Blade Runner or 2049?

[Mr Fahrenheit]

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.

It feels like a George Lucas scenario but in the movie, Deckard has a "dream" of a unicorn and at the end of the movie Gaff makes an origami unicorn for him, calling back to Deckard interrogating Rachael and knowing her memories that other people wouldn't know because they were programmed

 

[Eisen]

To me it's the original, just because of Hauer and the cyberpunk atmosphere (the contrast between sterility and grime is better there).

 

[NyQuil]

It feels like a George Lucas scenario but in the movie, Deckard has a "dream" of a unicorn and at the end of the movie Gaff makes an origami unicorn for him, calling back to Deckard interrogating Rachael and knowing her memories that other people wouldn't know because they were programmed

In the Director's Cut and Final Cut versions.

In the theatrical version, those scenes are cut. Depending on which version they have seen, they may have missed it.

 

[NyQuil]

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.

What do you mean by programming?

Are you referring to something along the lines of this:

Tears of a Machine: The Humanity of Luv in "Blade Runner 2049" | Features | Roger Ebert

Personally I disagree with the premise. I never got the sense that she was an unwilling participant in Wallace's plan.

Her operating principle was to be the best of all of the replicants and prove herself to her "father".

The two examples cited in the article, I actually see differently.

1. When she cries during the stabbing of the newly born replicant.

Another interpretation of that scene could be that she sees in the murdered replicant a reminder that she herself, is unable to have children, and therefore not living up to Wallace's standard for replicant perfection.

Or a realization that she too is replaceable if she fails to assert her position as the best of the replicants.

It's a plausible view of the character given how often she tries to measure herself against others.

2. She cries upon hearing the knowledge that the child is dead.

“In the face of the fabulous new, your only thought is to kill it ... out of fear of great change."

The author believes that she internally hopes for some form of future for her species.

"It isn’t until later that Luv realizes this news may not be the truth. However, this miracle child, if found, would symbolize hope and change and love to all synthetic life."

Personally, I think it has more to do with the failure in her mission and the failure of Wallace's plan. She ties her own worth and well-being to meeting his needs. Her job was to bring the child to Wallace in order to enact his plan for conquering the stars. The death of the child potentially ends that dream and her role in it.

Humans, particularly children, can be motivated similarly without any need for technological "programming". Behavioural programming sure, but that's irrespective of whether she's a replicant or not.

I am sympathetic to Luv, certainly, but that never extended to where I think she ever second-guessed her actions or took issue with anything that Wallace was undertaking.

The Rachel clone was executed by Luv without any restraint or regret that I could distinguish. Rachel failed in her purpose and had no further utility.

With respect to non-replicants, they also hardly warranted notice. Luv took actual glee in destroying Joi and executing Madam, and barely registered the death of the forensic scientist.

Her psychopathy appeared to be linked to her overwhelming desire to assert her superiority and worth to everyone, but particularly to Wallace.

"I'm the best one."

Again, just my thoughts and interpretations of the film. I am sure there are many.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

In the Director's Cut and Final Cut versions.

In the theatrical version, those scenes are cut. Depending on which version they have seen, they may have missed it.

The point being that it is proof that were scenes originally filmed and used in the movie, not just the director making the claim after the fact like Lucas

 

[NyQuil]

The point being that it is proof that were scenes originally filmed and used in the movie, not just the director making the claim after the fact like Lucas

Basically I was referencing the fact that someone might not understand why people think Deckard is a replicant if those scenes were omitted in the version they saw.

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

If someone was watching the "original" it could very well be the theatrical cut where there is no unicorn dream.

 

[HugoSimon]

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.

I'd radically disagree with this. Blade Runner is all feel and tone. BR2049 was very sterile tone wise, which is by far it's biggest problem. I'd argue 2049 did almost everything else better.

 

[HanSolo]

What do you mean by programming?

Are you referring to something along the lines of this:

Tears of a Machine: The Humanity of Luv in "Blade Runner 2049" | Features | Roger Ebert

Personally I disagree with the premise. I never got the sense that she was an unwilling participant in Wallace's plan.

Her operating principle was to be the best of all of the replicants and prove herself to her "father".

The two examples cited in the article, I actually see differently.

1. When she cries during the stabbing of the newly born replicant.

Another interpretation of that scene could be that she sees in the murdered replicant a reminder that she herself, is unable to have children, and therefore not living up to Wallace's standard for replicant perfection.

Or a realization that she too is replaceable if she fails to assert her position as the best of the replicants.

It's a plausible view of the character given how often she tries to measure herself against others.

2. She cries upon hearing the knowledge that the child is dead.

“In the face of the fabulous new, your only thought is to kill it ... out of fear of great change."

The author believes that she internally hopes for some form of future for her species.

"It isn’t until later that Luv realizes this news may not be the truth. However, this miracle child, if found, would symbolize hope and change and love to all synthetic life."

Personally, I think it has more to do with the failure in her mission and the failure of Wallace's plan. She ties her own worth and well-being to meeting his needs. Her job was to bring the child to Wallace in order to enact his plan for conquering the stars. The death of the child potentially ends that dream and her role in it.

Humans, particularly children, can be motivated similarly without any need for technological "programming". Behavioural programming sure, but that's irrespective of whether she's a replicant or not.

I am sympathetic to Luv, certainly, but that never extended to where I think she ever second-guessed her actions or took issue with anything that Wallace was undertaking.

The Rachel clone was executed by Luv without any restraint or regret that I could distinguish. Rachel failed in her purpose and had no further utility.

With respect to non-replicants, they also hardly warranted notice. Luv took actual glee in destroying Joi and executing Madam, and barely registered the death of the forensic scientist.

Her psychopathy appeared to be linked to her overwhelming desire to assert her superiority and worth to everyone, but particularly to Wallace.

"I'm the best one."

Again, just my thoughts and interpretations of the film. I am sure there are many.

That article more or less aligns with my feelings but your interpretations could be correct. Either way, I think whatever the interpretation, she's a far more compelling character and Hoekks' nuanced performance really sells that.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

This thread made me go back and watch both films, but it didn't change my mind. I think Blade Runner 2049 tells a more complex story, and is a prettier film (aesthetics, rythm,... Villeneuve's film is beautiful), but I think the original is a far more complex - and therefore more interesting - film. Some of the original ideas and thematics feel lessened or misunderstood (most of all that picture that's slowly moving, a door to complex musing in the original, used as a meaningless futuristic device in the sequel). Still, two very good sci-fi films.

 

[Fantomas]

One can make many different arguments in favour of the first film. I would point to following few things that I believe work in the original's favour:

1. Rutger Hauer's performance is exhilarating. I go back to this film again and again just to see him act. Who rivals him in the second film? Jared Leto? LOL. And the man part-improvises one of the most iconic soliloquies in movie history in the climax. Legend. I'll give Ryan Gosling a break - he's just as boring as Harrison and I guess that was always the point. But old Harrison is shoehorned into the second film simply for fan service. He shouldn't be there and looks ridiculous.

2. The film's understated humour. Rutger is funny - and simultaneously menacing - in many scenes. But there's also that accent Deckard does at the club. Laugh out loud every time. The sequel is way too pompous.

3. The environment, which is so vast and complex. There's a reason that urban metropolis inspired so many variations in movies and video games. Is there anything as cool in the second film? No. It's like old dirty LA versus the new cleaned up LA. You can bring your kids to the latter one and visit the cute outlet malls. Pranzo is right to say that it's pretty. But are so are Marvel movies.

4. The faces. Woody Allen often cast actors for their faces and not just their acting, and there's a reason for that. Expressive, unique faces really stay with you. Sean Young is gorgeous in this. And Ridley Scott probably saw The Shining and cast Joe Turkel. Such an odd-looking duck that guy. And of course Darryl Hannah (could have been Debbie Harry, I hear), JE Olmos and of course Rutger. William Sanderson is perfect. Compare this cast with the second film. I like MacKenzie Davis, but Ana de Armas didn't impress me. Not even close.

5. The music. Must I explain? Vangelis's score never leaves your dreams. Whereas Hans Zimmer is a living cliche.

I'm done.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

One can make many different arguments in favour of the first film. I would point to following few things that I believe work in the original's favour:

1. Rutger Hauer's performance is exhilarating. I go back to this film again and again just to see him act. Who rivals him in the second film? Jared Leto? LOL. And the man part-improvises one of the most iconic soliloquies in movie history in the climax. Legend. I'll give Ryan Gosling a break - he's just as boring as Harrison and I guess that was always the point. But old Harrison is shoehorned into the second film simply for fan service. He shouldn't be there and looks ridiculous.

2. The film's understated humour. Rutger is funny - and simultaneously menacing - in many scenes. But there's also that accent Deckard does at the club. Laugh out loud every time. The sequel is way too pompous.

3. The environment, which is so vast and complex. There's a reason that urban metropolis inspired so many variations in movies and video games. Is there anything as cool in the second film? No. It's like old dirty LA versus the new cleaned up LA. You can bring your kids to the latter one and visit the cute outlet malls. Pranzo is right to say that it's pretty. But are so are Marvel movies.

4. The faces. Woody Allen often cast actors for their faces and not just their acting, and there's a reason for that. Expressive, unique faces really stay with you. Sean Young is gorgeous in this. And Ridley Scott probably saw The Shining and cast Joe Turkel. Such an odd-looking duck that guy. And of course Darryl Hannah (could have been Debbie Harry, I hear), JE Olmos and of course Rutger. William Sanderson is perfect. Compare this cast with the second film. I like MacKenzie Davis, but Ana de Armas didn't impress me. Not even close.

5. The music. Must I explain? Vangelis's score never leaves your dreams. Whereas Hans Zimmer is a living cliche.

I'm done.

Some interesting points, especially about faces. Though I do think Gosling blows Harrison out of the water. He has the better character and beyond that, comparing their acting abilities is not a fair fight.

 

[Fantomas]

Some interesting points, especially about faces. Though I do think Gosling blows Harrison out of the water. He has the better character and beyond that, comparing their acting abilities is not a fair fight.

Gosling is zzzzzzz. The one expression on his face at all times.

Harrison is well cast for the role of the noir protagonist who's over his head. It suits him.