I don't think you understand what 'derivative' means. Most of those critiques would be appropriate if it wasn't explicitly a Blade Runner movie. One movie has giant animated advertisements, so the sequel in the same franchise set in the same exact city can't? You're really, really reaching on some of those as well, like Tyrell having glasses and Wallace having special eyes, therefore they are copying Tyrell. And how the f*** is Luv a 'derivative' of Rachel? They serve two entirely different roles to their master.
I think it takes a special someone to accuse Hampton Fancher of ripping off his own movie.
This rehash is nothing more than another lame reboot of the original, completely DERIVATIVE, taking all the memorable scenes and motifs from the original film and (poorly) overdoing them to death in this derivative:
Opening scene with the eye in the original BR; copied in the derivative.
Deckard goes to retire Roy and subsequently Roy ends up chasing Deckard in a cat-and-mouse hunt, as he thrusts his hand through the wall to grab Deckard's gun, and later his head through a tile wall; K goes to retire a replicant but he ends up being attacked by the replicant. Subsequently he and replicant go through a wall during the tussle.
Rachel with black hair, robotic behavior; exact lookalike in the derivative;
Pris, the pleasure model replicant in the original; exact lookalike blonde hooker in the derivative;
The gigantic screen on the building of the geisha; giant nude pink lady with blue haired hologram in the derivative.
Rachel shoots her gun through the head of Leon; Rachel lookalike shoots the head of Rachel-clone;
Deckard's boss downs shots of hard liquor and has slicked back hair; so does K's boss.
One of the most memorable shots in the original BR is right before the Voight-Kampff test with Rachel when the room at Tyrell HQ is slowly dimmed; at Wallace Corp you see this light dimming / shadow effect throughout the inside of the building in multiple scenes, overdone to death.
Tyrell's eyes look weird because of his Coke bottle lens glasses; Wallace has weird looking white eyes (was hoping Roy Batty would make a reappearance to shove his thumbs through Jared Leto's eyes).
Roy Batty kisses Tyrell before killing him (and you can see the saliva between their lips -- yuck); Wallace kisses the replicant on the lips before killing her and you see the saliva string again.
Deckard is a human who thinks he may be a replicant (dreams of a unicorn); K is a replicant who thinks he is human (has flashbacks of a wooden horse).
"One more kiss, dear" in the original; Frank Sinatra and Elvis in the derivative.
Deckard visits some Middle Eastern foreign speaking type looking for answers; K visits some African foreign speaking type looking for answers;
Ending scene with Roy Batty dying in the rain after memorable monologue; K laying down on the steps in the snow at the end (hopefully he died so there won't be another sequel).
And the soundtrack, can be described in one word, DISCORDANT. In the original, the soundtrack by Vangelis complemented and set the mood of the dream-like Blade Runner world; this derivative has no soundtrack to speak of if you take out all the loud grating cacophony.
If you love the original Blade Runner, don't watch this rehash -- I wish I hadn't! What has been seen can't be unseen! You have been warned!
who-me? is definitely way off-base in his analysis. Despite some intentional callbacks, many of which are used to establish setting and timeline and others are rather subtle, it's far from derivative. And it's most certainly not a "reboot" by anyone's definition.
That being said, I did see some connection between Rachel and Luv, despite their very divergent plot paths.
I actually spent a little while thinking that Luv might be the child after K's line when he meets her "he gave you a name, you must be special." Her physical similarities to Rachel (including the somewhat similar hair styles) helped drive this. But her utilization in the plot ultimately took on a very different direction as the film progressed.
who-me? is definitely way off-base in his analysis. Despite some intentional callbacks, many of which are used to establish setting and timeline and others are rather subtle, it's far from derivative. And it's most certainly not a "reboot" by anyone's definition.
That being said, I did see some connection between Rachel and Luv, despite their very divergent plot paths.
I actually spent a little while thinking that Luv might be the child after K's line when he meets her "he gave you a name, you must be special." Her physical similarities to Rachel (including the somewhat similar hair styles) helped drive this. But her utilization in the plot ultimately took on a very different direction as the film progressed.
I took her to be Wallace's test bench for advanced emotions, and possibly one of his first attempts to create a fertile replicant. She cries when she is forced to do something she doesn't want to do, even though her obedience is absolute. She also has a childlike desire to prove herself the better replicant, especially towards the end. When Wallace turns away from the copy Rachel after Deckards insult (which was a lie), she happily terminates the copy. Tyrell has lofty ambitions for replicants; Rachel is his Pietà. Wallace sees replicants as tools for humanity, with Luv being his right hand and enforcer.
It wasn't filmed for IMAX, and Deakins prefers the standard aspect ratio. I prefer the Dolby Cinema experience with Atmos and HDR. Really makes this movie pop.
Expect this movie to start to see its theater count drop dramatically in coming weeks as studio looks to quietly start to close out this disappointment
Saw it this Saturday. I liked it. I didn't love it like the original. It was very long and I think I missed some plots like how K knows that the person who made the memory is the one he is searching for ( I though almost through the entire movie that it was the angel murder-bot that was the child).
I don't even know how the guy in the beginning was found after 30 years.
My wife who has never seen the first one hated it btw but she has a very short attention span and don't like artsy movies. It was very beautiful but filled with to much info that made it hard to follow what was going on . The whole "blackout" and why Deckard was hiding out etc. I didn't help that I was pretty tired after a long day and the movie was in 3D (don't see it in 3D I think you might get distracted).
Oh yeah, The CGI on the replicant of the original Rachel was really bad. They should have used an actress and made her look like her.
Saw it this Saturday. I liked it. I didn't love it like the original. It was very long and I think I missed some plots like how K knows that the person who made the memory is the one he is searching for ( I though almost through the entire movie that it was the angel murder-bot that was the child).
I don't even know how the guy in the beginning was found after 30 years.
My wife who has never seen the first one hated it btw but she has a very short attention span and don't like artsy movies. It was very beautiful but filled with to much info that made it hard to follow what was going on . The whole "blackout" and why Deckard was hiding out etc. I didn't help that I was pretty tired after a long day and the movie was in 3D (don't see it in 3D I think you might get distracted).
Oh yeah, The CGI on the replicant of the original Rachel was really bad. They should have used an actress and made her look like her.
My understanding is that replicants have enhanced human brains. They are therefore not an artificial intelligence. They are human and that is the entire point of the movie.
They are manufactured humans, made up of genetically designed and grown human organs. They are conditioned with memory implants that are made for human brains. If I recall correctly, Ana said as much when she said that humans can add fake memories if they feel like it.
Ryan Gosling has Harrison Ford's aloofness but none of his charisma, and that is why K is just a pale shadow of Richard Deckard in the original. And speaking of characters, there is no one in this derivative that even remotely matches Roy Batty's performance. And the soundtrack is awful.
This movie should have never been made.
This review from imdb.com pretty much sums it up:
Vapid, Barren, Antiseptic, Drubbed Down, and Dull
Author:industrialwonk from London England
6 October 2017
The original blade runner had gritty street-scenes that were immersive and set the stage for believing, imagining, and then becoming immersed in the context of a dystopian future. In terms of grit, nothing from the original movie survived into the current production.
The characters in the sequel are vapid (caricatures) in comparison to the original movie. Tyrell was a thoughtful genius, Roy was passionately fighting his own pre programmed mortality ,Pris could not find humanity, and Leon was locked into the anger of his past, Sebastian was captive to his own body. Then there was Rachel who was searching for personage and Decker for purpose. NONE of that kind of character developing can be found in this sad excuse for amovie.
This movie was a shell, a sham, they even had a shell of a Pris character. A total vapid, barren, antiseptic, drubbed down, and dull waste. This movie did not even have the decency to have any grit.
I've only seen his five recent features films (Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival, and now Blade Runner 2049). Of the five, this one is probably my favorite but I need to see it again to be sure of that judgement.
The box office numbers are disappointing (though not surprising) and there are always going to be differing opinions, especially from those who are diehard fans of the original. But I think this movie is better than the original in pretty much every way, and I loved that movie.
My understanding is that replicants have enhanced human brains. They are therefore not an artificial intelligence. They are human and that is the entire point of the movie.
They are manufactured humans, made up of genetically designed and grown human organs. They are conditioned with memory implants that are made for human brains. If I recall correctly, Ana said as much when she said that humans can add fake memories if they feel like it.
They aren't perfect copies of humans; they have programmed strength and emotional levels, as well as different sub models for different purposes. They also have guiding rules/conditioning that is implemented like programming. The exact science of how they work is never fully explained and that's part of the fun.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
