Blade Runner 2049 - what did everyone think? (Minor spoilers)

[dscross]

....because to be honest, I came out not knowing exactly what I thought....

It was good, I mean, it?s better than a lot of the stuff that Hollywood produces these days. The atmosphere and pacing were spot on. But I?m not sure I want to treat it as canon. I didn?t want to know a lot of that stuff. I thought the movie should have stayed as a stand alone

The original blade runner is possibly one of my favourite movies of all time, and that?s partly because of the fact it was open to interpretation and you could imagine what was going to happen next in your head. This new movie, didn?t need to be made. And I?m dreading the the next film after I saw them talk about an ?uprising?

This movie was also not very emotional at all compared to the original. There weren?t really any other replicants on the run (except for the main character nearer the end). And there was no moments of sadness like the monologue from Roy at the end.

However I?m not going to say I didn?t enjoy it, because I did. I loved the way it was shot and the intreptation of blade runner 30 years on. But I?m not sure if it?s going to be a film I rewatch a million times like I did the original. I?m really mixed on this, What did you all think?

 

[Hawki]

Given more detailed thoughts elsewhere, so I'll put it simply:

-If Blade Runner 2019 is 10/10, 2049 is 9/10.

-Best movie I've seen all year, got a spot in my top ten sci-fi movies.

-Excellent example of how to do a sequel - stands on its own well enough, but is enhanced by the original, and doesn't sully the original. Very intelligent film, is thematically congruent with the original.

-Love the characters.

-Visuals are absolutely gorgeous.

 

[dscross]

Given more detailed thoughts elsewhere, so I'll put it simply:

-If Blade Runner 2019 is 10/10, 2049 is 9/10.

-Best movie I've seen all year, got a spot in my top ten sci-fi movies.

-Excellent example of how to do a sequel - stands on its own well enough, but is enhanced by the original, and doesn't sully the original. Very intelligent film, is thematically congruent with the original.

-Love the characters.

-Visuals are absolutely gorgeous.

Were you happy with all the plot points and how Deckard was handled? I have to admit didn?t feel emotionally gripped by it in the same way I did the original. I loved it on an aesthetic and atmospheric level, as I?ve said. I do like it. I wouldn?t put it up there on the same level as the original at all.

 

[Hawki]

Were you happy with all the plot points and how Deckard was handled? I have to admit didn?t feel emotionally gripped by it in the same way I did the original. I loved it on an aesthetic and atmospheric level, as I?ve said. I do like it. I wouldn?t put it up there on the same level as the original at all.

Yeah, pretty much. Plot was well handled about 95% of the time (there's the occasional contrivance), and I thought Deckard was handled well. It continues his story, expands on his background in the original, and still does so leaving it open as to whether he's a replicant or not (I'd argue that how Tyrell manipulated him is part of the point of the lack of distinction between humans and replicants). Also, if anything, I'd call it a more emotional film than the other, since K's the heart and soul of it. We see his yearning for belonging and companionship, ranging from Joi (who's a fascinating character in her own right), to his yearning to be Deckard's actual son, to his willingness to die for Deckard's sake. His 'tears in the snow' scene doesn't have nearly as much impact as Roy's, but on the emotional level, I'd say the film's superior.

Though that's arguably kind of a weakness, since the original is far more dehumanizing in its characters and arguably setting. As I said, I love both, but the original comes ahead in the end.

 

[dscross]

Were you happy with all the plot points and how Deckard was handled? I have to admit didn?t feel emotionally gripped by it in the same way I did the original. I loved it on an aesthetic and atmospheric level, as I?ve said. I do like it. I wouldn?t put it up there on the same level as the original at all.

Yeah, pretty much. Plot was well handled about 95% of the time (there's the occasional contrivance), and I thought Deckard was handled well. It continues his story, expands on his background in the original, and still does so leaving it open as to whether he's a replicant or not (I'd argue that how Tyrell manipulated him is part of the point of the lack of distinction between humans and replicants). Also, if anything, I'd call it a more emotional film than the other, since K's the heart and soul of it. We see his yearning for belonging and companionship, ranging from Joi (who's a fascinating character in her own right), to his yearning to be Deckard's actual son, to his willingness to die for Deckard's sake. His 'tears in the snow' scene doesn't have nearly as much impact as Roy's, but on the emotional level, I'd say the film's superior.

Though that's arguably kind of a weakness, since the original is far more dehumanizing in its characters and arguably setting. As I said, I love both, but the original comes ahead in the end.

I didn?t find it more emotional at all. You can logically argue points like that, which sound good on paper, but I didn?t feel emotional at all after it finished. The ending to the first one with Roy's monologue and with him crying in the rain is one of the most heart wrenching moments I know in cinema. And there are other bits with Phris and Sabastian, and when Deckhard guns down the replicant in the street with the classic music in the background. Nothing in the new one matched anything like that for me, it all felt like quite a logical noir story, which is ok but, like I said, didn?t quite make it for me. The fact the original was meant to be devoid of emotion actually made some bits more emotional for me.

Also. I sort of liked the idea of Deckard of not knowing how long Deckard was going to live. Now I know he did live a long time. As I said, I didn?t really like the idea of a replicant uprising either. It?s cliche and Blade Runner should be anything but cliche.

I can?t remember - How did they explain Deckard being able to live in vegas again? And how was Rachel able to have a child as replicant again?

 

[Hawki]

As I said, I didn?t really like the idea of replicant uprising either. It?s cliche and Blade Runner should be anything but cliche.

The entire point of the "replicant uprising" is that it's a pipe dream. It's an example of the film subverting cliche rather than embracing it. Even if the replicants have their uprising, what do they win? A ruined world. But more likely, they're not going to have their uprising. The entire point of the plot point isn't to foreshadow an uprising, but to show how replicants are similar to humans - willing to dream of the impossible, even when it can't be achieved, and even if it can, isn't worth it. That K spares Deckard is an example of him being in on it. He's willing to give his own life just so Deckard can be reunited with his daughter, embracing his own humanity and giving Deckard some of his own humanity rather than doing something another overlord told him to do. It's part of why the film is very strong emotionally, because despite how shit the world is, despite K dying unmourned, Deckard and his daughter can still find some level of happiness.

Now if a sequel is made that has some replicant uprising, that's another story, but the onus is on a sequel. 2049 doesn't need a sequel. Course, neither did 2019, but the replicant uprising idea didn't strike me as a plot point.

I can? t remember - How did they explain Deckard being able to live in vegas again? And how was Rachel able to have a child as replicant again?

He's living off stored supplies and tending to honey bees. Rachel having a child isn't explained, which is the entire point, as Wallace wants her child to unlock the secrets of replication.

Similar to the first movie, it's a case of ambiguity working in the film's favor. No-one knows. It can't be explained, hence why it's called a miracle - you could even make the argument that it worked because it was concieved out of love. It also ties in nicely with Joi, as it's left ambiguous as to how much humanity is in her, if any. Basically a HAL-9000 scenario where the line between simulated intelligence and actual intelligence is blurred.

 

[dscross]

Rachel having a child isn't explained, which is the entire point, as Wallace wants her child to unlock the secrets of replication.

That is what I thought, but I?m not sure I like the idea of it. The original film was ambigious in the sense of not telling you whether Deckard was a replicant or not. This is ambigious as in creating ?a miracle? which runs counter to established lore, which im less comfortable with. I accept that that?s my issue though and other people might like this.

I heard a rumour somewhere that there would be a sequel, hence my discomfort with the uprising, but it may not happen.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Stellar cinematography, solid direction (pacing not that great), with a good score, decent script, and mixed performances (Ford - good, Gosling - okay, Leto - bad). Definitely one of the best films of the year, but not quite up to the original. I'd give it about 8.5/10

 

[Hawki]

This is ambigious as in creating ?a miracle? which runs counter to established lore, which im less comfortable with.

What lore though? The original never touched on replicant reproduction. I mean, if you want to talk about contradictions, you can acknowledge that the film retcons Jeter's sequel novels (not that I mind that), but a contradiction needs some kind of previous information to actually contradict.

I heard a rumour somewhere that there would be a sequel, hence my discomfort with the uprising, but it may not happen.

To quote Wikipedia:

In September 2015, Ridley Scott expressed interest in making additional films. In October 2017, Villeneuve said that he expected a third film would be made if 2049 was successful. Hampton Fancher, the writer of both Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, also revealed that he was considering reviving an old story idea involving Deckard travelling to another country, and Ford said that he would be open to returning if he liked the script.

I don't see the film getting a sequel anytime soon though since it's apparently a box office flop. Still, I'll reiterate that I don't think the film needs a sequel. It can have one, but like the original, it can stand on its own.

 

[dscross]

What lore though? The original never touched on replicant reproduction. I mean, if you want to talk about contradictions, you can acknowledge that the film retcons Jeter's sequel novels (not that I mind that), but a contradiction needs some kind of previous information to actually contradict.

Maybe lore was too strong a word, it?s more assumptions implicit in the original I suppose. We are never told whether or not they can, but it makes sense to assume that they cannot. It would just create too many problems and bad publicity for the replicant ?manufacturers? if they could:

? People could breed their own replicants, so Tyrell would make less money.
? The replicants are viewed as commodities, not as human beings. But what if they start having children? Could they still be regarded as less-than-human commodities instead of real people?
? How would the public react to babies of parents that die after 4 years, and are thus unable to take care of their offspring? Would the newborn itself live longer than 4 years anyway?

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I'm gonna put out what I know is gonna be a pretty unpopular opinion and say that due to all the nudity and explicit sexual acts, it gets an instant F grade from me. Such things in movies is about as welcome as microtransactions and is incredibly unnecessary.

 

[Hawki]

Maybe lore was too strong a word, it?s more assumptions implicit in the original I suppose. We are never told whether or not they can, but it makes sense to assume that they cannot. It would just create too many problems and bad publicity for the replicant ?manufacturers? if they could:

? People could breed their own replicants, so Tyrell would make less money.
? The replicants are viewed as commodities, not as human beings. But what if they start having children? Could they still be regarded as less-than-human commodities instead of real people?
? How would the public react to babies of parents that die after 4 years, and are thus unable to take care of their offspring? Would the newborn itself live longer than 4 years anyway?

Yeah, we're never told if they can/can't, and the second film reaffirms that until Rachel, the assumption was they couldn't, but that Tyrell was trying to allow them to do so.

I can easily understand why if we look at slavery historically. Would you rather spend money/resources on buying/producing more slaves, or have new slaves pop out for free? It's established in the film that Wallace wants/needs to make more Replicants, but can't keep up with demand. I don't know about the lifespan, but we can see that the post-NEXUS 6 replicants live longer than four years, so at that point, replicants producing replicants would be viable. Of course the police want to cover it up, but I assume that if Wallace 'owns' replicant offspring, the metaphorical wall is still there, whereas if the reveal isn't planned, it could trigger the bombshell that Hoshi wants to avoid.

 

[maninahat]

I thought it looks and sounded great, but the story was kind of standard and the villains were very two dimensional. I feel that's at odds with the prequel, which didn't really pick a side in a world where everyone is terrible. I liked some of the other characters, such as Jay and the Dr Kreiger-esque holographic girlfriend, but was disappointed by how little they did with the others.

 

[Warhound]

It was the best move I have seen this year.

That being said it did tend to drag on and on, it could have done with some better pacing, though I am not sure quite what I would have cut to do so since a lot of the drag came from the breathtaking atmospheric shots that really drew you in.

The villains were rather boring however. Now that I think about it the scene with Leto and the new-made replicant could have been cut and that dialogue streamlined into another scene and the film would have been better off.

I thought the holo-waifu and his reaction to the advertisment in the final portion was very well done.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Since there are some Blade Runner fans here, please tell what are the Replicants? Are they robots or clones? 2049 did a horrible job at explaining who they are. I just assumed that they were robots. However, they can bleed to death and drown. As you can guess, if you haven't read my post in Marter's review of the movie. I really didn't like the movie, because the writing was a mess. It's easily the worst movie I saw this year.

 

[Hawki]

Since there are some Blade Runner fans here, please tell what are the Replicants? Are they robots or clones?

Biological constructs that are superior to humans in strength, and equal in intelligence. Within the universe, replicants are effectively 'descended' from mechanical robots. The ones we see in the films are of the NEXUS series, which are at least physically identical to human beings, and by NEXUS 6, flesh and blood as well.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Since there are some Blade Runner fans here, please tell what are the Replicants? Are they robots or clones?

Biological constructs that are superior to humans in strength, and equal in intelligence. Within the universe, replicants are effectively 'descended' from mechanical robots. The ones we see in the films are of the NEXUS series, which are at least physically identical to human beings, and by NEXUS 6, flesh and blood as well.

I guess that makes some sense, within the universe. My biggest complaint about the movie still stands. They did a really bad job explaining this to the audience.

 

[Warhound]

Since there are some Blade Runner fans here, please tell what are the Replicants? Are they robots or clones?

Biological constructs that are superior to humans in strength, and equal in intelligence. Within the universe, replicants are effectively 'descended' from mechanical robots. The ones we see in the films are of the NEXUS series, which are at least physically identical to human beings, and by NEXUS 6, flesh and blood as well.

I guess that makes some sense, within the universe. My biggest complaint about the movie still stands. They did a really bad job explaining this to the audience.

They did 3 short films leading up to the release that explained what they were. Honestly they should have ran before the movie as well to both fill in the timeline between the movies and to inform new folk about important plot points (like the BLackout thats referenced several times)

 

[Chewster]

The villains were rather boring however. Now that I think about it the scene with Leto and the new-made replicant could have been cut and that dialogue streamlined into another scene and the film would have been better off.

This was my biggest problem with it as well. The original Blade Runner had Eldon Tyrell, an eccentric genius in hipster glasses. This one had Leto with beard, talking half-rate philosophy. He's not particularly interesting as an antagonist. Plus IIRC, he's only in like two scenes of a 2.5 hour film. Really, Wallace's henchwoman stole the show away from him in that regard. She was actually intimidating and vaguely interesting. Still, she's no Roy Batty.

Also, can we talk about this new trend in film and television where they use awkward CGI to try and replicate the younger looks of older or even dead actors? Like, I've yet to see an instance of it that wasn't jarring and bizarre and the use of it in this film was no exception. We're not there yet, please stop using it because you think it is nifty.

Otherwise, I enjoyed it. It was everything it needed to be. Visually interesting and deliberate. I also thought the mystery was surprisingly well-thought out. Probably need to watch it again to fully appreciate how beautifully filmed it is.