Movies: Blade Runner 2049 (2017): Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford. Directed by Denis Villeneuve.

[aufheben]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'd have trouble imagining the bad guy in Blade Runner resembling Josef K. or the movie being anything like The Trial.

I don't see any immediate parallels to The Trial, but I haven't read it in a very long time. Still, for a director of Villeneuve's calibre, it seems like a pretty big coincidence, although there are other legitimate reasons for naming him Joe. 'KD' could have just as easily been a reference to Philip K. Dick though.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Deckard is not a replicant. That was Scott’s dumb idea shoehorned into the film in post-post-post. The unicorn dream scene wasn’t even shot for Blade Runner. It was a cutting room floor scene from another (Fantasy) Scott film.

Thematically, it ruins the film if Deckard is a replicant. He’s a human who lacks empathy and compassion whereas Rutger Hauer is a replicant oozing both. It’s the entire thematic thrust of the film. And by the end, Deckard learns what it means to be human from, again, a replicant.

Deckard being a replicant totally ruins that juxtaposed poignancy.

Anyway, 2049 is a better film than the original, even the Director’s Cut, in my opinion. 2049 may be my favorite science fiction film of all time next to 2001 and Fifth Element.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Thematically, it ruins the film if Deckard is a replicant. He’s a human who lacks empathy and compassion whereas Rutger Hauer is a replicant oozing both. It’s the entire thematic thrust of the film. And by the end, Deckard learns what it means to be human from, again, a replicant.
.

The guy who murders a bunch of people? The guy who kills his creator in a fit of rage?

Emotion? Absolutely. Compasion and empathy? Ehhh....

Been a while since I've seen it.

 

[XX]

Both movies are written in such a way that Deckard can be a replicant, or isn't one. Ridley Scott insists he is one but that wasn't the original intention and Denis wrote 2049 in a way that leaves that question open to interpretation.

 

[CorbeauNoir]

Tyrell Replicants have a four-year lifespan so the idea that Deckard is a replicant falls apart in 2049 based solely on the timeline.

 

[XX]

Tyrell Replicants have a four-year lifespan so the idea that Deckard is a replicant falls apart in 2049 based solely on the timeline.

Rachel is a one off experiment. If Deckard is as well, it stands to reason that Tyrell would omit the lifespan limit. It was artificially created, it wasn't a limitation of the technology.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Indeed. Plus, there's the whole thing of replicants being much stronger than humans, yet Deckard goes toe-to-toe with one in each movie.

 

[Jussi]

Indeed. Plus, there's the whole thing of replicants being much stronger than humans, yet Deckard goes toe-to-toe with one in each movie.

He got his ass handed to him both times.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

He didn't win, but he didn't die either. He was able to inflict damage.

 

[Chaels Arms]

Doesn't Tyrell tell Batty "we made you as well as we could make you" when Batty asks him about the four year lifespan?

 

[Blender]

Indeed. Plus, there's the whole thing of replicants being much stronger than humans, yet Deckard goes toe-to-toe with one in each movie.

He fights all 4 of them in the first movie and is utterly destroyed every time. One runs off because a crowed shows up, the second one is shot in the head by Rachel when Deckard is about to die, the third is shot by Deckard after tossing him around, and Roy inflicts some serious damage on him but isn't actually trying to kill him.

 

[NyQuil]

Rachel is a one off experiment. If Deckard is as well, it stands to reason that Tyrell would omit the lifespan limit. It was artificially created, it wasn't a limitation of the technology.

Doesn't Tyrell tell Batty "we made you as well as we could make you" when Batty asks him about the four year lifespan?

So, what happened was:

In the original theatrical cut, they added narration from Harrison Ford (which I actually don't mind - it adds to the detective/noir type feel) and they also added that bizarre highway driving ending (which was actually shot for the Shining) where Deckard talks about Rachel not having a 4-year lifespan.

This was added post-production if I recall correctly.

In the original director's cut, the movie ends with the elevator doors closing on Rachel and Deckard. Everything is left open - we don't know if Rachel will last longer, we don't know if Deckard is a replicant (though it is implied by the unicorn dream). There is no narration so we don't have those insights from Deckard.

The irony is that there is nothing in the theatrical cut that implies that Deckard is a replicant (at least, nothing like the unicorn dream) and yet it also includes the narration about the experimental nature of Rachel and no set lifespan.

Meanwhile, in the director's cut, there's nothing about an extended lifespan and yet Deckard is more obviously implied to be a replicant.

It's up to the viewer I guess to decide if Tyrell is bluffing or not when dealing with Batty, but when the scene was originally shot (and in keeping with the director's vision), I suspect that there was no "extended lifespan" for Nexus 6 models (and Rachel) and what happened in the end is that the studio decided they wanted a "happier" and less ambiguous ending.

Personally, I think the story is stronger under the premise that replicants are superior but cursed by the limited lifespan. I believe Tyrell when he says they were built as well as they could be. Whether it's a physical limitation included by design as their mental states appear to diminish, or whether it's an actual physical deterioration that is unavoidable I'm not quite decided on.

 

[CorbeauNoir]

He didn't win, but he didn't die either. He was able to inflict damage.

Eehh... he gets completely blindsided by snake lady but her intent was just to run away, he gets completely and utterly manhandled by Leon and would have absolutely been killed had Rachel not been there, ditto for Roy except Roy himself chooses to spare him at the last moment. The only one that was really much of a 'fair' fight where Deckard himself is capable of inflicting damage was Pris and even then Deckard only wins because he has a gun and Pris doesn't. Plus I would have thought raw adrenaline fight-or-flight replicant-tier strength would kick in if you're dangling off the edge of a building desperate to pull yourself up to safety.

In any case if the underlying premise of the movies is supposed to hinge on humans and replicants being ever less distinct from one another, then the notion of a human reproducing with a replicant (I think) carries much more weight than the notion of replicants only being capable of reproducing between themselves.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Have people seen the shorts? I think there's three of them:

 

[aufheben]

Both movies are written in such a way that Deckard can be a replicant, or isn't one. Ridley Scott insists he is one but that wasn't the original intention and Denis wrote 2049 in a way that leaves that question open to interpretation.

Whether Deckard is a human or replicant isn't the point. The point is not knowing which it is, and all the implications that has on defining our own realities and existences. I don't WANT to know if he's a human or a replicant.

 

[Fantomas]

This was surprisingly terrible. And I adore the first film.

Like a really bad and very ponderous knock-off, especially the music.

 

[Tw1ster]

This was surprisingly terrible. And I adore the first film.

Like a really bad and very ponderous knock-off, especially the music.

I've been so pumped to finally buy this.....never found the time to see it in theaters. The first one is one of my favorite movies of all time. I just talked to a friend today who saw 2049 and described it as boring. I'm still going to watch it, and probably enjoy the hell out of it, but it did take a little bit of the luster out of it. I haven't looked forward to seeing a movie this much in ages

 

[Fantomas]

I've been so pumped to finally buy this.....never found the time to see it in theaters. The first one is one of my favorite movies of all time. I just talked to a friend today who saw 2049 and described it as boring. I'm still going to watch it, and probably enjoy the hell out of it, but it did take a little bit of the luster out of it. I haven't looked forward to seeing a movie this much in ages

Make up your own opinion. There have been many well-written positive reviews of this film.

Personally it is difficult for me to like a film that apes the original so much while still missing so many of the elements that made the original good: it was a sci-fi noir and this one isn't, it was cyberpunk and this one isn't and it was quite fun and quirky in places and this one isn't.

Worst of all, it is all too "Serious", which is the present trend - no humor, no fun, no quirk. I suppose we should blame Christopher Nolan for that. Every moment is so dark and drab and serious, it's almost as if they're remaking Bela Tarr. Many moments in Ridley's Blade Runner still make me grin - Rutger Hauer's mannerisms, Deckard's fake voice, the opening conversation (which is hilarious), Gaff's city speak. I was hoping for something like this, but Villeneuve would not allow us to have any fun.

Also my pick for the most godawful scene of the year is Gaff in the old folks home. I burst out laughing. That is the quintessential deleted scene which unfortunately was not deleted.

 

[XX]

I've been so pumped to finally buy this.....never found the time to see it in theaters. The first one is one of my favorite movies of all time. I just talked to a friend today who saw 2049 and described it as boring. I'm still going to watch it, and probably enjoy the hell out of it, but it did take a little bit of the luster out of it. I haven't looked forward to seeing a movie this much in ages

It's cut like a movie from the 70s or 80s. It will bore modern 'Marvel' audiences.

Personally it is difficult for me to like a film that apes the original so much while still missing so many of the elements that made the original good: it was a sci-fi noir and this one isn't, it was cyberpunk and this one isn't and it was quite fun and quirky in places and this one isn't.

Not sci-fi noir?
Not cyberpunk?

Sorry, but those criticisms don't make sense at all.

 

[Fantomas]

Not sci-fi noir?
Not cyberpunk?

Correct. It is neither of those things.

 

[XX]

Correct. It is neither of those things.

You must not be familiar with what either means if you genuinely believe that. Which would make sense...

Worst of all, it is all too "Serious",

 

[Tw1ster]

It's cut like a movie from the 70s or 80s. It will bore modern 'Marvel' audiences.



Not sci-fi noir?
Not cyberpunk?

Sorry, but those criticisms don't make sense at all.

Well I'm into more story driven films than popcorn flicks so I'm not overly worried. I take it you enjoyed 2049? I'm avoiding earlier posts due to possible spoilers

 

[XX]

Well I'm into more story driven films than popcorn flicks so I'm not overly worried. I take it you enjoyed 2049? I'm avoiding earlier posts due to possible spoilers

One of my favorite films of the decade so far, if not the best.

Mark Kermode (BBC) has a very good spoiler free review:

Stuckman also has a great spoiler free take:


It's worth owning alone for the visuals. If you have a 4k TV with HDR/Dolby Vision, it can be your go to demonstration bluray. It's that good.

There are a lot of lifeless sequels out there in Hollywood that completely miss the point of the movies that came before. This isn't one of those. It's faithful almost to a fault to the original. They handle the universe, the characters, the pacing, the visuals, the music etc... in a really rare way. It is a Fury Road level sequel, probably better, given the difficulty and nuances of focusing on the BR themes, plus the writing required to leave things open to interpretation. It was written by the original Bladerunner writer (Hampton Fancher) and it shows.

It's well worth a watch. If you like slow burn anything, movies that answer questions, cyberpunk, noir, meaningful action etc... you'll like/love this. The negative reactions to it, especially by fans of the original, are atypical.

 

[Tw1ster]

One of my favorite films of the decade so far, if not the best.

Mark Kermode (BBC) has a very good spoiler free review:

Stuckman also has a great spoiler free take:


It's worth owning alone for the visuals. If you have a 4k TV with HDR/Dolby Vision, it can be your go to demonstration bluray. It's that good.

There are a lot of lifeless sequels out there in Hollywood that completely miss the point of the movies that came before. This isn't one of those. It's faithful almost to a fault to the original. They handle the universe, the characters, the pacing, the visuals, the music etc... in a really rare way. It is a Fury Road level sequel, probably better, given the difficulty and nuances of focusing on the BR themes, plus the writing required to leave things open to interpretation. It was written by the original Bladerunner writer (Hampton Fancher) and it shows.

It's well worth a watch. If you like slow burn anything, movies that answer questions, cyberpunk, noir, meaningful action etc... you'll like/love this. The negative reactions to it, especially by fans of the original, are atypical.

Thanks for the in depth reply! I've purchased it and will be viewing it tomorrow! I'll be back to share my thoughts

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

The more I think about this film the more I believe it's going to be considered a classic in 15/20 years.