, but Joy.
Is she sentient? Or does it really all boil down to her "saying what you want her to say", as the advertising for her goes?

 

[psCargile]

Great movie. Will the Director's Cut include a voice over?

I related to K on a deep level, but I think having a Joi would make me feel even more disconnected.

 

[Xerxes82]

I think the biggest problem was that I just didn't find the central conceit of the movie-- Deckard and Rachel had a kid and it now represents this huge threat to the world-- to be nearly as interesting as it was meant to be (not to mention that how exactly this unlikely pregnancy happened is never once explained).

To each their own, obviously. But this ^^^ was NOT the central conceit of the movie. The central conceit of the movie was that K, a happy and obedient Wallace model replicant, longed for more in his life and dreamed of being human. The child is just the MacGuffin that sends him on his journey.

Also, does it need to be explained? At a certain point, replicants stop being LIKE humans and simply are humans. Which is pretty much what everybody in the film universe is fighting either to recognize or ignore. Thematically it's the recognition that built replicants are people too.

 

[Steve Roby]

On the subject of Joi... I thought his copy had adapted and grown quite a bit; the big holographic ad version was more generic and reminded him of what he'd lost when his Joi was destroyed. He can't just go buy again what he had with that version. But I'll have to see it again.

BTW who else here has played the 1997 Blade Runner PC game? Fantastic (and gorgeous) game with lots of replayability, since each time you start a new game it randomizes who is and isn't a replicant, including yourself, resulting in multiple possible endings.

I don't know how hard it would be to play on a laptop running Windows 8.1, but I wish I could. I played the hell out of it back in the first few years it was out. But even a decade ago newer PCs ran too fast to let you survive the scene where you have to run from an explosion. I've downloaded some videos of gameplay, though, so I can return to that story. I've got both of the game guide books, too.

 

[Jax]

$31 million opening weekend, well short of the projected $50 million that was being reported a few days ago.

Very poor, the film is going to need legs and a big oversea's gross to turn a profit on the $150 million budget.

 

[davejames]

To each their own, obviously. But this ^^^ was NOT the central conceit of the movie. The central conceit of the movie was that K, a happy and obedient Wallace model replicant, longed for more in his life and dreamed of being human. The child is just the MacGuffin that sends him on his journey.

Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. As important as K's journey was (and as much as that was my favorite aspect), it was the mystery surrounding the replicant child that felt to me like what the entire story really revolved around. Especially since the movie spends most of it's time making us think HE is that child.

We're not talking about a MacGuffin like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction here; this was something a whole lot bigger than that.

Also, does it need to be explained? At a certain point, replicants stop being LIKE humans and simply are humans. Which is pretty much what everybody in the film universe is fighting either to recognize or ignore. Thematically it's the recognition that built replicants are people too.

Yeah I know Tyrell's motto was "More human than human", and these Replicants are bioengineered and apparently mostly organic, but somehow (at least on a first viewing) it still felt a bit of a stretch to me that Deckard and Rachel were able to have a kid, or that this ability of Replicants to reproduce was something the Tyrell of the original movie was really interested in pursuing. Instead it feels like a motivation that was only thought up for him after the fact, 35 years later, for this sequel.

Not to mention how it makes it even more of a certainty that Deckard is a Replicant (no matter how much the movie tries to dance around the fact or avoid saying so), which is another thing I'm not all that crazy about. Since I'd rather preserve the mystery of that than know one way or the other.

 

[David cgc]

(not to mention that how exactly this unlikely pregnancy happened is never once explained)

Well, when a man and a replicant have a very uncomfortable moment where they're flirting and then he angrily stops her from leaving his apartment and it's ambiguous if he's convincing or coercing her...

But, seriously, I thought Wallace's ramblings made it clear that the Nexus 7s (Rachel and, if you swing that way, Deckard) were Tyrell's masterwork, a fertile replicant (he was speculating that naming her "Rachel" was a Biblical reference, which I think would count against "Rick Deckard" being constructed to be her mate), and that he took that secret with him to the grave. Whether Tyrell's aims were to make replicants equal to humans or, like Wallace, to streamline production is left sadly ambiguous by the retcon.

That would also tie in to Wallace's insecurity (because, seriously, he built his headquarters right next to the already-monolithic building constructed by the man whose shadow he never thought he'd escape, but five times the size. Dude's insecure about something), where he explicitly says he can never hope to figure out whatever Tyrell did. You could also tie all this in metafictively about the concept of doing a distant sequel to classic, but I'd rather go get lunch.

 

[Phily B]

$31 million opening weekend, well short of the projected $50 million that was being reported a few days ago.

Very poor, the film is going to need legs and a big oversea's gross to turn a profit on the $150 million budget.

Not sure it will have legs either. It isn't entirely unpredictable though, they made the most perfect sequel ever to a movie in my opinion and the "boringness" goes with that. Hope it at least kills it at the Oscars, the film was wonderful and will go down as a classic.