Now I've seen Blade Runner 2049. I have opinions. Straight up spoilers

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
So, went ahead and watched Blade Runner 2049 upon people saying it was better that GitS. I also haven't seen the original since the 90s

I found something really annoying. Did K literally just die RIGHT IN FRONT of the Ana's place? That seems really stupid.

This movie asks questions of the audience. What is memory? Do you require a soul to be good? Hologram love? And are loving a copy, or is it just the real thing?

I cared nothing for these questions. We have moved as a society from Blade Runner 1. We've had so many great Sci-Fi shows and movies since then. These questions felt like a retread. Which means you have to focus on posing it in a particularly interesting and thought provoking light. BR2049 failed here.

I liked Jared Leto's performance here. First time I've actually seen him act. But his character is straight up cartoon villain, similar to the big human bad in Venom. He just loves shooting and stabbing. With a movie going for nuance, this is a complete fail.

I do not care for any love interests here. Rachel was wasted, and only put in to ask the question about loving a copy and then to show how evil Wallace is. Hologram love is great. Do what makes you feel good. Joi was only there to name K and die. Also, why didn't the writers let K name himself. That would have said a lot more.

It would have been great if this story was more self contained. Instead it felt like a piece in the franchise. Sort of telling it's own story but setting up future movies. Wallace is around, off world is a thing, the revolution is building, etc. I didn't not expect MCU style world building.

The police here are far too worried about finding this replicant kid and NOT WORRIED ABOUT MRUDER IN ITS OWN HOUSE. This revolutionary army is poised to take control and is very interested in this kid. Do they help K get Deckard back? Or do anything to help them secure the kid? Nope. We need that one on one fight between K and Luv for DRAMATIC EFFECT.

Fighting in all the water, I think, was supposed to be visually effective. It was not. Just like the watery movements early in the movie around Luv that was supposed to foreshadow her death was some of the worst visuals I've seen. In a movie. Period. Give me Zach Snyder terrible visuals going from black to dark any day over that.

The slow pacing was fine. I like a lot of Clint Eastwood's movies too, that do the same. But they held onto the wrong thing so many times that didn't enhance the scene, world or let things breathe. Someone needs watch Eastwood's movies more.

I seemed to remember Blade Runner looking more like a smoky Altered Carbon. I think I've forgotten. That make me think GitS visuals are better. Just more interested in Cyberpunk than Noir with a couple of colours.

I really wanted to like this film. I'm still giving it an 7 or 8 despite all this stuff I wrote.

Alright, your turn. Tell me how I'm wrong.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,568
4,371
118
You're not exactly wrong.

The problem with 2049 is that it operates under sci-fi conventions that are kinda antiquated now. But then it sorta has to to stay in line with the original. Movies like Her ask way more interesting questions about artificial life, and it isn't even a hard sci-fi movie.

I was also confused as to why these replicants aren't made visually recognizable as replicants, something the original suffered from as well. You'd think that this society would want to make their sub-human slaves easy to spot, like with a mark on their forehead or something. And even then, K looks so cool in his coat that he hardly gives off the impression of an individual who is given zero respect.

trunkage said:
The police here are far too worried about finding this replicant kid and NOT WORRIED ABOUT MRUDER IN ITS OWN HOUSE.
Well, considering that the reveal of this child to the general public would cause a massive uprising among replicants, it's not too strange where their priorities lie.

I seemed to remember Blade Runner looking more like a smoky Altered Carbon. I think I've forgotten. That make me think GitS visuals are better. Just more interested in Cyberpunk than Noir with a couple of colours.
The problem here is that cyberpunk has become too cool for its own good. The whole idea behind cyberpunk is that it's not a great place, but now it's seen as slick, cool 80's. The movie made the right choice in presenting a world that feels really shitty to live in.


I did like the recurring theme of "genuine" love, and does it matter. Like with Joi, who is obviously programmed to feel like a genuine person who really does love K, but does it matter if he experiences it as genuine. And that she was an escape for K to not feel like a sub-human. She was in a way like a pet; someone to give him unconditional love. I don't think it was a coincidence that later we see Deckard with a dog, seeing as it's questionable whether dogs truly love us, or whether they just act like they do to get food and care, and again, if so does it matter.

And also K at first thinking Deckard was his father, and then finding out he isn't, but still feeling that bond that got established under the assumption that he was. When he saves Deckard and reunites him with his daughter, he's not doing it for replicant justice, he might not even do it for Deckard himself. He's doing it because in his heart Deckard still feels like a father to him. This is why I kinda liked the set-up of the underground replicant revolutionaries, which then just as quickly got set aside because K really didn't give a shit.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
I will disagree on one of your points only, and that is liking Jared Leto. I think he is awful in this film and they could easily remove every scene he was in and improve it drastically. He wasn't completely terrible in the Blade Runner short he was in (they made three shorts to bridge the gap between the films). But otherwise, I think he's a terrible actor who was the worst part of this film, the worst part of Suicide Squad (and that is in a movie with a guy who throws boomerangs at black goo monsters) and is generally awful.

OTOH, Ryan Gosling I went into this film not caring much for, but he's actually sold me that he's a pretty good actor and did this role well. I will actually look forward to seeing what else he does moving forward.

I would agree that it's a 7-8 overall. The aesthetics are top notch, the setting is great but there are a lot of issues. One issue, the use of sound wasn't great. The Vangelis soundtrack from the Original was emulated and used constantly here, even in parts where it simply didn't fit. In particular, the fight in the water was so jarring because of how out of place the music felt. They copied the sound of the original, but used it EVERYWHERE and the end result was it didn't work nearly so well.

Now one other point depends on whether we take the Director's Cut or any other cut to be canon. The DC basically establishes Deckard as a replicant. Either way, how Rachel gave birth is nothing short of miraculous and TBH a movie explaining that would have made more sense, but if he is a replicant, then it begs several questions: Why in the original didn't he know he was a replicant? What does it say about him that he's hunting "his own kind"? Since Deckard didn't know, did it now just become a thing that replicants, previously illegal on Earth, are now used by police departments as Blade Runners to hunt down their own?

K baffles me. Whether Deckard is a replicant or not is irrelevant in light of the fact that even if he is (as in the DC), he only finds out after the events of the film, so he is a Runner, and has been for years believing himself to be human, as does everyone else (except Edward James Olmos evidently). K however is well aware he's a replicant from the start. Was he created to do that job? Are there human Runners? What's the point of the memories if he knows he's not human? Why would he take a job hunting replicants? Why is he allowed to remain alive while Dave Bautista isn't? Making Deckard a replicant in the DC TBH makes little sense and ultimately no difference to the film so ultimately it doesn't much matter (ie. it doesn't change anything about himself, his actions or the story). Making K a replicant however is really weird and doesn't sit right with me, even tho it does play a part later.

I will say what I thought was amazing, and that was everything with the girl creating memories in her isolation room. It was mindblowingly brilliant, changed so much about what we thought we knew. It added depth to K, said a lot about Deckard and Rachel and the girl whose memories shapes other replicants. Her scenes (Ana?) were the absolute highlight of the film, followed closely by the visit to Vegas. I think the visuals and the story really worked well there.

As great as those parts were, the "femme fatale" character was pretty rubbish. A bland character that wasn't even 1% as great as Darryl Hannah in the original. The whole thing lacked a cohesive driving force...after the opening, what exactly was K's mission? Why was a Blade Runner investigating bones? He just seemed to go to places, talk to one person, think about what was said then repeat. A series of things that looked great, sounded reminiscent of the 80s film and were interesting but not memorable.

I don't remember if we actually see him die there but I think we're meant to believe that he does. The idea is that he's kinda served his purpose, fulfilled his mission, he became a person at the end, that kinda thing. The specifically play the same music from Roy Batty's death scene, a similar moment where in the end he dies as a man, showing compassion to his enemy and remaking on how fleeting life is.

So yeah, the daughter was incredible, Ryan Gosling did a superb job, great to see Deckard back, great visuals. Jared Leto was utterly terrible, his femme fatale henchman was only slightly less terrible, the sound was good but used inappropriately, I don't think it justified 160mins running time and the story lacked a sense of cohesion, while being interesting enough. Issues, but overall, good film, 7.5/10.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,906
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
trunkage said:
I seemed to remember Blade Runner looking more like a smoky Altered Carbon. I think I've forgotten. That make me think GitS visuals are better. Just more interested in Cyberpunk than Noir with a couple of colours.
I'm going to second Casual Shinji's point here. Blade Runner is cyberpunk, it's actually kind of the definitive cyberpunk film because it expresses cyberpunk's core themes visually.

There's an incredible visual disparity between the shiny flyby sequences of corporate buildings, and the down to earth reality of JF Sebastian living alone in the decaying ruins of his apartment block. The point which is being conveyed through these visuals is that all the shiny technology hasn't solved social problems, in fact it's kind of made the world worse. Earth is a dying planet slowly being evacuated (in the book, it's literally post-apocalyptic, a nuclear war has caused the biosphere to collapse). That's why replicants exist in this society, not because people just got up one day and decided slavery was cool, but because the situation is really grim and cutting a few moral corners doesn't seem that bad.

GITS is "cyberpunk" because it borrows some of the visual cues of films like blade runner. But ultimately, it is about a society which is in rapid transition, but which ultimately functions for the benefit of its members, and the characters are actually quite intimately involved in making it function because they're basically good-guy cops. It is thematically quite distinct from cyberpunk because it either doesn't really care about social problems at all, or assumes they can be solved by superpowered cyber-cops. Some people use the term "post-cyberpunk" to describe things like ghost in the shell, and while I'm skeptical of the desire to attach "post" to things, it works for me here.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Casual Shinji said:
You're not exactly wrong.

The problem with 2049 is that it operates under sci-fi conventions that are kinda antiquated now. But then it sorta has to to stay in line with the original. Movies like Her ask way more interesting questions about artificial life, and it isn't even a hard sci-fi movie.

I was also confused as to why these replicants aren't made visually recognizable as replicants, something the original suffered from as well. You'd think that this society would want to make their sub-human slaves easy to spot, like with a mark on their forehead or something. And even then, K looks so cool in his coat that he hardly gives off the impression of an individual who is given zero respect.

trunkage said:
The police here are far too worried about finding this replicant kid and NOT WORRIED ABOUT MRUDER IN ITS OWN HOUSE.
Well, considering that the reveal of this child to the general public would cause a massive uprising among replicants, it's not too strange where their priorities lie.

I seemed to remember Blade Runner looking more like a smoky Altered Carbon. I think I've forgotten. That make me think GitS visuals are better. Just more interested in Cyberpunk than Noir with a couple of colours.
The problem here is that cyberpunk has become too cool for its own good. The whole idea behind cyberpunk is that it's not a great place, but now it's seen as slick, cool 80's. The movie made the right choice in presenting a world that feels really shitty to live in.


I did like the recurring theme of "genuine" love, and does it matter. Like with Joi, who is obviously programmed to feel like a genuine person who really does love K, but does it matter if he experiences it as genuine. And that she was an escape for K to not feel like a sub-human. She was in a way like a pet; someone to give him unconditional love. I don't think it was a coincidence that later we see Deckard with a dog, seeing as it's questionable whether dogs truly love us, or whether they just act like they do to get food and care, and again, if so does it matter.

And also K at first thinking Deckard was his father, and then finding out he isn't, but still feeling that bond that got established under the assumption that he was. When he saves Deckard and reunites him with his daughter, he's not doing it for replicant justice, he might not even do it for Deckard himself. He's doing it because in his heart Deckard still feels like a father to him. This is why I kinda liked the set-up of the underground replicant revolutionaries, which then just as quickly got set aside because K really didn't give a shit.
There were two scene about love that really turned me off. And I think becuase most questions were left up to the viewer but love was definitively answered. The scenes mirrored each other. Deckard and replacement Rachel and K and replacement Joi. But rejected the replacement immediately becuase they weren't the original. And I understand that Joi and Rachel originals were changed by their experience their main character, so they are different. And the movie says, "well they're not the same, get lost." Which is way too definitive for a Blade Runner

Then you have the complication of any new relationship. No matter what, they will not be the same as any older relationship. But IRL, you don't dismiss someone becuase they are different. You find out whether you are compatible with the new partner, using older relationships to determine what you like and dislike.

Also, the trickery with K's origin story felt like The Last Jedi. It was done as a subversion (just as Vader being Luke's father was a subversion). And I think it had the same effect as Rey's reveal to me. But I cared for K about as much as Rey or Luke. Not much.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,906
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Casual Shinji said:
I did like the recurring theme of "genuine" love, and does it matter. Like with Joi, who is obviously programmed to feel like a genuine person who really does love K, but does it matter if he experiences it as genuine. And that she was an escape for K to not feel like a sub-human. She was in a way like a pet; someone to give him unconditional love. I don't think it was a coincidence that later we see Deckard with a dog, seeing as it's questionable whether dogs truly love us, or whether they just act like they do to get food and care, and again, if so does it matter.
Also, a massive, massive theme of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is empathy, which is expressed through a kind of obsession with animals (again, the biosphere has collapsed so animals are very rare). Ultimately though, there's a kind of cynicism, because it's implied that it's all kind of a lie. People create robot animals, fixate on having "real" animals, and use animals as status symbols essentially to show off their performative empathy. It's a society that celebrates the idea of empathy as the definitive mark of being human, but doesn't really exhibit empathy (kind of like the androids, who have no empathy and can only simulate real emotions). The emotional payoff of the entire book is Deckard acknowledging that his robot toad is "alive" in its own way, essentially that it's possible to feel empathy for something which can't feel.

While Blade Runner and 2049 drop a lot of this theme, it's still present and I read the takeaway as very much the same.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,568
4,371
118
trunkage said:
There were two scene about love that really turned me off. And I think becuase most questions were left up to the viewer but love was definitively answered. The scenes mirrored each other. Deckard and replacement Rachel and K and replacement Joi. But rejected the replacement immediately becuase they weren't the original. And I understand that Joi and Rachel originals were changed by their experience their main character, so they are different. And the movie says, "well they're not the same, get lost." Which is way too definitive for a Blade Runner.
I don't think that's exactly what those scenes were about.


With Deckard and the replacement Rachel it's obvious she's being used by Wallace to buy him off to reveal the location of his child. And it's not that Deckard rejects her because she is a copy, it's because she was specifically designed by Wallace to appeal to him. She feels more fake and manipulative than if he simply bumped into her on the street. And that's what I'd critique about that scene, that Wallace brings her out to Deckard under these circumstances and expects him to take the bait. It's presented as this very typical evil villain plan.


With K it wasn't even that he rejected the replacement of Joi, that Joi was simply an add. It was there to make him question if what he shared with Joi was ever genuine, seeing as the add-Joi adresses him in a similar manner. And as a result it makes him question whether he should try and save/help Deckard, a man who for all intents and purposes should mean nothing to him, or join the replicant rebelion, a movement that should hold greater importance to him.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,923
745
118
I don't really disagree with any of that, of course the first Blade Runner was, even at its time, far from the first movie to ask if an artificial creature that acts like a human in almost every way is still different from a human being but it's big strengths were in its visuals. I'd say the same for the sequel, the writing isn't anything special but the presentation is strong enough to carry it.

Overall it deserves respect for being a sequel that mostly feels like a seemless continuation from its predecessor, which is undeniably an accomplishment, seeing how many years there are between them.

I always felt like I was seeing the same world I saw in the original, only 30 years later and farther along in its decay. It hardly poses any meaningful philosophical questions but I don't think the first one did either. But it's a well realized movie. It's slow and textured and tonal consistent and doesn't over rely on gratuitous action to keep its viewers engaged. And, depressing as it is, that makes it by far one of the better genre movies in recent years.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,223
0
0
Oh wow, it looks like my opinion about BR2049 almost mirrors yours.
The only role that really bothered me was Leto, and i wish Bowie didn't pass away before they started filming.
The Sea Wall fight was visually stunning, just like the rest of the movie, but i did have problem with the sound. Mainly how LOUD it was in a small theatre i saw it first, with Zimmer BWOOONGing up the score like he uses to... oh right, Zimmer's score was kinda mediocre, especially compared to Vangelis'.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
I think what BR:2049 definitely got right was using a director with a very strong visual aesthetic, as Ridley Scott has. Whatever else about it, it's fantastic to look at.

I suppose an inherent problem with this sort of endeavour is how to expand on the original without trampling it. The obvious risk is that is retreads the same ideas but with relatively little development, and ultimately, I'd be inclined to say that's what it does. Plotwise, it's also perhaps a little on the thin side, but I'm not sure that's so huge a problem. Nevertheless, I think at minimum it is an impressive work of art (and if you interpret a slightly negative hint in that statement it's intended) and I enjoyed it greatly.

Setting it against Ridley Scott's contemporaneous return to his own Alien universe (Prometheus), I would suggest it is the considerably superior successor movie of the two.
 

Scarytown_v1legacy

New member
Mar 24, 2017
40
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
With K it wasn't even that he rejected the replacement of Joi, that Joi was simply an add. It was there to make him question if what he shared with Joi was ever genuine, seeing as the add-Joi adresses him in a similar manner. And as a result it makes him question whether he should try and save/help Deckard, a man who for all intents and purposes should mean nothing to him, or join the replicant rebelion, a movement that should hold greater importance to him.
I had a similar, but different take on this scene. I felt like it was trying to mirror K's realization that he isn't special at all. The whole movie was mainly about how he thought he was more than a pointless, run-of-the-mill artificial creation, only to have the rug pulled out from under him in the end. The Joi add scene was to show, or at least put up the possibility, that even though she was basically a mass-produced AI following her program of unconditional love, she made independent choices that defined her in the end. This leads to K saving Deckard even though there's absolutely no reason to (and even goes against the will of his kind), because it is HIS decision that ultimately defines him, no matter what he truly is. Just my two-cents though.
 

Zeras

New member
Apr 2, 2013
124
0
0
I never quite understood the obsession with making Deckard a Replicant, since it really doesn't fit the theme of the movie, which was taken from Dick's story: the idea of empathy and what it means to be human. While there are other human characters, we only really get to see inside Deckards' head as much as we can to see that he's changing from a very robotic, un-empathetic view of the world to re-realizing his empathy and how he sees himself. Making him a Replicant just cheapens the theme, though it does seem like Ridley Scott loves to put twists into his movies - why, I have no idea. It does remind me of the script change from Alien, [SPOILERS] where the alien was to have killed Ripley and then perfectly mimic her voice to make a distress call. Somehow someone communicated to Scott that the ending would not make any kind of sense, so he changed it. Why couldn't more people have been on his directive staff to provide second opinions?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Zeras said:
I never quite understood the obsession with making Deckard a Replicant, since it really doesn't fit the theme of the movie, which was taken from Dick's story: the idea of empathy and what it means to be human. While there are other human characters, we only really get to see inside Deckards' head as much as we can to see that he's changing from a very robotic, un-empathetic view of the world to re-realizing his empathy and how he sees himself. Making him a Replicant just cheapens the theme, though it does seem like Ridley Scott loves to put twists into his movies - why, I have no idea. It does remind me of the script change from Alien, [SPOILERS] where the alien was to have killed Ripley and then perfectly mimic her voice to make a distress call. Somehow someone communicated to Scott that the ending would not make any kind of sense, so he changed it. Why couldn't more people have been on his directive staff to provide second opinions?
I agree.

So much of Deckard being a replicant seems to make no sense at all. The replicants seem to be physically superior to humans, and regularly outmatch Deckard. We're supposed to believe Rachael is the brand new replicant with no ticking clock, but for Deckard to be a replicant requires we believe Tyrell made one years before and tucked it away in the police force (or give it the memories of being in the police force)... and no-one mentions it. Seriously, how the hell would Deckard's (former, supposed) colleagues NOT know, and at least one of them blurt it out or treat him oddly? And Deckard, one way or the other, seems a fully realised human-like character. All the other replicants appear in some way "off" - strangely unemotional or stilted in ways - including Rachael. And then the sheer faff of setting it up so he meets Rachael, falls in love as the only two new generation replicant model, etc. all getting uncomfortably contrived.

It is furthermore problematic to discuss the nature of empathy and being human (etc.) and to then put the film through the lens of a character whose ability to genuinely feel emotion and empathy is intrinsically unreliable. As a result, the power to hold the message would be undermined.

Ultimately, the film works well with Deckard a human generally. It works well with his identity uncertain as a mystery. But as a replicant, all the above sorts of problems emerge. I have no idea why Scott might decide to say Deckard was a replicant (the writers disagree) except to stir controversy. That or - in my view - Scott's strengths are visual design and action far more than plot and characterisation.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Zeras said:
I never quite understood the obsession with making Deckard a Replicant, since it really doesn't fit the theme of the movie, which was taken from Dick's story: the idea of empathy and what it means to be human. While there are other human characters, we only really get to see inside Deckards' head as much as we can to see that he's changing from a very robotic, un-empathetic view of the world to re-realizing his empathy and how he sees himself. Making him a Replicant just cheapens the theme, though it does seem like Ridley Scott loves to put twists into his movies - why, I have no idea. It does remind me of the script change from Alien, [SPOILERS] where the alien was to have killed Ripley and then perfectly mimic her voice to make a distress call. Somehow someone communicated to Scott that the ending would not make any kind of sense, so he changed it. Why couldn't more people have been on his directive staff to provide second opinions?
Becuase all good movies need a twist. He's been a replicant all along!

It's the only reason why Empire is the best Star Wars. Like Bladeruner, that twist made little sense anyway and was dropped to liven up the story.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,568
4,371
118
trunkage said:
It's the only reason why Empire is the best Star Wars. Like Bladeruner, that twist made little sense anyway and was dropped to liven up the story.
That's not really comparable. One is a twist that factors into the following sequel, reflects on the main character and main villain, has an emotional conclusion, and was actually written in the script. The other was never there in the first place, but since the director can't stop putting his foot in his mouth was retro actively shoved into it through special cuts. It also runs totally counter to the theme of the movie, unlike Empire.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Casual Shinji said:
That's not really comparable. One is a twist that factors into the following sequel, reflects on the main character and main villain, has an emotional conclusion, and was actually written in the script. The other was never there in the first place, but since the director can't stop putting his foot in his mouth was retro actively shoved into it through special cuts. It also runs totally counter to the theme of the movie, unlike Empire.
The writers of Blade Runner clearly thought Deckard was a human, and he's definitely a human in the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Ridley Scott and approximately no-one else seems to have the idea to make him (possibly) a replicant. If we consider the director's cut, Scott must have chosen to film those scenes and so clearly had the idea in mind during filming. It's not like the studio made him add the idea and indeed quite the opposite: the studio made him cut it from the original.

But like I said, I really don't think Scott's strong points as a filmmaker are plot and characterisation. I would not at all be surprised if he thought "Deckard is a replicant" as a jolly wheeze to throw in without properly considering how well it gelled with the rest of the film.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,223
0
0
Zeras said:
I never quite understood the obsession with making Deckard a Replicant, since it really doesn't fit the theme of the movie, which was taken from Dick's story: the idea of empathy and what it means to be human. While there are other human characters, we only really get to see inside Deckards' head as much as we can to see that he's changing from a very robotic, un-empathetic view of the world to re-realizing his empathy and how he sees himself. Making him a Replicant just cheapens the theme, though it does seem like Ridley Scott loves to put twists into his movies - why, I have no idea. It does remind me of the script change from Alien, [SPOILERS] where the alien was to have killed Ripley and then perfectly mimic her voice to make a distress call. Somehow someone communicated to Scott that the ending would not make any kind of sense, so he changed it. Why couldn't more people have been on his directive staff to provide second opinions?
Well, your outlook on this issue might depend on which version you saw first, imho.
Speaking from experience: First time i watched Blade Runner in it's entirety, was during my teens, and it was the Final Cut. Which is basicly Director's Cut - that introduces the (in)famous dream sequence practically confirming that Deckard is a replicant - but with more polish, some digital restoration etc.
Of course, because i was enamored with the movie, i also immediately accepted Scott's vision. "Wooow, he was a skinjob all along, what a twist" etc. I was in #TeamReplicantDeckard.
Over time, though, and after another rewatches, video essays, reading source material, i changed my mind. With one review being almost my Patrice O'Neal moment, where i went "Yep, they're right. Scott's idea was dumb."

So yeah, nowadays i firmly think that Deckard should be just human, which leaves the movie with much better message OR it should be left ambivalent, lending to paranoid Dickian atmosphere.
Which how it basicly is presented in 2049.
 

Zeras

New member
Apr 2, 2013
124
0
0
MrCalavera said:
Zeras said:
I never quite understood the obsession with making Deckard a Replicant, since it really doesn't fit the theme of the movie, which was taken from Dick's story: the idea of empathy and what it means to be human. While there are other human characters, we only really get to see inside Deckards' head as much as we can to see that he's changing from a very robotic, un-empathetic view of the world to re-realizing his empathy and how he sees himself. Making him a Replicant just cheapens the theme, though it does seem like Ridley Scott loves to put twists into his movies - why, I have no idea. It does remind me of the script change from Alien, [SPOILERS] where the alien was to have killed Ripley and then perfectly mimic her voice to make a distress call. Somehow someone communicated to Scott that the ending would not make any kind of sense, so he changed it. Why couldn't more people have been on his directive staff to provide second opinions?
Well, your outlook on this issue might depend on which version you saw first, imho.
Speaking from experience: First time i watched Blade Runner in it's entirety, was during my teens, and it was the Final Cut. Which is basicly Director's Cut - that introduces the (in)famous dream sequence practically confirming that Deckard is a replicant - but with more polish, some digital restoration etc.
Of course, because i was enamored with the movie, i also immediately accepted Scott's vision. "Wooow, he was a skinjob all along, what a twist" etc. I was in #TeamReplicantDeckard.
Over time, though, and after another rewatches, video essays, reading source material, i changed my mind. With one review being almost my Patrice O'Neal moment, where i went "Yep, they're right. Scott's idea was dumb."

So yeah, nowadays i firmly think that Deckard should be just human, which leaves the movie with much better message OR it should be left ambivalent, lending to paranoid Dickian atmosphere.
Which how it basicly is presented in 2049.
Which do you think it should be, just asking? I think I've made my opinion known.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,223
0
0
Zeras said:
MrCalavera said:
Zeras said:
I never quite understood the obsession with making Deckard a Replicant, since it really doesn't fit the theme of the movie, which was taken from Dick's story: the idea of empathy and what it means to be human. While there are other human characters, we only really get to see inside Deckards' head as much as we can to see that he's changing from a very robotic, un-empathetic view of the world to re-realizing his empathy and how he sees himself. Making him a Replicant just cheapens the theme, though it does seem like Ridley Scott loves to put twists into his movies - why, I have no idea. It does remind me of the script change from Alien, [SPOILERS] where the alien was to have killed Ripley and then perfectly mimic her voice to make a distress call. Somehow someone communicated to Scott that the ending would not make any kind of sense, so he changed it. Why couldn't more people have been on his directive staff to provide second opinions?
Well, your outlook on this issue might depend on which version you saw first, imho.
Speaking from experience: First time i watched Blade Runner in it's entirety, was during my teens, and it was the Final Cut. Which is basicly Director's Cut - that introduces the (in)famous dream sequence practically confirming that Deckard is a replicant - but with more polish, some digital restoration etc.
Of course, because i was enamored with the movie, i also immediately accepted Scott's vision. "Wooow, he was a skinjob all along, what a twist" etc. I was in #TeamReplicantDeckard.
Over time, though, and after another rewatches, video essays, reading source material, i changed my mind. With one review being almost my Patrice O'Neal moment, where i went "Yep, they're right. Scott's idea was dumb."

So yeah, nowadays i firmly think that Deckard should be just human, which leaves the movie with much better message OR it should be left ambivalent, lending to paranoid Dickian atmosphere.
Which how it basicly is presented in 2049.
Which do you think it should be, just asking? I think I've made my opinion known.
Oh, sorry, i thought i conveyed it in my post? Out of the two: Deckard being human of course. Scott's idea is hackish.
By ambivalency i mean, that i'm okay with some, subtle nodes that indicate there's an open possibility of him being a replicant, but nothing as definite as Scott would want. You know, so it plays into "More human than human" themes, and paranoid aspects of the source material, that are Dick's novels.
2049 has that scene, for example, where Old Man Deckard is holding his own in fisticuffs with K, while delivering a punch or two. Of course this could be simply explained by K holding back, cause he's there to get some answers, not to hurt him.
 

Zeras

New member
Apr 2, 2013
124
0
0
MrCalavera said:
Zeras said:
MrCalavera said:
Zeras said:
I never quite understood the obsession with making Deckard a Replicant, since it really doesn't fit the theme of the movie, which was taken from Dick's story: the idea of empathy and what it means to be human. While there are other human characters, we only really get to see inside Deckards' head as much as we can to see that he's changing from a very robotic, un-empathetic view of the world to re-realizing his empathy and how he sees himself. Making him a Replicant just cheapens the theme, though it does seem like Ridley Scott loves to put twists into his movies - why, I have no idea. It does remind me of the script change from Alien, [SPOILERS] where the alien was to have killed Ripley and then perfectly mimic her voice to make a distress call. Somehow someone communicated to Scott that the ending would not make any kind of sense, so he changed it. Why couldn't more people have been on his directive staff to provide second opinions?
Well, your outlook on this issue might depend on which version you saw first, imho.
Speaking from experience: First time i watched Blade Runner in it's entirety, was during my teens, and it was the Final Cut. Which is basicly Director's Cut - that introduces the (in)famous dream sequence practically confirming that Deckard is a replicant - but with more polish, some digital restoration etc.
Of course, because i was enamored with the movie, i also immediately accepted Scott's vision. "Wooow, he was a skinjob all along, what a twist" etc. I was in #TeamReplicantDeckard.
Over time, though, and after another rewatches, video essays, reading source material, i changed my mind. With one review being almost my Patrice O'Neal moment, where i went "Yep, they're right. Scott's idea was dumb."

So yeah, nowadays i firmly think that Deckard should be just human, which leaves the movie with much better message OR it should be left ambivalent, lending to paranoid Dickian atmosphere.
Which how it basicly is presented in 2049.
Which do you think it should be, just asking? I think I've made my opinion known.
Oh, sorry, i thought i conveyed it in my post? Out of the two: Deckard being human of course. Scott's idea is hackish.
By ambivalency i mean, that i'm okay with some, subtle nodes that indicate there's an open possibility of him being a replicant, but nothing as definite as Scott would want. You know, so it plays into "More human than human" themes, and paranoid aspects of the source material, that are Dick's novels.
2049 has that scene, for example, where Old Man Deckard is holding his own in fisticuffs with K, while delivering a punch or two. Of course this could be simply explained by K holding back, cause he's there to get some answers, not to hurt him.
Sorry about the ambivalence on my part; I think when you've got the people who wrote the screenplay saying that Deckard is human, the Replicant twist needs to die a quick, agonizing death.