Blade Runner 2049

I enjoyed the picture. It was a stylish masterpiece. WARNING: SOME SMALL SPOILERS!

There are plot holes of course, such as, with massive levels of over population, why is it economically viable to create Replicants in the first place? After all, there are plenty of actual human beings to exploit, i.e. the children in the orphanage/work house. So what if they die off quickly trying to colonize new worlds? There are always more.

And why the emphasis on Replicants being able to procreate? I don't remember that from the original film, at least I think it was never stated that Replicants were sterile. Personally I think it's a way for the screenwriters to tie in Sean Young and Harrison Ford. Once procreation is on the table, then so is variation and natural selection. You can't guarantee that your procreated Replicants would be obedient and have all the other qualities that customers are willing to pay for. Again I question the economic viability of that endeavor, especially since it's stated that you can create more Replicants via procreation than simple manufacture.

Then there's the exploitation/sexploitation of women. Lots of nude females, including virtual AI females, holographic advert nudes, etc. But no Chip N' Dales? No male prostitutes? I guess the designers like naked chicks, or maybe a bobbing phallus would give a harsher rating (it's already "R" - sheesh).

I did enjoy the idea of personal identity and 'human rights' that was touched on here and there. The AI wanted to live and be with her man, as did the rogue, underground Replicants. Still, the series "HUMANS" is doing a better job of exploring this territory. Blade Runner 2049 was about fantastic vistas and design elements. Very well done and beautiful, but not very logical. You think they'd put all their genetic engineering skills into cleaning up the environment - not making more of the thing that messed up the environment in the first place.
 
SPOILERS

The screenplay seemed to me good, until it fell to a variation of Why Don't You Just Shoot Him?

This happens when the villain corners the hero. Right up to then, the villain has been shooting at the hero at every chance. But now that he has an easy shot, he stops and gives a speech. "Ha ha ha, now I've got you! I've been waiting a long time for this. Did you really think you could defeat me? I'm going to enjoy watching you die." Meantime, the hero pulls out a hidden gun and shoots the villain.

In Blade Runner 2049, it's a little different. Niander Wallace doesn't want to just kill Rick Deckard, he wants to wring information out of him. He captures him and brings him into his lair, and I dreaded to see torture. Instead, Wallace thinks he needs to wisk Deckard off-world first, because torture laws are looser there. But why can't Wallace torture, kill, and incinerate the body of Deckard right in his lair?

I hate torture and am glad I didn't have to see it. But to me this is the most obvious plot hole.
 
Last edited:
KurtF said:
I enjoyed the picture. It was a stylish masterpiece. WARNING: SOME SMALL SPOILERS!

There are plot holes of course, such as, with massive levels of over population, why is it economically viable to create Replicants in the first place? After all, there are plenty of actual human beings to exploit, i.e. the children in the orphanage/work house. So what if they die off quickly trying to colonize new worlds? There are always more.

And why the emphasis on Replicants being able to procreate? I don't remember that from the original film, at least I think it was never stated that Replicants were sterile. Personally I think it's a way for the screenwriters to tie in Sean Young and Harrison Ford. Once procreation is on the table, then so is variation and natural selection. You can't guarantee that your procreated Replicants would be obedient and have all the other qualities that customers are willing to pay for. Again I question the economic viability of that endeavor, especially since it's stated that you can create more Replicants via procreation than simple manufacture.

Then there's the exploitation/sexploitation of women. Lots of nude females, including virtual AI females, holographic advert nudes, etc. But no Chip N' Dales? No male prostitutes? I guess the designers like naked chicks, or maybe a bobbing phallus would give a harsher rating (it's already "R" - sheesh).

I did enjoy the idea of personal identity and 'human rights' that was touched on here and there. The AI wanted to live and be with her man, as did the rogue, underground Replicants. Still, the series "HUMANS" is doing a better job of exploring this territory. Blade Runner 2049 was about fantastic vistas and design elements. Very well done and beautiful, but not very logical. You think they'd put all their genetic engineering skills into cleaning up the environment - not making more of the thing that messed up the environment in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think the procreation concept was the new "big idea" for this film. If they have nrmal lifespans and they can procreate, then they really are basically humans. It gets into some of the ideas Dick explored in the original book that weren't touched on in the first film, and the AI characters played close to some themes from Asimov. But as interesting as this potentially could be, it felt squandered in the film, like there really wasn't that much to be said. I think the most meaningful moment was when K realized that he wasn't the child, but instead shared the implanted memories. But such moments were fleeting. And why was she implanting these memories anyway -- was she trying to instill some form of revolution once it was realized? Some kind of inception move, going for the long game? it all seemed way too convenient.

As far as the exploitation of women, I had a real issue with this as well. I think these things can be presented in a way that makes clear that it is part of the breakdown of society or a reflection of social issues of one era plastered upon the future space as a commentary on today. Think of A Clockwork Orange. But here it was just to the level of a fantasy to please the masses, and then they didn't go past it. It was trying to have its cake and eat it too, and in the end that's pretty reductive and sexist. I thought we'd progressed past such things a bit, but apparently not.

World Building in Scifi is great. I loved it in the original Blade Runner, I thought it greatly enriched the entire Mad Max series, and in fact it just got better and better with each of those films. But those films worked because they had other, deeper themes and utilized narrative tools to explore and expand upon these themes -- plus they had other aspects of the storytelling that was interesting and well done. The world building in Blade Runner 2049 was very interesting, as was the technical craft. But that's not enough. If the original Blade Runner was about memories and loss told in the style of film noir, then someone tell me what the new one is because I just don't find a lot to hang my hat on.
 
Mitch Gross said:
World Building in Scifi is great. I loved it in the original Blade Runner, I thought it greatly enriched the entire Mad Max series, and in fact it just got better and better with each of those films. But those films worked because they had other, deeper themes and utilized narrative tools to explore and expand upon these themes -- plus they had other aspects of the storytelling that was interesting and well done. The world building in Blade Runner 2049 was very interesting, as was the technical craft. But that's not enough. If the original Blade Runner was about memories and loss told in the style of film noir, then someone tell me what the new one is because I just don't find a lot to hang my hat on.
Click to expand...
This was my main complaint about Blade Runner 2049. It focused almost entirely on style and building an interesting world, forgetting to tell a compelling A-Story. There was a lot of subtext, but not a real plot. There are bits and pieces of an interesting plot with the search for the "child", but it really doesn't go anywhere other than what is immediately obvious after you hear the recording of Deckard and Rachel's first interview.

You know that Deckard and Rachel had a baby, then the film teases you with the idea that K could be that child, but you know that that doesn't make sense and would be too simple for a movie that is trying so damn hard, so you spend over half of the film waiting for a twist you already know is coming. It's like 45 minutes of plot from any other movie stretched out to 2 hours, 45 minutes.

Yeah, I know that sci-fi is really more about the ideas than it is about the plot, but most of the all-time great movies have both a great plot as well as great ideas. It is never just one or the other. The original Blade Runner had both; Blade Runner 2049 in my humble opinion did not.
 
Mitch Gross said:
As far as the exploitation of women, I had a real issue with this as well. I think these things can be presented in a way that makes clear that it is part of the breakdown of society or a reflection of social issues of one era plastered upon the future space as a commentary on today. Think of A Clockwork Orange. But here it was just to the level of a fantasy to please the masses, and then they didn't go past it. It was trying to have its cake and eat it too, and in the end that's pretty reductive and sexist. I thought we'd progressed past such things a bit, but apparently not.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind Blade Runner is an alternative future where Atari and Pan Am are still driving forces in the market. So who knows what played out in society leading up to what we see.
That said, there is already a lot of research into this subject. I'm not going to get into it because it's well past the parameters of this discussion and probably the rules of this forum. Though it would be great to have that discussion because I think it could help us all write better characters in stories. Maybe I'll write a blog post about it, enable comments and link to it at some point. But I'll just leave it with this, I don't think we will ever get to a world where females are not to some degree sexually exploited by males.
 
Mitch Gross said:
If the original Blade Runner was about memories and loss told in the style of film noir...
Click to expand...

I don't think it was. Just because the Rutger Hauer character made a pretty improvised speech about this at the end doesn't mean the film was about just that. It couldn't have been; the script writers didn't write it. Hauer improvised that bit. And it was personal to that character.

Mitch Gross said:
...then someone tell me what the new one is because I just don't find a lot to hang my hat on.
Click to expand...

This review might help. Or not. It's up to you. But it certainly rings true for me.

For me, this was Charlie Parker Jazz. Did you see the wonderful Eastwood film Bird? It was 1988, before many people on this board were watching movies at all. Still, Eastwood includes in the movie Parker's great idea, which is that playing the melody is a waste of effort because everyone already knows the melody. Parker's breakthrough, what made Bebop Jazz actually work, was that he played around the melody, leaving the melody in negative space. Listening to his music, if you'll let go and let it flow and quit trying to control it and force it into your preconceived notions of what music has to be, you'll hear the melody, even though he doesn't play it. That, is jazz.

Like Parker, Villeneuve doesn't give you "a lot to hang your hat on". But that doesn't mean there's not a lot there. It just means if you insist, demand, require that it give you something to hang your hat on, you'll miss it.
 
Bruce Watson said:
I don't think it was. Just because the Rutger Hauer character made a pretty improvised speech about this at the end doesn't mean the film was about just that. It couldn't have been; the script writers didn't write it. Hauer improvised that bit. And it was personal to that character.
Click to expand...

I always felt Blade Runner was pretty clearly about what it means to be human, a lofty theme but told in a literal sense with several contrasting characters . One character has to lose his humanity to carry out his job. Another gains his in the waning days of his life. And the other questions everything about her existence. The themes are implicit in the action and the mystery, and not beaten over your head with dialogue.
 
Batutta said:
I always felt Blade Runner was pretty clearly about what it means to be human, a lofty theme but told in a literal sense with several contrasting characters . One character has to lose his humanity to carry out his job. Another gains his in the waning days of his life. And the other questions everything about her existence. The themes are implicit in the action and the mystery, and not beaten over your head with dialogue.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
agcohn said:
This was my main complaint about Blade Runner 2049. It focused almost entirely on style and building an interesting world, forgetting to tell a compelling A-Story. There was a lot of subtext, but not a real plot. There are bits and pieces of an interesting plot with the search for the "child", but it really doesn't go anywhere other than what is immediately obvious after you hear the recording of Deckard and Rachel's first interview.

You know that Deckard and Rachel had a baby, then the film teases you with the idea that K could be that child, but you know that that doesn't make sense and would be too simple for a movie that is trying so damn hard, so you spend over half of the film waiting for a twist you already know is coming. It's like 45 minutes of plot from any other movie stretched out to 2 hours, 45 minutes.

Yeah, I know that sci-fi is really more about the ideas than it is about the plot, but most of the all-time great movies have both a great plot as well as great ideas. It is never just one or the other. The original Blade Runner had both; Blade Runner 2049 in my humble opinion did not.
Click to expand...
I agree with pretty much everything you say with one exception. I believe that ALL great films have great plot as well as great ideas.
 
DLD said:
I thought "Mad Max" topped out with the "Road Warrior".

But, hey, that's me.
Click to expand...

I will grant you that there is a wonderfully distilled purity to The Road Warrior. But I do believe that the continued world building and continually higher themes of each film really worked wonders for me. Beyond Thunderdome was too disjointed and didn't have enough action, but I believe that's attributed to George Miller's depression after his producing partner was killed during preproduction. There's still so much to like that I give it an ok.
 
Bruce Watson said:
I don't think it was. Just because the Rutger Hauer character made a pretty improvised speech about this at the end doesn't mean the film was about just that. It couldn't have been; the script writers didn't write it. Hauer improvised that bit. And it was personal to that character.



This review might help. Or not. It's up to you. But it certainly rings true for me.

For me, this was Charlie Parker Jazz. Did you see the wonderful Eastwood film Bird? It was 1988, before many people on this board were watching movies at all. Still, Eastwood includes in the movie Parker's great idea, which is that playing the melody is a waste of effort because everyone already knows the melody. Parker's breakthrough, what made Bebop Jazz actually work, was that he played around the melody, leaving the melody in negative space. Listening to his music, if you'll let go and let it flow and quit trying to control it and force it into your preconceived notions of what music has to be, you'll hear the melody, even though he doesn't play it. That, is jazz.

Like Parker, Villeneuve doesn't give you "a lot to hang your hat on". But that doesn't mean there's not a lot there. It just means if you insist, demand, require that it give you something to hang your hat on, you'll miss it.
Click to expand...

Blade Runner was about memories because when man can artificially create the physical body what separates humans from replicants are the souls which are embodied by the memory experiences. Tyrell explains this to Deckard when he tells him how Rachel is different. Deckard later proves to Rachel what she is by telling her about her own false memory borrowed from Tyrell's niece. Batty's final speech may have been created by Rutger Hauer (apparently during rehearsals not spontaneously in front of the camera; there's a transcript of a much longer first draft available) but it is on point with what the movie was saying. It's not an outlier. And let us not forget the unicorn. Deckard dreams of it and then Gaff leaves an origami one for him outside his door at the end of the film. One cannot have a memory of something that never existed. And if Gaff knows it must be implanted. A false memory shows that Deckard is a replicant, which tells us that there really is no difference to what is real or artificial and that at a certain point it simply doesn't matter. Moreover, there is a large span of time in the movie itself between the unicorn dream and the origami reveal at the end because, well, we're supposed to try to REMEMBER.
 
Batutta said:
I always felt Blade Runner was pretty clearly about what it means to be human, a lofty theme but told in a literal sense with several contrasting characters . One character has to lose his humanity to carry out his job. Another gains his in the waning days of his life. And the other questions everything about her existence. The themes are implicit in the action and the mystery, and not beaten over your head with dialogue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I still say memory and how it helps define one's humanity is a central part to it. And note that all three of these central characters are in fact replicants, whether they know it or not. That is a questioning of humanity and life.
 
+1

Mitch Gross said:
Blade Runner was about memories because when man can artificially create the physical body what separates humans from replicants are the souls which are embodied by the memory experiences. Tyrell explains this to Deckard when he tells him how Rachel is different. Deckard later proves to Rachel what she is by telling her about her own false memory borrowed from Tyrell's niece. Batty's final speech may have been created by Rutger Hauer (apparently during rehearsals not spontaneously in front of the camera; there's a transcript of a much longer first draft available) but it is on point with what the movie was saying. It's not an outlier. And let us not forget the unicorn. Deckard dreams of it and then Gaff leaves an origami one for him outside his door at the end of the film. One cannot have a memory of something that never existed. And if Gaff knows it must be implanted. A false memory shows that Deckard is a replicant, which tells us that there really is no difference to what is real or artificial and that at a certain point it simply doesn't matter. Moreover, there is a large span of time in the movie itself between the unicorn dream and the origami reveal at the end because, well, we're supposed to try to REMEMBER.
Click to expand...

...I also hate when people call replicants "robots", when they are biological simulations of human beings, and I assume that replicant DNA must be a very close match to human DNA otherwise a blood test would easily flag anyone who was a replicant.
 
Have to say I'm surprised at the under-whelmed response and talk of it being too long, not as deep or meaningful, etc. I was sad when the film ended and would have hung gladly for another hour, if only because I was so riveted at who the film constantly get posing new implicit questions about the intersection of science and religion, and the vary nature of humanity or consciousness.

In addition, the film was filled with smart metaphors and symbolism.

A few thoughts that might make people more interested in a second viewing (I remember like Blade Runner 2019 much more on my 2nd viewing):

IDENTITY:

K is a replicant, a bio-engineered, flesh-and-blood "designed" or "programmed" clone (not a robot). Basically human, but without a soul (supposedly). But yet once he BELIEVES he may be a "real boy", a human, or possess a soul... once he BELIEVES he may have a special identity, calling, or purpose... *everything* changes. He disobeys orders, he fails his baseline, he comes alive, he seeks out his father, he displays emotion. This raises a question mirrored in all of religion and philosophy: that belief in ourselves and our identity influence and shape our reality, and our ability to reach our potential and become integrated? Contrary to what his commander may have told him, K wasn't suddenly in possession of a soul - rather, did he suddenly become "awakened" or "enlightened" to the fact it was there, but detached, all along?

In addition, mythology is full of the value of a name, and this plays a significant role in giving k a name - it's the idea of giving him an identity. Giving him a soul. It comes through a belief, not a lab.

OUR NATURE:

The film is clearly meant to question OUR nature as human beings. We call ourselves human, but it's just a word. What does it even mean? How do we know that we are not a race of off-world replicant slaves (both in the film, and in real life) who are now cracking the code on the programming of life (DNA, cloning, etc.). and carrying forth that torch, and that all the great religious stories, myths, religions, and documents don't point back to this. Steve jobs was famous for saying "anything we don't sufficiently understand is to us, "magic." The film is laddened with ideas of "gods", "angels", and biblical imagery. The Adam and Eve story, the garden of eden, the tree of life, programmed life spans, etc. Here's a few:

- Perhaps we are programmed, engineered, "intelligently designed" beings: programmed through DNA, with personalities, desire to pro-create and subdue, and to create. All religions talk about containing "the divine god spark" or "being made in the image of God".
- Could our brains, made of electrical impulses, be self-learning AI? Could, what Carl Jung calls our collective unconscious, be a sort of collective implant and awareness of our true nature and source?
- Assyrian documents, Biblical documents, and others point to very long life spans for humans, that God then, after a flood, "set to 120 years".
- Adam and Eve being formed from the clay, man having something taken from his rib (a uterus of an a-sexual being) and implanted into the women, and they would need each other (is this not hinted at in the film, the great goal of pro-creation?). "Be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth"
- Mysteries of ancient Egyptian desire, gods, etc. are mirrored in the films aesthetic
- the idea of what we call "humanity" and what the film calls "replicants", joining together to rebel against god

Was the tree of life, or the tree of the knowledge of good & evil, consciousness itself? The great gift from which we were not meant to eat?

Or how about stories in Genesis of "Nephilim" or in Greek literature about the gods, and half god/half men - the ideas that "angels" or "the sons of god" interbred with "the sons of man". Where do these ancient stories comes?


WALLACE / GOD / CONSCIOUSNESS

Wallace is portrayed as a trans-human man, the visionary with no vision, a god-like father figure who wants to build his creations and put them on new world. The man who is half his own design, half man, and becoming transcendent. Can he implant his consciousness into a computer chip (like Joi), and into every single human being, and becomes transcient, omni-present? Afterall, he already sees remotely through "remote eyes". Consciousness is already explored as existing within a computer AI. Can he transfer his conscious to another body, or better, to exist outside a shell at all?

REALITY:

This is in the first two but I love how it was extrapolated. Does something being born or created in a lab make it synethetic? What makes ANYTHING real? What is the nature of consciousness? The film is brilliant in exploring this further with Joi, a computer chip so real, with more empathy and love than K himself (who doesn't believe he is real). With more character than the prostitute.

Deckard's great yet poignant quip about the dog... is he real? "ask him". Perhaps it is US who determine if we are real, through what we believe about ourselves and our identity (K *is* the embodiement of this theme). And yet both films are full of this idea - how humans can become less than human through our decisions, viewpoint, and beliefs (Hitler?) and how someone made in a lab of flesh and bone can transcend that.

Born or made is not the question perhaps. Attachment to our identity is, perhaps?


SYMBOLISM + MISC:

Joi merging with prostitue - blurring the line between real and fake. Soul/spirit and flesh. Consciousness and a shell.

K, the "synthetic man", knows that a "new joi" is not "his joi" when looking at the billboard. She was unique and special. He knows what was real. Deckard says that same thing when Wallace brings forth a new Rachel. He knows what is real.

They didn't capture Deckard to torture him. They captured him as "Adam", the key to the puzzle of "Eve". The one who gave birth to the "christ child".

Does the most advanced technology loop back around and appear normal? We also believe "high tec" is computers, labs, modern architecture, etc. Yet as the film advances further into the future, the highest forms of tech look completely organic and natural. The landscape becomes more monolithic. I believe the intent here is to question... do our ancient origins that look primitiave, discussing "fire from the heavens" (anyone notice this in the junk yard scene, as fire and brimstone rain done from above?), "miracles", "gods, "angels" etc. may all be showing our highly advanced ancient origins?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure, many of these have been done before, but I was captured by BR2049 because of a number of new twists on the idea, further exploration of the themes in ways that felt rich (at least to me), stunning imagery and subtle + smart tie-ins to other concepts, and great symbolic use throughout.


If you liked this, these 2 articles explore this more, and do so much better than my post's humble attempt! Great read on some of the smart symbolism in the film used to reflect these themes and ideas:

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/10/14/the-poetry-of-blade-runner-2049

http://www.evolveandascend.com/2017/10/26/blade-runner-2049-a-film-review/
 
Last edited:
Took the wife to see her first viewing of it and my 2nd.

We both agreed that it was actually better than the first one.

Loved everything about it. Cinematography, acting, lighting pacing.

Best movie I have seen in several decades.

Let the hate flow.
 
It's such a shame that this film did so poorly at the box office because it is easily among 2017's best films and one of the best sci-fi sequels of all time. If you haven't yet seen it, make it a point to go before it leaves theaters. It's unlikely that we'll see Hollywood take this kind of risk again for a very long time.
 
"Blade Runner 2049 could not find an audience," --- Slashfilm.

What? $240 million is failing to find an audience? It's a very respectable number. I'd call it a success, especially considering the niche appeal of the first one.

The problem is, like you said, the astonishing amount of money spent on advertising. Slashfilm implies that Blade Runner spent $165 million. (It made 240. They shot it for 155. It needs another 80.) Variety says that 70% of that is to buy television commercials. Let's talk about that.

I avoid movie trailers, especially the ones for movies I already plan to see, because they give too much away. It may be because I'm older, was a film major, and have loved movies all my life. After the typical trailer, I feel like I know the movie, I know the character outlines and the emotional chart even if not the specific plot points. I think trailers should only ever be teasers, as I talked about in a thread I started about two years ago, How should film trailers be?

But for movies like Blade Runner, Star Wars, the Marvel movies --- basically the movies that they spend the most money for --- those are the movies they need to spend the least money for. Star Wars VIII is opening this Christmas? That was known a year ago, before a single trailer aired, and 90% of the future audience was already waiting with bated breath. When a Star Wars VIII trailer was shown at a movie I was at this week, I closed my eyes and hummed.

How much does it cost for Paramount to upload a trailer to the Paramount channel on Youtube and let it go viral on Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook? $0
How much does it cost to print up posters for theaters: a few thousand dollars?

I'm simplifying, and I'm not saying that Hollywood should spend no money on advertising. But from what I know about Hollywood and people in general, after Blade Runner's losses, they're more likely to think they need to make even more plain-vanilla movies than that they've got to rein in advertising. Instead of becoming conservative about advertising, they may become even more conservative about scripts.

Besides reining in advertising, can't Hollywood rein in production costs? I remember around 1990 the average movie cost $25 million to make ($50 million adjusted for inflation). Even Blade Runner 2049's production cost ($155 million) seems a little high for a sequel to a niche sci-fi film. It's incredible what you can do with everyday special effects software, as shown on low-budget Youtube videos and the nice Blade Runner orange-fog look shared by TheDingo. I also appreciate the article that DLD shared about the chasm between your average TV show and your average movie (Budget Breakdowns: What a Typical Movie and TV Pilot Really Cost to Make Now).

I'm not saying Hollywood should ditch all advertising and hire Youtubers as crew. What I am asking is this. Could Blade Runner 2049 have been made for maybe $110 million and advertised for $50 million? Then we'd be talking about it making $80 million of losing $80 million.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top