Blade Runner 2049 SPOILERS THREAD (stay out if you haven't seen it).

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10006
12 SycamoresMaybe it was permitted when she made them for K, but now it's not. Though that brings up the question of why the film would make such a point of it. My guess is we're supposed to ponder this, just as you suggest.


Well, at a superficial level, it's just a plot device (it leads K to believe he's the chosen one). But the screenwriters might have also wanted it to be a deeper thematic device for Ana's character. Maybe she broke the law because she had a motive and the stakes were high. Maybe she wanted to give replicants humanity, or hide her whereabouts, etc. But maybe not and the law didn't bear on why she did it, or it was her personal therapy, if she even made his dreams at all. I just don't think we have enough information to settle the question, but yes, I think pondering it has interesting implications for how we think about the characters.
Oct 14, 2017 5:37 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 10000
Janson Jinnistan
12 SycamoresFor JJ, you're asking the right questions.

They're just questions, Leon. ?In answer to your query, they're written down for me.

What do you mean I'm not helping??!
Oct 14, 2017 8:03 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 10000
Izzy Black
?12 SycamoresMaybe it was permitted when she made them for K, but now it's not. Though that brings up the question of why the film would make such a point of it. My guess is we're supposed to ponder this, just as you suggest.


Well, at a superficial level, it's just a plot device (it leads K to believe he's the chosen one). But the screenwriters might have also wanted it to be a deeper thematic device for Ana's character. Maybe she broke the law because she had a motive and the stakes were high. Maybe she wanted to give replicants humanity, or hide her whereabouts, etc. But maybe not and the law didn't bear on why she did it, or it was her personal therapy, if she even made his dreams at all. I just don't think we have enough information to settle the question, but yes, I think pondering it has interesting implications for how we think about the characters.


Indeed.

Blade Runner 2049 just kicks the can down the road on the Deckard Replicant mystery -- the smart move on its part. So what is this film's new lingering question? It has to have one. You wouldn't make another Blade Runner unless you had an unanswered mystery to add. Is it perhaps Ana and her motivations?

Everyone says that the whole point of Blade Runner (The Final Cut at least) is that you should question whether Deckard is a replicant but not know for sure. As far as I can tell, the only way he's NOT a replicant is if Gaff placed the unicorn there because of its symbolic significance for Deckard's situation re: Rachel, and it's merely a coincidence that Deckard also dreams of a unicorn.

Fast forward to the sequel:

I think either Ana had a motive on behalf of the replicant revolution or herself OR she put the memory in K for no real reason (maybe it wasn't illegal back then and she needed something real to work with; maybe she just wanted symbolic help carrying this trauma) and thus the memory coincidentally ended up in a replicant uniquely positioned to eventually reunite her with her father.

Some may consider the open question bad screenwriting, but: 1) This movie doesn't seem to take a lot of shortcuts elsewhere; even unpacking all the Pale Fire parallels will take the internet months, and 2) this is already a franchise whose biggest mystery involves the question of coincidence vs. design. Chance vs. build.

The more I think about it, the more I don't really consider this Ana business a plot hole and am liking it more and more.
Oct 14, 2017 8:11 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10006
12 Sycamores

The more I think about it, the more I don't really consider this Ana business a plot hole and am liking it more and more.


I don't think this question merely reflects a plot hole. It's supposed to be in some sense open ended. As I suggested on the last page, we can see it as an analogue to "Is Deckard a replicant question?" of the first film. It's a question that is left open in this film. As I noted before, in the final scene, when K hands Deckard the toy horse and says all the best memories are hers, Deckard says "Why? Who invited you?" K simply smiles in response. It seems, at some level, the film is deliberately leaving it open, and with the final scene, as Deckard places his hand on the window, it leaves open the possibility of a sequel.

What's more, a mere plot hole rarely opens the film up to rich interpretations and possibilities. I think what we have here is a case where it's underdetermined by evidence what the correct interpretation is.
Oct 14, 2017 8:18 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 10000
Izzy Black
?12 Sycamores

The more I think about it, the more I don't really consider this Ana business a plot hole and am liking it more and more.


I don't think this question merely reflects a plot hole. It's supposed to be in some sense open ended. As I suggested on the last page, we can see it as an analogue to "Is Deckard a replicant question?" of the first film.?

I just now read that on the last page. Sorry. So we feel the same.

What I find interesting is, I never really bought into the "mystery" of Deckard as a replicant in the Final Cut, simply because it would take such a huge coincidence for that finale to work if he's not one. But now that we have 2049, it retroactively makes me more accepting of the entire series being one questioning coincidence vs. design. Hell, you could take that all the way through theology if you wanted and teach 10 college seminars. We're really lucky we got a thought-provoking sequel -- one that seems to, at first glance anyway, have further enriched the original rather than just taking its check and heading to the bar.
Oct 14, 2017 8:23 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10006
12 Sycamores
I never really bought into the "mystery" of Deckard as a replicant in the Final Cut.


The mystery is based on various versions and intepretations of the film. In this film, Villeneuve seems set on keeping the mystery alive by making it deliberately open, which goes along with the openness of Ana's actions and K's memories.
Oct 14, 2017 8:38 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11784
12 Sycamores
Blade Runner 2049 just kicks the can down the road on the Deckard Replicant mystery -- the smart move on its part.

If Deckard is a human, then the child is a hybrid. This would not be a pure replication. A miracle would be a Replicant successfully breeding with a Replicant.

Wallace notes that the only thing prevented human slavery as a way to solve the labor problem that each great empire faces was a prevailing sentiment against human slavery. Half human slaves won't solve his problem. Right or wrong, despite the fact that they have sentient creatures which are indistinguishable from humans, human slavery is not allowed, so Wallace needs pure inhumans .

The whole business is preposterous because at the point that you can build up a complex organism like a human being up, from the cellular level (we see serial codes on cells), old school-pokey-pokey-reproduction is a piece of cake. It's like imagining a world that has figured out cold fusion, but for some reason it cannot figure out the incandescent light-bulb.

It's also anti-Capitalist, which is at odds with the profit motive of a company - people buying more products keeps you in business.

It's also very dangerous, seeing as how they've had Replicant revolts before (i.e., the reason Blade Runner units were created). Sexual reproduction means they can exist as an autonomous master race, and random genetic shuffling would likely kill any genetic fail safes built into the system, supposing those failsafes were genetic to begin with (e.g., the newer models might be docile because of their implants, their cognitive software, which makes more sense in terms of direct control - and if THIS is the case, newborn Replicants would have NO inbuilt qualms about a slave uprising!).

Oct 14, 2017 9:03 PM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46826
Puffin Nubbins
12 Sycamores
Blade Runner 2049 just kicks the can down the road on the Deckard Replicant mystery -- the smart move on its part.

If Deckard is a human, then the child is a hybrid. This would not be a pure replication. A miracle would be a Replicant successfully breeding with a Replicant.

Wallace notes that the only thing prevented human slavery as a way to solve the labor problem that each great empire faces was a prevailing sentiment against human slavery. Half human slaves won't solve his problem. Right or wrong, despite the fact that they have sentient creatures which are indistinguishable from humans, human slavery is not allowed, so Wallace needs pure inhumans .

The whole business is preposterous because at the point that you can build up a complex organism like a human being up, from the cellular level (we see serial codes on cells), old school-pokey-pokey-reproduction is a piece of cake. It's like imagining a world that has figured out cold fusion, but for some reason it cannot figure out the incandescent light-bulb.

It's also anti-Capitalist, which is at odds with the profit motive of a company - people buying more products keeps you in business.

It's also very dangerous, seeing as how they've had Replicant revolts before (i.e., the reason Blade Runner units were created). Sexual reproduction means they can exist as an autonomous master race, and random genetic shuffling would likely kill any genetic fail safes built into the system, supposing those failsafes were genetic to begin with (e.g., the newer models might be docile because of their implants, their cognitive software, which makes more sense in terms of direct control - and if THIS is the case, newborn Replicants would have NO inbuilt qualms about a slave uprising!).


While the mystery of Replicant procreation may be far fetched in principal, I want to offer a few potential and hinted at possibilities:
-The implication is that it takes longer than 9 months to grow a Replicant. Wallace likely doesn't want ALL Replicants to breed for the reasons you mentioned. I would assume he would want to create and control breeders and sell the newborn Replicants.
- Female Replicants are firmly established to be infertile. He doesn't castrate a male Replicant in frustration or talk about their testicles emptiness. Rachel is the only certain Replicant in this scenario. Cross breeding doesn't inherently negate that the mystery of female Replicant breeding would be solved thus allowing him to achieve his goals. For all we know, he can get male Replicants to produce viable seed if he were to choose.
-Given K's desire for self preservation and ultimate attaining of autonomy, it seems as though Wallace actually just creates the illusion of Replicants that can't say no. Given that background and "baseline" conditioning that he enforces upon his models, and the implication that those that fail a test are killed, if we trust Joshi's statement, it would seem as though it's less "programing" in the computer sense and more highly complex brainwashing and monitoring. Because they believe they can't say no, they don't.
Oct 14, 2017 9:24 PM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46826
Izzy Black
?12 SycamoresMaybe it was permitted when she made them for K, but now it's not. Though that brings up the question of why the film would make such a point of it. My guess is we're supposed to ponder this, just as you suggest.


Well, at a superficial level, it's just a plot device (it leads K to believe he's the chosen one). But the screenwriters might have also wanted it to be a deeper thematic device for Ana's character. Maybe she broke the law because she had a motive and the stakes were high. Maybe she wanted to give replicants humanity, or hide her whereabouts, etc. But maybe not and the law didn't bear on why she did it, or it was her personal therapy, if she even made his dreams at all. I just don't think we have enough information to settle the question, but yes, I think pondering it has interesting implications for how we think about the characters.

She states in the scene that the best memory manufacturers always "put a little of themselves" in the memory. If she fabricated a proxy dream that emulates her own childhood, who would there be to say that it was real? She has a fabricated identity that wouldn't lead back to that orphanage. I would suspect it to be a subtle form of resistance and subversion matched by nostalgia for a childhood outside of her bubble, as rough as it may have seemed.
Oct 14, 2017 9:29 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11784
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
12 Sycamores
Blade Runner 2049 just kicks the can down the road on the Deckard Replicant mystery -- the smart move on its part.

If Deckard is a human, then the child is a hybrid. This would not be a pure replication. A miracle would be a Replicant successfully breeding with a Replicant.

Wallace notes that the only thing prevented human slavery as a way to solve the labor problem that each great empire faces was a prevailing sentiment against human slavery. Half human slaves won't solve his problem. Right or wrong, despite the fact that they have sentient creatures which are indistinguishable from humans, human slavery is not allowed, so Wallace needs pure inhumans .

The whole business is preposterous because at the point that you can build up a complex organism like a human being up, from the cellular level (we see serial codes on cells), old school-pokey-pokey-reproduction is a piece of cake. It's like imagining a world that has figured out cold fusion, but for some reason it cannot figure out the incandescent light-bulb.

It's also anti-Capitalist, which is at odds with the profit motive of a company - people buying more products keeps you in business.

It's also very dangerous, seeing as how they've had Replicant revolts before (i.e., the reason Blade Runner units were created). Sexual reproduction means they can exist as an autonomous master race, and random genetic shuffling would likely kill any genetic fail safes built into the system, supposing those failsafes were genetic to begin with (e.g., the newer models might be docile because of their implants, their cognitive software, which makes more sense in terms of direct control - and if THIS is the case, newborn Replicants would have NO inbuilt qualms about a slave uprising!).


While the mystery of Replicant procreation may be far fetched in principal, I want to offer a few potential and hinted at possibilities:
-The implication is that it takes longer than 9 months to grow a Replicant. Wallace likely doesn't want ALL Replicants to breed for the reasons you mentioned. I would assume he would want to create and control breeders and sell the newborn Replicants.
- Female Replicants are firmly established to be infertile. He doesn't castrate a male Replicant in frustration or talk about their testicles emptiness. Rachel is the only certain Replicant in this scenario. Cross breeding doesn't inherently negate that the mystery of female Replicant breeding would be solved thus allowing him to achieve his goals. For all we know, he can get male Replicants to produce viable seed if he were to choose.
-Given K's desire for self preservation and ultimate attaining of autonomy, it seems as though Wallace actually just creates the illusion of Replicants that can't say no. Given that background and "baseline" conditioning that he enforces upon his models, and the implication that those that fail a test are killed, if we trust Joshi's statement, it would seem as though it's less "programing" in the computer sense and more highly complex brainwashing and monitoring. Because they believe they can't say no, they don't.

The McGuffin of this film is very weak, as weak as the notion that AI would want to keep humans around as batteries in The Matrix. It's just dumb, and you have to squint at it for the film to work.

We don't know if the boys are shooting blanks or not. If not, however, WE SHOULD ALREADY HAVE hybrid Replicant reproduction. Humans, male and female, have always copulated with their slaves. Even Cap'n Madame makes a pass at K (What happens if I finish this drink?). Moreover, it is already established that Replicants serve as pleasure models and we see Joi selling a female executive on the idea of some pleasure models. If things are as you say they are, why has there only been one "miracle"? Why haven't they studied the off-spring of male replicant/female human offspring?

I get that you're speculating that he is purposefully anticipating this with your speculation that Wallace is intentionally holding male Replicants back, somehow, in terms of fertility. But you ARE speculating here.

The simplest explanation for why he guts a woman rather than castrates a male is that we are cultural fixated on wombs being the magical vault housing the mystery of life. Hence we have phrases like "The womb of creation" and so on and not "The nutsack of genius."

The implication is not necessarily that it takes more time to make a Replicant, per se. It may be that producing Replicants is resource intensive in a way that it would not be profitable to produce them at a faster rate.

As for K, we should be careful to note that he NEVER violates his Asimov-rules about killing humans. He fights Luv. Luv is a Replicant. He hits Morgan, but he does this within his police powers as a Blade Runner. He goes off baseline, but he never goes batty.
Oct 14, 2017 9:47 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1920
12 Sycamores
Izzy Black
?12 SycamoresMaybe it was permitted when she made them for K, but now it's not. Though that brings up the question of why the film would make such a point of it. My guess is we're supposed to ponder this, just as you suggest.


Well, at a superficial level, it's just a plot device (it leads K to believe he's the chosen one). But the screenwriters might have also wanted it to be a deeper thematic device for Ana's character. Maybe she broke the law because she had a motive and the stakes were high. Maybe she wanted to give replicants humanity, or hide her whereabouts, etc. But maybe not and the law didn't bear on why she did it, or it was her personal therapy, if she even made his dreams at all. I just don't think we have enough information to settle the question, but yes, I think pondering it has interesting implications for how we think about the characters.


Indeed.

Blade Runner 2049 just kicks the can down the road on the Deckard Replicant mystery -- the smart move on its part. So what is this film's new lingering question? It has to have one. You wouldn't make another Blade Runner unless you had an unanswered mystery to add. Is it perhaps Ana and her motivations?

Everyone says that the whole point of Blade Runner (The Final Cut at least) is that you should question whether Deckard is a replicant but not know for sure. As far as I can tell, the only way he's NOT a replicant is if Gaff placed the unicorn there because of its symbolic significance for Deckard's situation re: Rachel, and it's merely a coincidence that Deckard also dreams of a unicorn.

Fast forward to the sequel:

I think either Ana had a motive on behalf of the replicant revolution or herself OR she put the memory in K for no real reason (maybe it wasn't illegal back then and she needed something real to work with; maybe she just wanted symbolic help carrying this trauma) and thus the memory coincidentally ended up in a replicant uniquely positioned to eventually reunite her with her father.

Some may consider the open question bad screenwriting, but: 1) This movie doesn't seem to take a lot of shortcuts elsewhere; even unpacking all the Pale Fire parallels will take the internet months, and 2) this is already a franchise whose biggest mystery involves the question of coincidence vs. design. Chance vs. build.

The more I think about it, the more I don't really consider this Ana business a plot hole and am liking it more and more.

I'd flip that. I agree the point should be to question the possibility. But the conclusion that most people had drawn at the point prior to 2049 is all the evidence points to Deckard is just a human. Nothing about what we know of him or the replicants makes any sense. Ridley Scott was forcing a personal theory which didn't fit with the story. This is backed up by the writers, the book actors and lighting crew And so I have never placed a lot of cred in anything but the unicorn being symbolic of say Rachel's uniqueness or specialness. To me that's more the reaction Ford has on his face when he picks up the origami. An understanding between two cops. That's not the face of someone realizing he is a replicant. But I am flexible enough to think its fine to make a viewer consider his humanity. In short the bulk film on the scales outweighs by far the power of the origami dream.
Oct 14, 2017 11:01 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1920
Puffin Nubbins
The McGuffin of this film is very weak, as weak as the notion that AI would want to keep humans around as batteries in The Matrix. It's just dumb, and you have to squint at it for the film to work.


Come on dude. Using humans as batteries was an awesome idea as well as the visual that went along with it.
And a lesser point is I don't think either is a MacGuffin.
Oct 14, 2017 11:12 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1424
Do androids dream of electric sheep? Yeah, if its in their programming.?

I always have a hard time buying into the way that movies tend to over romanticize A.I. As if there is some magical althorithm for free will. I dont feel like the arguement being made here is compelling enough. Without (human) input what is to keep these machines from simply stagnating? Does my computer ponder the mysteries of the universe when I stop using it? Doubtful.

Ironically, I felt like this movie was missing a human component. Where are all of the people that inhabit those bleak landscapes? Am I selfish for not caring about machines going through existential crisis in a future where humanity has no meaning?

Maybe I'm horribly wrong and I'll be first in line for the death squads when our robot overlords assume control.

I still enjoyed the movie, but its a shame the weed had to ware off.
Oct 15, 2017 5:48 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11784
Robin McDonald
Puffin Nubbins
The McGuffin of this film is very weak, as weak as the notion that AI would want to keep humans around as batteries in The Matrix. It's just dumb, and you have to squint at it for the film to work.


Come on dude. Using humans as batteries was an awesome idea as well as the visual that went along with it.
And a lesser point is I don't think either is a MacGuffin.


In The Matrix they have no reason to keep humans around after winning the war. The very premise paints the film into a corner.
The way out is to make humans necessary in some way.

But why would machines or aliens need people?

This is a tough one. Where Dark City offers up romantic speculation about unique properties of the human soul or some bullshit, The Matrix takes the "bro-science" route by asserting that robots need humans as batteries, which is a quite preposterous idea. It takes a lot of energy and maintenance to grow and sustain a human. It's just about the most inefficient power scheme imaginable. But if you don't think about this too much, the rest of the film is great fun.

Perhaps not a MacGuffin, but arguably something deeper, the very premise.
Oct 15, 2017 7:03 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1920
Puffin Nubbins
Robin McDonald
Puffin Nubbins
The McGuffin of this film is very weak, as weak as the notion that AI would want to keep humans around as batteries in The Matrix. It's just dumb, and you have to squint at it for the film to work.


Come on dude. Using humans as batteries was an awesome idea as well as the visual that went along with it.
And a lesser point is I don't think either is a MacGuffin.


In The Matrix they have no reason to keep humans around after winning the war. The very premise paints the film into a corner.
The way out is to make humans necessary in some way.

But why would machines or aliens need people?

This is a tough one. Where Dark City offers up romantic speculation about unique properties of the human soul or some bullshit, The Matrix takes the "bro-science" route by asserting that robots need humans as batteries, which is a quite preposterous idea. It takes a lot of energy and maintenance to grow and sustain a human. It's just about the most inefficient power scheme imaginable. But if you don't think about this too much, the rest of the film is great fun.

Perhaps not a MacGuffin, but arguably something deeper, the very premise.

It didn't really have to make sense. When I think of how much we can do in a day living on a paste, in a weird way it makes sense unexpended energy could be utilized.? If you had a dozen carrots and water what could you generate with that energy wise.? Maybe a human or animal is an amazing evolvement of efficient energy processing. But the important thing in any movie is to create a visceral emotional experience for the audience. They imagine the claustrophobic buried alive horror and alien probing violating all the sanctity of your body. The whole visual was very Geigeresque and effective. Its mostly a visual whose technology isn't deeply probed. The idea also is that humanity is imprisoned believing itself to be alive and real but is being placated in the Matrix.
Oct 15, 2017 9:16 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11784
Robin McDonald
It didn't really have to make sense. When I think of how much we can do in a day living on a paste, in a weird way it makes sense unexpended energy could be utilized.? If you had a dozen carrots and water what could you generate with that energy wise.? Maybe a human or animal is an amazing evolvement of efficient energy processing. But the important thing in any movie is to create a visceral emotional experience for the audience. They imagine the claustrophobic buried alive horror and alien probing violating all the sanctity of your body. The whole visual was very Geigeresque and effective. Its mostly a visual whose technology isn't deeply probed. The idea also is that humanity is imprisoned believing itself to be alive and real but is being placated in the Matrix.

That it didn't have to makes sense is proved in the film's returns.
If you had a dozen carrots and water what could you generate with that energy wise.? Maybe a human or animal is an amazing evolvement of efficient energy processing.


But humans are not a marvel of energy processing. Humans are NOT a source of energy, first of all. You have to expend a lot of energy to even make a human and once you've made a human, you have to keep sinking energy into that system to keep it going. The reason why animals, and especially predators are on the narrow end of the pyramid is because you lose energy going up the pyramid. There is not enough energy in the system to sustain as many tigers as there are plants.


We're going through an extinction level event right now, precisely because there are too many humans on the planet. 50% of animal and plant life has disappeared in the last 40 years. They're calling it the "anthropocene" - this time we're the meteor that is going to destroy life on Earth.

At any rate, a human is not a source of energy, but rather an energy sink. That is, if you put in more energy that you will ever pull back out, you can temporarily store energy in a human body.



This means that humans cannot be the solution to robots energy problem (i.e., the sun blocked out by clouds). Geothermal energy would work fine. Nuclear energy would work fine. Wind energy would work fine. But you can't explain why robots still need humans if they have these sources. The bro-science just doesn't work out on this one. You just have to squint and move.

Ditto for sexual reproduction and Blade Runner 2049. If you can build cells from the ground up, and they can, then there is no deep mystery. A normal human engages in cell replication all the time to stay alive and that old Replicants age indicates that they have telomeres and go through the aging process of cell replication within the body like the rest of us. There is no great added mystery to cell replication via the sexual route. Nature has been doing it for quite a long time without any consciousness to guide her. And the cellular structures she's given us, the one's Wallace can build from the ground up, already contain this simple trick in their genetic code. You just have to squint and move on.


As for it being effective emotionally/psychologically in The Matrix, you bet I agree with you entirely here. Indeed, the emotional fit in that film made it easier to squint at this film's conceit. With 2049, I have to squint a little harder.




Oct 15, 2017 9:47 PM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 10631
So was Joshi a replicant? I didn't think she was until her almost non-reaction to having her hand broken while holding a glass.?
Oct 17, 2017 2:17 AM
0 0
Stu
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 67249
Just got finished writing something about this; long review short, Blade Runner 2049 isn't a perfect film, but I couldn't help but find it a compelling experience anyway. The visuals are breathtaking, the concepts and themes are fascinating and thought-provoking, and it's the rare sequel to an iconic original that (mostly) avoids coasting on nostalgia, but rather, actually does something to develop the world created in the original, making for a "blade" that, flaws and all, I didn't regret running at all.
Oct 17, 2017 4:08 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11784
A Gradatio

3 cars pass us on the street, moving from right to left.

First, an old VW Bug. Does it belong in this world? This car would be nearly a century old in this film. It does, because it connects us to the "retrofitting" theme of the original. This was a car from the past, even in 2019.

Second, a future-car that looks a Syd Meade design from the original film. This fits the theme of the futurism of the original film. The retrofitting, after all, was partially a compromise given the limitations of the budget of the original. Instead of building a whole new street set, they grafted pipes and lights and wires over city set. This is a car which would have been from the present of 2019.

Third, a futuristic battery-powered car projected from our modern view of the future, something futuristic relative to even our past vision of "2019."

In this little scene on the street, past, present, and future go streaming by, honoring all the design elements of the original film. The film is chock full of little Easter Eggs like this (Too many for my liking. The music cues and sound effects they lift from the original, for me, is like a grating Wilhelm Scream after awhile).
Oct 17, 2017 4:55 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8229
On its own terms I felt it was an effective film but I do have to say that unlike a lot of reviewers it didn't really feel very similar in style to the original for me. Indeed if I was being a bit cynical it almost feels like the kind of film that a lot of audiences who only semi embrace the original for its visuals actually wanted, less of an arty philosophical drama and more of an action thriller with obvious good/bad dividing lines.

Honestly I'm reminded much more of Nolan's sci fi work than I am early Ridley Scott here(or Kubrick who he obviously idolised) with a film that seems to work within safer down to earth "serious" bounds rather than looking to embrace a more characterful style. A lot of the appeal of the original though is I think the shear amount of character it has running thoughout it, whether in the visuals, the writing or the characterisation. The classic example of course being Hauers unhinged Batty who becomes for me vastly more effective due to it.

A combination of this and looking to stick rather too close to elements of the original for me does hold the sequel back from greatness. I'm generally a fan of Gosling and have defended his more "stoic" performances as being strong but honestly for much of this film he did seem like he was pushing into simply being passive and dull, partly due I think to a mismatch in story. Whilst the film wanted him operating on a vaguely similar level of Deckard his situation was obviously very different as a knowing replicant semi slave forced to keep to certain emotional limits

In a similar fashion I felt it slipped rather too easily back into the godlike creator role with Wallace but shifted him into honestly a rather clich?d Bond villain kind of role with Luv as his henchwoman. Surely a much more effective route to take would have been to follow though on having Robin Wrights Joshi(probably the best performance of the film as it is)?and the LAPD as antagonists? the motivation is already there afterall and a lot more morally nuanced plus again it would play much more easily into the drama of K's situation.

There has been some talk of sexism in the film and whilst I'm not sure I agree with that in terms of the basic presentation of the characters that are afterall in a dystopian world there does feel a bit more merit in terms of focus/depth to me. In the original afterall Racheal was given a pretty central role with a self motivated plot and whilst Pris and Zora aren't given as much depth they do both have character and a lot of bite to their stories. Here not only does Wright end up underused for me but even more obviously K's hologirl Joi feels delt with in a very unsatisfactory fashion for me. In the early stages of the film I think she actually stands out as one of the most effective elements playing on the ambiguity of her true level of self awareness and the obvious power imbalance between them. To go to that trouble and then basically dismiss the character via cutting to a billboard advertising her true nature to me feels incredibly clumsy, surely this is something that could/should have been addressed in a scene between the actors? After that point she ends up largely sidelined and then is killed off as a rather cheap revenge motivation.
Oct 17, 2017 6:32 AM
0 0