Jump to content

Blade Runner 2049 - more human than human [Spoilers!]


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

You're making assumptions here, using an unprovable hypothesis to fit your criticisms. As far as we know K is the only replicant with Gosling's look. K is only part of his name. He has a unique serial number.

That would make it pretty tedious wouldn't it! K is the main protagonist of this story. He has to have a character arc.

I think you are rationalizing, and bending over backwards to somehow make nonsensical elements of this wreck of a story justifiable. The movie certainly doesn't go out of it's way to clearly explain these things. Instead we have the events and setting in this movie and it's prequel to help flesh out how this world works, what replicants are, how they are produced - and what they are for. I think my assumption here is based on something that is clearly demonstrated. You can disagree. But I think you have to admit that my assumption works much better within this movies logic than K being a singular -designer- unique replicant. (Which would cut against the mold and probably require an explanation - because that would be unusual). The fact that we are having this conversation makes me think this was a poorly written element of the story -- much less any of the other things I've listed above. It's either lazy -- or nebulous, or both.

I think seeing K treated like property would have been better for the dramatic arc of the story. And it would have helped the movie concentrate on the actions of a clearly worked plot, rather than the protagonist's half-baked quest for meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GallowKnight said:

The fight/chase-scene between K and Deckard was too long and drawn out. I don't really think the chase portion was necessary there. The movie was also too loud at times and almost hurt my ears at a few occasions, but that may just have been the cinema?

 

I thought it was was ok, but you are right, it's one of those sequences where I thought ,now take about 3 min. out of this and give a little more elaboration on the story. A couple of other places that happens too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, polishgenius said:



This is a good thing. Movies that trust to the viewer's intelligence and patience to work things out are great.

Those movies are bit rare these days. Actually they has never been an overabundance of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, snowleper said:

But I think you have to admit that my assumption works much better within this movies logic than K being a singular -designer- unique replicant.

If there are other replicants that look identical to K, I'd assume they'd be allocated to other cities/planets or at least departments. The human cops wouldn't like working with multiple identical replicants; they'd have too much trouble telling them apart. So K has probably never met a lookalike, if there is such a thing (adding a random factor to replicant faces doesn't seem like it would be difficult). They can make more-or-less identical replicants, but there's no evidence that it happens routinely (I suspect it probably does, but if a future movie establishes otherwise, it won't be contradicting anything we've seen so far).

9 hours ago, snowleper said:

I think seeing K treated like property would have been better for the dramatic arc of the story.

Perhaps, but living in human society is going to make him better at his job than keeping him in a box most of the time. And that's assuming keeping him in a box wouldn't drive him mad; the replicants aren't that different from humans. Also, the police union probably insists on replicants getting full pay, because otherwise the human cops would all be out of a job pretty soon (why pay a human when a replicant can do it for free?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, snowleper said:

This is assuming that any of this was a unique twist. It wasn't. It seemed very derivative of the awful shit fest that was 'Her'  --  going home and masturbating to Siri seems antithetical to the noir genre itself. Plus -- it was kinda just objectifying sexbait down to the core.

 

I absolutely disagree. Deckard's life was on the line the entire time -- much less the lives of the replicants he is brutally hunting down. The first blade runner has points when you can say it slows down -- but the movie operated very well as a hunt/chase movie, unlike the sprawling plod fest that was the sequel, where you are asked to care about the protagonists shitty fake, emotive existential journey that ultimately and very foreseeably goes nowhere. (The comparison here would be the first blade runner spending almost an hour and a half on Deckard questioning if he is real or not, and then to climax with the anticlimactic reveal that he IS real. which is very much not the case of the first movie -- although the book kinda meanders there for a time).

 

It isn't Deckard who views it that way. It's the script -- as narrated by the awful blind jesus look alike villain man who makes something along the lines of 2-3 short clichéd visits in the movie. My issue is that it isn't something that is shown -- it is something that is assumed and dictated to us. Also it makes no sense that Rachel was specifically engineered to seduce and soak up the spunk of a very specific, average police detective. That's stupid. It's not good writing. Same with the circular reasoning that the child is important because it is important. Or -- it exists ergo it is important that it exists. We are never given anything concrete about how or why this kid is special -- it's just special because the script needed it to be. With a splash of special messiah jesus bullshit thrown in because the movie had to go that extra distance to be clichéd and pseudo-religious.

--- Also, it bugged me that the movie was essentially about Rachel and her female daughter. It was pretty much their story, except they were almost entirely absent, and instead the story that circles around them is told to us by some dudes who really had nothing to do with any of it. K was boring and pointless, and Deckard was an absentee father who seemingly abandoned his daughter and pregnant repli-wench to 'protect' them -- so some weird maggot farmer could take care of them and perform what may have been a botched cesarean (which is science by the way -- not a fucking miracle) - and them dump her body in a suitcase and throw it into a hole in his backyard.

Not really. K is the lone detective, Joi is his femme fatale side kick. She's sensual and she's versatile and she's clever - but she's not particularly real either and just like K she's working within the trappings of her own existence. It's a very Blade Runner twist on a very antiquated genre. It's not just a traditional noir film, it's neo noir.

But Deckard's life didn't really matter. Batty's life and his friends didn't really matter either, the stakes were incredibly low. On one hand you had an asshole cop who's forced to kill those runaway androids, and then you have those runaway androids who don't want to harm anyone and just want to live their life as normal people. Again, without any real stakes and that actually worked in the first movie's favor - but the second movie had much bigger implications.

Deckard views it as love in the first movie, and Deckard maintains that there was love between the two of them in the second movie as well in his dialogue with K and Wallace. Hell, the movie actively points out that what Deckard considers love is pretty flimsy and is potentially just a Tyrell equation; the replicant seducing the blade runner who he himself is likely a replicant is pretty poetic, don't you think? and Tyrell sure was fond of poetic imagery. 

It's not circular reasoning you're just sort of ignoring the context of the child's existence. Him/her eisting proves that replicants can pro-create, can you not see how game changing that is? how that shatters replicant prejudice and how it changes what they are? It's not a random child we're told is important for no reason; who the child is doesn't particularly matter what matters is what they meant for the societal landscape of the world.

Rachael and the miracle child were a vehicle to peer into K and Deckard as characters. They aren't present, but it really isn't their story. They're the back drop that sets things into motion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Where is this identical replicant argument coming from? none of the replicants are identical to one another in the first movie. None of them are identical in the second movie, unless you consider Joi one. This is effectively a none argument and fan theory being presented as fact.

This movie, like the first, trusts you to use your head and figure things out rather than being spoon fed all the information. The world is so alluring partially because of that, IMO. It didn't need any unnecessary padding to go into mundane specifics about how many Goslings are produced in the world or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Фейсал said:

EDIT: Where is this identical replicant argument coming from? none of the replicants are identical to one another in the first movie. None of them are identical in the second movie, unless you consider Joi one. This is effectively a none argument and fan theory being presented as fact.

 

There's no proof for it but I think it's quite likely. From this film, the biggest hint for me is the way Wallace 'reviews the latest model'- model being a clue-word in itself there because that's normally used in a production context for a line of products, not an individual and because in that moment he also refers to there being millions of replicants and it seems unlikely he'd have the time to review each one personally. Or that from what we've seen of how they're designed, in both films, and the seeming size of the workforce of both companies couldn't possibly serve to make each one of those millions individually.

It's not hard fact but I think it's a totally workable theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Or that from what we've seen of how they're designed, in both films, and the seeming size of the workforce of both companies couldn't possibly serve to make each one of those millions individually.

On the other hand, both Wallace and Tyrell wanted replicants that could reproduce naturally because they couldn't manufacture them in sufficient quantities by the current methods, which implies it's not a straightforward mass-production process that can be scaled up. And rogue replicants can pass for human, which means there's a lot more diversity in appearance than with Cylons; if there was only a limited number of replicant faces, everyone would recognise them. It's certainly plausible that K has never seen another replicant that looks identical to him.

Whatever Wallace is reviewing, it's obviously not what the new model looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, felice said:

If there are other replicants that look identical to K, I'd assume they'd be allocated to other cities/planets or at least departments. The human cops wouldn't like working with multiple identical replicants; they'd have too much trouble telling them apart. So K has probably never met a lookalike, if there is such a thing (adding a random factor to replicant faces doesn't seem like it would be difficult). They can make more-or-less identical replicants, but there's no evidence that it happens routinely (I suspect it probably does, but if a future movie establishes otherwise, it won't be contradicting anything we've seen so far).

 

Did we even see another Blade Runners? I mean could be LAPD only need one.

In BR1 there are at least 4 cops , Gaff was an officer, was he a Blade Runner?, Holden we know was a Blade Runner and was actually supposed to show up again , from footage, but was cut, Harry Brant a police captain, and Deckard.. 

In 2049 only K and Lt. Joshi (Deckard no longer counts). 

Wonder why it is Lt Joshi? she seemed to have a captain's or higher office. O well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, felice said:

On the other hand, both Wallace and Tyrell wanted replicants that could reproduce naturally because they couldn't manufacture them in sufficient quantities by the current methods, which implies it's not a straightforward mass-production process that can be scaled up. And rogue replicants can pass for human, which means there's a lot more diversity in appearance than with Cylons; if there was only a limited number of replicant faces, everyone would recognise them. It's certainly plausible that K has never seen another replicant that looks identical to him.

Whatever Wallace is reviewing, it's obviously not what the new model looks like.

It is interesting in science fiction prose in the 1950s , androids (synthetic humans) get into situations where The Law comes into play. That is androids with all the attributes of a human have their day in court. Note: many questions raised by the film were explored on the page 1940 to 1960. Dick was also part of that but not the only author.

 

Note about androids:

 Čapek’s 'robots' are 'androids'. Well androids in the sense that prose science fiction used them starting in the mid 1940's. Dick's Androids follow the modern usage (especially from the 1950s) of androids being synthetic humans , total wet ware. I think Asimov has a lot of influence here on the word 'robot'. His robots were all 'inorganic' , mostly metal, tho not absolutely. Later some of his non 'wet ware' robots where humanoid. 
There sure was, and I still think, a sharp distinction between 'metal' robots and 'wet ware' andorids in prose science fiction.

It's odd how plots of  Čapek’s R.U.R are shadowed in the Blade Runner films, however those same plot elements, like an 'under ground android rebel society' had appeared in prose science fiction back in the 1050s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When friends ask me how I feel about this film I keep responding that I have yet to finish processing it. And now I wonder if I will ever finish processing it (without another viewing at least). 

I was involved in a heated discussion about it whilst out on Friday night when an acquaintance of mine was so angry about 'the butchery of women and the whitewashing'... I mean whitewashing probably not the accurate term but certainly it feels like we should ask, is everyone in 2049 white (except the one slave master dude)? 

Personally I was still feeling relieved that i) the film wasn't terrible and ii) we were subjected to a 'full length' gratuitous, awkward sex scene. Certainly the in/out focus/syncing, flickery effect was doing my head in from a purely visual perspective, so I was relieved it ended where it did. But anyway, I have to say I am in some agreement with my acquaintance re. the disposable nature of the female characters in this film - the new model replicant whose only purpose is to get violently hacked up and destroyed; the fight between K and Luv where there is this almost obscenely extended focus on her face while she is being killed; the two figures in Las Vegas in their open mouthed, blow job poses... What a relief that the certification screen warned me beforehand that this film contains 'sexualised nudity'. I need to review all of this on a second viewing.

One other important thing is the sound. We went to a Dolby Atmos viewing. Has anyone else seen the film in this format? Or seen any other films in this format? A friend of mine who has a PhD in sound tech told me that it is supposed to give you effects at multiple altitude levels. With surround sound you get everything at head height (whilst sitting) provided you set up your system properly. But with Atmos you can get sound from above and below too. I think the only time I noticed it during the film was near the start when K was flying back amongst the high rises and it seemed as if some sounds came from above. Other than that I didn't really notice anything different about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, felice said:

On the other hand, both Wallace and Tyrell wanted replicants that could reproduce naturally because they couldn't manufacture them in sufficient quantities by the current methods, which implies it's not a straightforward mass-production process that can be scaled up. And rogue replicants can pass for human, which means there's a lot more diversity in appearance than with Cylons; if there was only a limited number of replicant faces, everyone would recognise them. It's certainly plausible that K has never seen another replicant that looks identical to him.

Whatever Wallace is reviewing, it's obviously not what the new model looks like.

No evidence in Blade Runner 1 that Tyrell was looking for 'replicant reproduction' because he needed a faster process. Seemed Tyrell , tho we only find this out in BR 2049, made Rachel as a challenge to his abilities and an experiment to push research boundaries. Or, Rachel could have been a one off mutation occurrence of a replicant with abilities that even Tyrell did not know about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a lot to say about the film, but in brief it was good but not great -- pretty much what I expected. First film is a genuine classic, so it had a big act to follow, and predictably failed, but everyone gave a fine effort, especially on visuals and acting.

One thing that bugs me is... Wallace AND the rebels want replicants to be able to reproduce. Yes, Wallace is the authoritarian keeping the slave status quo, but he's also the only person who can unlock the secret of replicants reproduction. It seems so strange for the plot not to be about (in part) an attempt to use him to get what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really liked this movie... for a lot of reasons... but mainly because it wasn't a "remake" or a reboot, and a hackneyed re-casting  and/or re-working of the original... they merely kept the story going with a smart plot... and IMO, it really showed respect to the original....and I loved that the "swerve" was a non-swerve... knowing how Hollywood writes, I thought for sure that K was going to be Deckard and Rachael's kid... I was waiting for the awful... "It's you.... it's been you all along" trope... but then they made an executive decision to not suck....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what Wallace did to make the newer models of replicants not rebel? Clearly K shows they're capable of it and even Luv, who's largely loyal to Wallace, suggests she's not exactly following his wishes to the letter by killing the LAPD lieutenant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Isis said:

I was involved in a heated discussion about it whilst out on Friday night when an acquaintance of mine was so angry about 'the butchery of women and the whitewashing'

It's depicting a racist, misogynist society... I'm not sure to what extent that makes it a racist, misogynist film. The murder of the new model seemed like the most egregious choice (I'm sure Wallace would have treated a male model just the same), but according to wikipedia, she was played by the same actress as Luv, which would make it a much less arbitrary decision. If that's the case (I didn't notice at the time), it's also a significant point in the "are there multiple identical replicants running around" debate. And on the plus side, it does have a relatively large number of important female characters.

5 hours ago, boojam said:

No evidence in Blade Runner 1 that Tyrell was looking for 'replicant reproduction' because he needed a faster process. Seemed Tyrell , tho we only find this out in BR 2049, made Rachel as a challenge to his abilities and an experiment to push research boundaries. Or, Rachel could have been a one off mutation occurrence of a replicant with abilities that even Tyrell did not know about.

No evidence in the original film, sure; this is pure retcon. But it seems pretty clear that Wallace knew Rachael could be fertile from Tyrell records. Possibly that was the primary goal of the Nexus-7 line; and possibly the extended lifespan of the Nexus-8s was a response to the same inability to meet demand (If you can't sell all your customers a new model every four years, you may as well sell a version that will last longer).

2 hours ago, ljkeane said:

I wonder what Wallace did to make the newer models of replicants not rebel? Clearly K shows they're capable of it and even Luv, who's largely loyal to Wallace, suggests she's not exactly following his wishes to the letter by killing the LAPD lieutenant. 

I got the impression that Stelline's memory implants were making the replicants less completely obedient than they were designed to be. Perhaps that's the reason giving them real memories was illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, felice said:

It's depicting a racist, misogynist society... I'm not sure to what extent that makes it a racist, misogynist film. The murder of the new model seemed like the most egregious choice (I'm sure Wallace would have treated a male model just the same), but according to wikipedia, she was played by the same actress as Luv, which would make it a much less arbitrary decision. If that's the case (I didn't notice at the time), it's also a significant point in the "are there multiple identical replicants running around" debate. And on the plus side, it does have a relatively large number of important female characters.

I looked into the actress thing myself because you're right, it would be a significant point. IMDb has a different actress credited as "female replicant".

I completely agree with what you said about the depiction of a racist, misogynist society. The New Statesman published an article claiming it has feminist undertones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at this film and think about Blade Runner I always think about my disappointment in Paul Verhoeven's production design for his films Total Recall and Star Ship Troopers. 
Total Recall seemed to be shooting for a 'future on a chipped plate' (not fond of 'retro-future') like Blade Runner. However it only comes off half assed. 
Star Ship Troopers really does not have to have the same 'look' Blade Runner did but it's future 'domesticated future' look , especially on Earth, also looks half assed. (Does not help they screwed with Heinlein's base story.)
I think both those films could have fixed the production design by more attention to detail , hard work and imagination but didn't.
I would never compare Blade Runner to Star Wars since SW is space opera science fiction and BR is 'future fiction' SF.
It is hard to think of movies or TV that do future fiction settings on the Earth or the Solar System and have to portray a gritty lived-in-look. especially as well as the BR films have . (Star Trek does not need to , tho have do a fair job when needed.) Right now The Expanse is doing a great job of a 'blue-collar-milieu' on a bit of a constrained budget, this is a great SF show!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, felice said:

 No evidence in the original film, sure; this is pure retcon. But it seems pretty clear that Wallace knew Rachael could be fertile from Tyrell records. Possibly that was the primary goal of the Nexus-7 line; and possibly the extended lifespan of the Nexus-8s was a response to the same inability to meet demand (If you can't sell all your customers a new model every four years, you may as well sell a version that will last longer).

 

 

As I walked out of this film I had a this ‘story thought’ that would have put another real twist in the plot.

As K is about to leave Sapper's place  and drone surveys the area and spots a small box , buried next to the tree. K recovers it and keeps it for himself. Later he finally opens it and finds  two locks of hair. He has them examined. One belongs to a woman but has serial numbers on it, the other to a child with no numbers at all.

Rest of the plot the same.

Later K encounters , per the film, not  Freysa, but a thirty years older Rachel, now the leader of the underground Replicants. The kicker being that she and Deckard separated, on purpose, 30 years ago , to keep the secret and hide their daughter, she and Deckard can never see one another again.

Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ran said:

Have a lot to say about the film, but in brief it was good but not great -- pretty much what I expected. First film is a genuine classic, so it had a big act to follow, and predictably failed, but everyone gave a fine effort, especially on visuals and acting.

One thing that bugs me is... Wallace AND the rebels want replicants to be able to reproduce. Yes, Wallace is the authoritarian keeping the slave status quo, but he's also the only person who can unlock the secret of replicants reproduction. It seems so strange for the plot not to be about (in part) an attempt to use him to get what they want.

Yeah that is odd, Deckard and the Android Underground go to a ton of trouble to keep secret and hide Ana Stelline. Could Ana reproduce ? With other Replicants? What's the big miracle if there is only ONE replicant-replicant child or replicant-human child (the later is more poignant , to me). Only one and no more? A lot of fixing need here. Actually we get almost zero back story on the 'rebel replicants' even in the three added interim features on YouTube.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...