Blade Runner or 2049?

[Spring in Fialta]

Go.

Re-watched Blade Runner last night. After watching 2049, I ended up concluding that it was the better film, but it's hard to say. I think the latter may have the higher peaks while the former makes less (well, just about none) minor mistakes than Villeneuve's sequel (the fight choreography between Deckard and K, the final scene). But then again, what to make of Deckard seducing Rachel in the original? I did cringe a little. Also wasn't sure whether it fit Deckard and I'm not sure whether he was testing her or he was genuienly being 'rapey'. And I did think K was a better character than Deckard in many ways.

Click to read more...

 

[ItsFineImFine]

It's a tightly made far better film.

The original was.....original and has that teardrops in the rain scene but the rest is overrated from nostalgia as most 80s films are.

edit: Also the original is considered by many to be boring for a reason. The sequel you can maybe call slow paced at times but never boring.

Secondly, it is impossible for people to rate films on their own without context. I think as a result of this, anyone who sees BR 2049 first will probably say it's the better film and people who say and have the original embedded with them will not be able to take the sequel on its own

 

[NyQuil]

It’s a bit unfair because as great as the sequel is, and as much of a singular vision that it is, it still relies heavily on a dynamic and an atmosphere that Scott created.

So I have to put Blade Runner ahead - if marginally.

 

[Cas]

Go.

After watching 2049, I ended up concluding that it was the better film, but it's hard to say. I think the latter may have the higher peaks while the former makes less (well, just about none) minor mistakes than Villeneuve's sequel (the fight choreography between Deckard and K, the final scene). But then again, what to make of Deckard seducing Rachel in the original? I did cringe a little. Also wasn't sure whether it fit Deckard and I'm not sure whether he was testing her or he was genuienly being 'rapey'. And I did think K was a better character than Deckard in many ways.

Blade Runner is my favorite film, but Blade Runner 2049 is the better film in just about every way.

Blade Runner's main problem is that it doesn't know what its message is, which probably comes down to Ridley Scott's insistence on a key thematic point that makes no sense and serves as little more than a surprise twist that doesn't even feature into the film:

Spoiler: Don't Click It If You Haven't Seen It

Scott insists Deckard is a replicant, and directed the film as though he is, even though that completely muddies any message the film is trying to tell, even though Harrison Ford was not playing Deckard like a replicant, and even though the audience does not know this unless they've read interviews or analyses about the film.

I'm not sure what story Scott was trying to tell, but I know what story Hampton Fancher was trying to tell and I don't know that the direction matches the script. Blade Runner is an incredibly flawed film, even in the Final Cut version (for the record, I've seen three different versions of the film, and my first exposure was the 1982 U.S. version with the voiceover), but it generally succeeds despite this because of just how immersive the world depicted within the film is, and because the writing and acting within each scene work.

I agree that the Deckard/Rachael seduction/rape scene is incredibly cringey, to say the least. I think it's one of the problems of the film, because if Scott's characterization of Deckard is correct, it makes sense (but the rest of the film doesn't), and if Scott's characterization of Deckard is incorrect, it just makes Deckard an asshole.

 

[Ducks in a row]

I like Blade Runner more. Blade Runner 2049 was good just not as much as the original.

 

[Fantomas]

Blade Runner is a masterpiece. It's also hugely influential. The sequel will never match the effect it has had on cyberpunk and all of sci-fi.

2049 is not even good. Really try-hard, boring and humorless.

 

[Fantomas]

Blade Runner's main problem is that it doesn't know what its message is, which probably comes down to Ridley Scott's insistence on a key thematic point that makes no sense and serves as little more than a surprise twist that doesn't even feature into the film:

Spoiler: Don't Click It If You Haven't Seen It

Scott insists Deckard is a replicant, and directed the film as though he is, even though that completely muddies any message the film is trying to tell, even though Harrison Ford was not playing Deckard like a replicant, and even though the audience does not know this unless they've read interviews or analyses about the film.

Messages are for essays.

 

[Shareefruck]

As much as the aesthetic of 2049 was very nice, the original Blade Runner just had a cooler feel to it for me. I found the style of the delivery more obsessively satisfying. I didn't grow up in the 80s, and I watched both of the two for the first time in the 2010s, and while maybe you can point to individual technical/polish/common-sense-related things being superior in 2049, to be frank, I've all but completely forgotten about 2049, personally. If not for the goodwill and name-recognition of the original, I don't think it would have been anything that I found all that notable or on my radar (kind of just solid and that's it). It also felt a little convoluted and bloated to me, personally.

About as admirable of an effort as you can expect from a sequel though-- it certainly didn't tarnish it or anything.

That said, I can totally see where people are coming from when it comes to criticism of the original. I don't think its message is that strong either, especially if you look at it more closely, and if you removed the style, presentation, and atmosphere, there wouldn't be a whole lot there, IMO.

 

[Osprey]

I grew up in the 80s and on 80s movies, but I've never been quite as enamored with Blade Runner as some of my peers. Whenever I watch it, I want to enjoy it more than I actually do. The story and characters just aren't as good or as interesting as I'd like them to be and it's a little too slow and cerebral. I do, however, love the setting, aesthetic and atmosphere. Those are so imaginative and immersive. If you could marry those with better story, characters and pacing, you'd have something special. I was hopeful that Blade Runner 2049 would do that, but, while it was maybe better in a few ways, it had a lot of what I didn't like about the original and not enough of what I did.

This may sound like sacrilege, but I might actually welcome a reboot. It would depend on who's doing it and why, but I think that it could work. Perhaps it would work better as a series than as a film. It'd likely be a lot better received, as well. A Blade Runner series that honors the original film like The Mandalorian honors the original Star Wars trilogy could be really cool, IMO. For example, each episode could have a Deckard wannabe tracking down a replicant or lead that gets him one step closer to finding a replicant leader and uncovering something larger (sort of like the detective plot of the first season and a half of The Expanse).

 

[syz]

What if instead they rebooted it and actually adapted the book properly this time?

 

[Osprey]

What if instead they rebooted it and actually adapted the book properly this time?

I haven't read it to know if it would adapt easily, but I wonder if that would actually go over well. Most people haven't read it and know only the film, and the film is only a loose adaptation. If you make a reboot more like the novel and less like what most people know and love, will they be happy? It sounds like Blade Runner 2049 took some elements from the novel that the original film didn't and, as I just mentioned, it felt different than the original to me and it didn't do well at the box office. A close adaptation that focuses on accuracy to the novel might not be as successful as a new story that focuses on giving audiences what they love about the first movie.

 

[kihei]

Like choosing between filet mignon and lobster. I'll give the win to Villeneuve's sequel by a score of 7-6 in the fifth set. Actually I could see a case for 6-4.

 

[NyQuil]

What if instead they rebooted it and actually adapted the book properly this time?

It’s a weird story.

Personally I prefer the film.

 

[Beau Knows]

I think 2049 is better. The original gets a ton of credit for creating the mood/style of the series, but the sequel does a better job of telling a story and filling it with interesting characters.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It’s a weird story.

Personally I prefer the film.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, if properly followed, could be filmed (I mean, what can't be?) but would have approximately zero commercial potential.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Like choosing between filet mignon and lobster. I'll give the win to Villeneuve's sequel by a score of 7-6 in the fifth set. Actually I could see a case for 6-4.

I like this answer. I'd probably give the fifth set to the original, but they're both fantastic and to label one better than the other would almost be a fool's errand.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Thing is, when I think more on it (maybe a re-watch of 2049 would help) I don't know if the latter has the arresting set-designs of the original (I would have blown away by the craft and care put into Pris immobilized among J.F. Sebastian's room of misfit toys when Deckard first creeps in) but then in terms of language aesthetics and delivery, I don't think Blade Runner has anything that comes close to the baseline testing that is administered to K. I mean, I know it's lifted, but even the way it's usage and placement within the film never feels gauche and is of great use:

'A system of cells interlinked within cells interlinked. Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct Against the dark, a tall white fountain played. Interlinked.'

And the following questions seem much more satisfying than those that are asked in the original. The harsh, semi-computer-like voices rattling them off in rapid succession was (even audibly) more satisfying than Deckard or another human tester asking them. Just little details that really make a great film. I'm kind of torn.

 

[Blender]

Blade Runner is the better film, but it doesn't have the production value that 2049 has for obvious reasons, such as most of Blade Runner being filmed in the dark and in rain so you couldn't see how cheap everything was.

I will say that 2049 is one of the very few examples of sequels/prequels that are close to the original in quality. Most are terrible in comparison.

 

[HanSolo]

Watched the original in preparation for 2049 so I can't say I grew up with fond memories of the original or anything. But I have watched both films several times and adore both for different reasons.

I think it's tough to say. Objectively speaking, since 2049 is one of my favorite movies of the last decade. The original is far more iconic and influential (the entire Cyberpunk genre exists in the state that it does because of the film). And thematically it is a deeper exploration of humanity whereas 2049 sort of poses a new question within the same philosophy. Ultimately, while both films are above average in the sci-fi genre at being thought provoking stories, I think the original leaves you with more to ponder. I'd also say that Deckard works better across the runtime as a protagonist than Joe (obviously there's the issue with Deckard's seduction of Rachel that hasn't aged well at all and, really, wasn't all that awesome even judging by the standards of the day. The issue is, Joe starts out a lot more compelling than Deckard in the first half of 2049, then his role of protagonist sort of goes into cruise control until the final 20 or so minutes).

On the other hand, 2049 is clearly the more aesthetically pleasing film, the score is more memorable, the story (while thematically more simplistic) is more engaging (with more interesting characters to work with) and in my mind, more memorable. I also feel like Luv is an absolute standout of a character compared to anyone else in either film. Roy Batty is an incredibly memorable part of the original, enough that Rutger Hauer's death was notable worldwide in remembrance of his role. However I feel like Luv's presence in 2049 is far more compelling and imposing and the performance by Sylvia Hoeks is one of, if not the best part of the movie. And ultimately, as a whole, I have a more enjoyable time watching 2049 compared to the original. I'm not really going to praise the better action and fight choreography of 2049 over the original since even budgetary differences aside, filmmaking has had a lot of advancement in this regard that's unfair to the original.

The fact that the original was made so long ago, and is in my mind still so close is pretty remarkable when all's said and done. I think had it been made in this era of filmmaking there'd be little competition between the two. However, give me the option between the two for a night's viewing and I'm picking 2049 without much second thought. Blade Runner does a great many things right and definitely holds up with the weight of its above average philosophical themes, but given that 2049 packs enough of this into its runtime to compete, to me there's enough in 2049 superior over the original that I'd give it the slight edge as a piece of cinema. Still think 2049 remains underappreciated and underrated.

 

[Blender]

Watched the original in preparation for 2049 so I can't say I grew up with fond memories of the original or anything. But I have watched both films several times and adore both for different reasons.

I think it's tough to say. Objectively speaking, since 2049 is one of my favorite movies of the last decade. The original is far more iconic and influential (the entire Cyberpunk genre exists in the state that it does because of the film). And thematically it is a deeper exploration of humanity whereas 2049 sort of poses a new question within the same philosophy. Ultimately, while both films are above average in the sci-fi genre at being thought provoking stories, I think the original leaves you with more to ponder. I'd also say that Deckard works better across the runtime as a protagonist than Joe (obviously there's the issue with Deckard's seduction of Rachel that hasn't aged well at all and, really, wasn't all that awesome even judging by the standards of the day. The issue is, Joe starts out a lot more compelling than Deckard in the first half of 2049, then his role of protagonist sort of goes into cruise control until the final 20 or so minutes).

On the other hand, 2049 is clearly the more aesthetically pleasing film, the score is more memorable, the story (while thematically more simplistic) is more engaging (with more interesting characters to work with) and in my mind, more memorable. I also feel like Luv is an absolute standout of a character compared to anyone else in either film. Roy Batty is an incredibly memorable part of the original, enough that Rutger Hauer's death was notable worldwide in remembrance of his role. However I feel like Luv's presence in 2049 is far more compelling and imposing and the performance by Sylvia Hoeks is one of, if not the best part of the movie. And ultimately, as a whole, I have a more enjoyable time watching 2049 compared to the original. I'm not really going to praise the better action and fight choreography of 2049 over the original since even budgetary differences aside, filmmaking has had a lot of advancement in this regard that's unfair to the original.

The fact that the original was made so long ago, and is in my mind still so close is pretty remarkable when all's said and done. I think had it been made in this era of filmmaking there'd be little competition between the two. However, give me the option between the two for a night's viewing and I'm picking 2049 without much second thought. Blade Runner does a great many things right and definitely holds up with the weight of its above average philosophical themes, but given that 2049 packs enough of this into its runtime to compete, to me there's enough in 2049 superior over the original that I'd give it the slight edge as a piece of cinema. Still think 2049 remains underappreciated and underrated.

I actually thought the biggest thing lacking from 2049 was the Roy Batty character. I didn't find any of the villains particularly compelling or engaging in the same way that Roy Batty was. Considering both films have a fairly bland and straightforward protagonist, intentionally so, the thing that really carries Blade Runner is that the villain is the character with emotional depth and a very fleshed out personality. Really, that helps drive home on of the main themes of the original film that the main replicant displays a much broader range of emotions and is a much more compelling character than Deckard is, and it's why I always thought the "is Deckard a replicant?" question was irrelevant because the point was to question what being human really means and Roy Batty throughout the film comes off as more human than Deckard does. Hauer's acting of the character also steals the film, his performance is what is most remembered and praised, and the most famous scene in the movie is a monologue he at least partially drafted himself.

 

[Mantis]

2049 is so much better. I would let Ryan Gosling do strange things to me.

 

[HanSolo]

I actually thought the biggest thing lacking from 2049 was the Roy Batty character. I didn't find any of the villains particularly compelling or engaging in the same way that Roy Batty was. Considering both films have a fairly bland and straightforward protagonist, intentionally so, the thing that really carries Blade Runner is that the villain is the character with emotional depth and a very fleshed out personality. Really, that helps drive home on of the main themes of the original film that the main replicant displays a much broader range of emotions and is a much more compelling character than Deckard is, and it's why I always thought the "is Deckard a replicant?" question was irrelevant because the point was to question what being human really means and Roy Batty throughout the film comes off as more human than Deckard does. Hauer's acting of the character also steals the film, his performance is what is most remembered and praised, and the most famous scene in the movie is a monologue he at least partially drafted himself.

I'm not discrediting Hauer's Roy Batty in any way, shape or form. It's an iconic performance with good reason. I'd give credit to the monologue over anything Sylvia Hoekks does in 2049. But to me I found her presence as a "villain" stronger and the depth of her story characterized through the performance to be equal to, if not greater and more compelling than the Roy Batty character. But that's just a personal opinion, and one that doesn't have Hoekks all that much higher than Hauer to begin with. I don't take issue with anyone having the opinion that Roy Batty is a stronger character than Luv.

 

[NyQuil]

What I liked about Hoekks and even Gosling (in that one scene) is that they re-affirmed the challenges that replicants have in terms of controlling their emotions that even false memories don't necessarily address sufficiently.

Gosling manages to keep a lid on it until he visits the memory maker. He was called "Constant K" for a reason.

But Hoekks acts like a toddler - desperate for her parent's attention and affection, and flies into a rage when denied something.

It was consistent with the behaviour of the replicants in the original.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Did Blade Runner even officially say that Deckard was a replicant? Or is it something that came out later through: speculation, fan theories, or retroactive input from Scott?

I haven't seen the original in over 5 years but i don't ever remember watching it with the assuption Deckard wasn't human.

 

[HanSolo]

What I liked about Hoekks and even Gosling (in that one scene) is that they re-affirmed the challenges that replicants have in terms of controlling their emotions that even false memories don't necessarily address sufficiently.

Gosling manages to keep a lid on it until he visits the memory maker. He was called "Constant K" for a reason.

But Hoekks acts like a toddler - desperate for her parent's attention and affection, and flies into a rage when denied something.

It was consistent with the behaviour of the replicants in the original.

That's part of it, but the other side I found notable is the empathy that breaks out against her programming. Multiple times she cries in empathy throughout the film, but most notably as Wallace is killing another in what is presumably a long line of failed replicant experiments. She watches as she is implied to have done many times, as an ostensible family member is killed for simply not being good enough for Wallace and can only look on with tears running down her face as her programming would not allow her to help the dying replicant in any way. Throughout the film Hoekks shows that there's more humanity in Luv than she is probably supposed to have.

The tragedy of her ending, with the fight against Gosling's Joe at the end is, essentially, that Joe has achieved the free will to fight for what he cares for. Luv dies as a slave to Wallace and her programming.

Did Blade Runner even officially say that Deckard was a replicant? Or is it something that came out later through: speculation, fan theories, or retroactive input from Scott?

I haven't seen the original in over 5 years but i don't ever remember watching it with the assuption Deckard wasn't human.

I think Scott has said he was (Ford has publicly disagreed) but both the original and 2049 leave that open to interpretation. Which in 2049's case I appreciated. You can be left to wonder if Deckard fathered a child with Rachel as a human or replicant and the result is the same but the intrigue carries over.