Blade Runner 2049 - 10.6.17 (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

How does a projector screen die?

A manufacturing defect caused the white screen material to detach from the frame.

 

[Nelson Au]

Seeing the first film is a good idea before seeing the second.

Spoiler: Connections between the first film and 2049

When I watched 2049 the first time, I had no idea Rachel would actually show up. So it gave me chills how well they recreated her with CGI. It was a real spooky scene.

 

[Tim Glover]

Hi Tim

Like Josh said it works both as a stand-alone and follow up. You don’t need to see the first one but it certainly helps.

I actually have always found the first one rather dull while the sequel I think is tremendous. And absolutely stands on its own.

Cheers Tim

Thank you Tino!

 

[The Drifter]

I'm a huge fan of the original '82 Blade Runner. I missed it in the theater when it was first released (too young), but have seen it multiple times since the early '90's. I also saw the 2007 cut theatrically, and it was one of my greatest theatrical movie experiences (though I preferred the '82 cut, with the HF voice-over).

So, I wasn't sure what I would think of BR 2049, but decided to give it a chance. I saw it last year on Blu...and felt it was an amazing sci-fi film. It both paid homage to the original & at the same time has a completely unique story. I liked how it was a sequel to the original, but at the same time wasn't a re-make (like some sequels are).

Visually, this film was also amazing & sublime...and, like the original, does an incredible job in fully creating an obviously futuristic & grim world - with some familiarity to our current one.

Making the Ryan Gosling character in 2049

Spoiler: SPOILER

a replicant himself - who is hunting down & destroying other replicants - is quite compelling.

Going along with this, the theme of what it means to be human was the underlying element in both BR films. I.e., can humans create something that has just as much - or more - human emotion/humanity/empathy than humans themselves?! This has been examined in other sci-fi films/TV series over the years (2001 ASO, the Terminator movies, AI: Artificial Intelligence, The re-imagined Battlestar Galactica TV series, etc.) but is explored very effectively in these BR movies.

The idea that replicants can breed & have children - just like humans - was an interesting idea as well. And, that being the case - what truly separates the robots from the humans?! Nothing (or almost nothing) as far as I can tell.

Also, I thought it was clever to try to sync up (as much as possible) the original to the 2049 sequel in "real time". I.e., the original BR took place in 2019, and 2049 is 30 years later. In "real time", the original came out in '82, and 2049 was released in 2017 - so, 35 years later - which isn't that far off (i.e., it's not like it's ten years off).

What was also a revelation (to me at least) is that,

Spoiler: SPOILER

based on 2049, it appears that neither Deckard (Harrison Ford) or Gaff (Edward James Olmos) were replicants. I.e., they had both appropriately aged since the original BR; Deckard was living in self-imposed exile in Las Vegas, and Gaff was in a nursing home. If they had been replicants, I don't think they would have aged like that - nor do I think they would have lived that long.

Interesting - since, in the original '82 BR film it was slightly implied that they both were replicants, given that their eyes shone a certain way in some scenes - like the eyes of the replicants. I especially thought Deckard was a replicant after the scene when Rachel (Sean Young) asked him if he had ever taken the Voight-Kampt?! test himself, and he didn't answer.

 

[JimmyO]

Regarding your spoiler...

Spoiler

2049 does not settle the question of Deckard being a replicant. The film tells of advanced replicants with long lifespans. Wallace definitely thinks Deckard is an advanced replicant from the Tyrell era. The film offers evidence that supports and contradicts Deckard being a replicant, and that seems very intentional.

If you want one more small piece of evidence that he is one, Deckard does something quite superhuman by living in Vegas, which is a heavily irradiated environment, yet he survives.

In my mind he absolutely is one. Enough clues appear in the original BR. If this film tells us that replicants can procreate (which it does indeed tell us), and it is Rachel that gave birth, then we have to believe in advanced replicants made by Tyrell.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Hope to be adding this movie to my library on 4K blu-ray this year!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Spoiler

My take on Deckard as a replicant is this: in the original theatrical cut of BR, he’s not, and in the directors and final cuts, he is. I think one of the cool things about BR2049 is that they straddled that line perfectly where it works as a sequel to either version of the original. I like that much better than if 2049 had definitively declared he was one thing or another.

 

[dpippel]

Regarding your spoiler...

Spoiler

2049 does not settle the question of Deckard being a replicant. The film tells of advanced replicants with long lifespans. Wallace definitely thinks Deckard is an advanced replicant from the Tyrell era. The film offers evidence that supports and contradicts Deckard being a replicant, and that seems very intentional.

If you want one more small piece of evidence that he is one, Deckard does something quite superhuman by living in Vegas, which is a heavily irradiated environment, yet he survives.

In my mind he absolutely is one. Enough clues appear in the original BR. If this film tells us that replicants can procreate (which it does indeed tell us), and it is Rachel that gave birth, then we have to believe in advanced replicants made by Tyrell.

This is very possible, as the entire opening scene with Dave Bautista addresses the issue.

 

[The Drifter]

Regarding whether or not Deckard is a replicant in BR 2049:

Spoiler: SPOILER

The poignancy of Deckard & Rachel's relationship (as seen in the '82 film) loses some of it's relevance if both are replicants - at least to me. I.e., to me it's more interesting if Deckard is human & knows she's a replicant - and still falls in love with her. So, I prefer to believe that he's not a replicant - unless/until proven otherwise.

I.e., if a replicant (in this case, Rachel) is so human-like that a human can fall in love with her - knowing that she's a replicant - and especially knowing that she will "expire" - then the replicant has a real capacity for arousing real love/emotion from a human. And, to me that's much more fascinating thematically than two replicants "falling in love".

Despite the fact that not all replicants have an expiration date, I'm still not convinced that Deckard was a replicant. I thought the possibility was more likely based on just the '82 film (but still left ambiguous), but I didn't see any indication that he was one in BR 2049.

Re: Deckard living in Las Vegas for years & not being hurt/killed by the remaining radiation, I read somewhere (either an online article or somewhere else) that the radiation in Vegas was negligible in the time that Deckard was living there. So, IMHO it's arguable that this remaining radiation would have negatively affected a regular human - i.e., it may not have.

 

[JimmyO]

More replicant talk:

Spoiler

If you believe Deckard was a replicant in the original BR, then changing your mind about that would require seriously substantial evidence to counter that belief when viewing the second film.

The glowing eyes, the unicorn dream, the punishment he took from Roy and still lived, all point to Deckard being a replicant in the original BR. But Deckard was certainly not a replicant model with any of the exceptional physical talents of the Nexus units he was chasing down. He couldn't make that jump, and he certainly didn't seem to have extraordinary strength. But he seemed quite able to take a beating, although he went through a lot of pain that didn't seem to be a trait of the other replicants. With respect to the Vegas radiation, I'd like to see a definitive source that makes the point that the radiation was not long term harmful.

It would seem to me that Deckard would choose to hide there specifically because it would be a dangerous place to live, and the lack of other inhabitants there to a large degree backs that up. Why, in this distopian future would people not naturally migrate to such a place if it's perfectly safe?

Would I like Deckard to not be a replicant? Definitely. I agree that his falling in love with Rachel in spite of who she is makes it a more powerful tale, and perhaps that was the way it was supposed to be in the original plan. But Ridley confirmed that in his final vision, yes Deckard is a replicant. If you can't believe the director of the film, who exactly is left to refute it?

Clearly, 2049 rides the line so as not to put an end to the debate. It's intentionally left ambiguous there because Villeneuve is smart enough to recognize that there is value in keeping that question alive.

One other thought: if replicants can give birth, then Tyrell designed Rachel that way. It makes complete sense then that Tyrell would also design another replicant that can perform their appropriate role that the male traditionally plays for the purposes of conceiving a child. In other words, it would make sense that a female replicant would require a male replicant with procreation abilities for the coupling to produce a child. I'm not saying that the film tells us this, but it would make sense to me.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Spoiler

As to Ridley saying Deckard is a replicant, on the other hand, one of the screenwriters and Ford have both said he wasn’t meant to be one. It’s a contradiction that can’t be easily reconciled. The best I can make it work for me is that in Ridley’s versions, with the unicorn dream, he’s a replicant, and in the studio’s version which lacks that explicit dream, he’s not.

 

[SamT]

Do we really need spoiler tags for whether Deckard is a replicant or not? Especially that it is from the first movie and not established clearly, hence no spoiler. All is considered discussion and speculation.

 

[dpippel]

Do we really need spoiler tags for whether Deckard is a replicant or not? Especially that it is from the first movie and not established clearly, hence no spoiler. All is considered discussion and speculation.

Spoiler

Yes.

 

[PMF]

It would be a complete spoiler; even to me; if someone were to reveal that I, too, might be a Replicant, as well.
Truly, I wouldn't want to know until my expiration date.
If you think I'm joking, I am not.
Back, last year, I met Ana de Armas.
In my encounter with her, she seemed so familiar to me; but I wasn't exactly certain as to why.
Later, I was told who she was...and believe me; from that day on; I haven't felt like my same self since.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

It would be a complete spoiler; even to me; if someone were to reveal that I, too, might be a Replicant, as well.
Truly, I wouldn't want to know until my expiration date.
If you think I'm joking, I am not.
Back, last year, I met Ana de Armas.
In my encounter with her, she seemed so familiar to me; but I wasn't exactly certain as to why.
Later, I was told who she was...and believe me; from that day on; I haven't felt like my same self since.

Spoiler: SPOILER

You are a replicant, Philip. Your expiration date is classified.

 

[Tommy R]

Spoiler

Ridley Scott says I’m a replicant, but Harrison Ford thinks I am not a replicant. That’s the official answer!

 

[The Drifter]

Spoiler: SPOILERS

I wonder if all of us who think we're human are actually replicants?! Only Ridley Scott knows for sure

 

[SamT]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Just trying spoilers in spoilers for maximum annoyance!

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

More replicant talk:

Spoiler

If you believe Deckard was a replicant in the original BR, then changing your mind about that would require seriously substantial evidence to counter that belief when viewing the second film.

The glowing eyes, the unicorn dream, the punishment he took from Roy and still lived, all point to Deckard being a replicant in the original BR. But Deckard was certainly not a replicant model with any of the exceptional physical talents of the Nexus units he was chasing down. He couldn't make that jump, and he certainly didn't seem to have extraordinary strength. But he seemed quite able to take a beating, although he went through a lot of pain that didn't seem to be a trait of the other replicants. With respect to the Vegas radiation, I'd like to see a definitive source that makes the point that the radiation was not long term harmful.

It would seem to me that Deckard would choose to hide there specifically because it would be a dangerous place to live, and the lack of other inhabitants there to a large degree backs that up. Why, in this distopian future would people not naturally migrate to such a place if it's perfectly safe?

Would I like Deckard to not be a replicant? Definitely. I agree that his falling in love with Rachel in spite of who she is makes it a more powerful tale, and perhaps that was the way it was supposed to be in the original plan. But Ridley confirmed that in his final vision, yes Deckard is a replicant. If you can't believe the director of the film, who exactly is left to refute it?

Clearly, 2049 rides the line so as not to put an end to the debate. It's intentionally left ambiguous there because Villeneuve is smart enough to recognize that there is value in keeping that question alive.

One other thought: if replicants can give birth, then Tyrell designed Rachel that way. It makes complete sense then that Tyrell would also design another replicant that can perform their appropriate role that the male traditionally plays for the purposes of conceiving a child. In other words, it would make sense that a female replicant would require a male replicant with procreation abilities for the coupling to produce a child. I'm not saying that the film tells us this, but it would make sense to me.

Spoiler

I thought the big deal, the 'miracle' referred to in 2049 was not just the fact that Rachael had become pregnant, but that she had in fact become pregnant with a human.
When Lt. Joshi says 'this breaks the world', I thought she referred to interbreeding rather than just a pregnant replicant.
And if I'm right, it means Deckard is not a replicant, just like Hampton Fincher (and Harrison Ford) always said. I never understood why Scott wanted to change that.

 

[dpippel]

Spoiler

I thought the big deal, the 'miracle' referred to in 2049 was not just the fact that Rachael had become pregnant, but that she had in fact become pregnant with a human.
When Lt. Joshi says 'this breaks the world', I thought she referred to interbreeding rather than just a pregnant replicant.
And if I'm right, it means Deckard is not a replicant, just like Hampton Fincher (and Harrison Ford) always said. I never understood why Scott wanted to change that.

Spoiler

IMO the "this breaks the world" line could just as easily be referring to a child that resulted from two replicants procreating. Either this scenario OR the one you describe would be huge, since replicants that could self-perpetuate would mean that humans would lose all control of them.