Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

bnt

me_irl wrote: »

His "drone" reads No Radiation when K/Joe requests it.

I thought the story was that while radiation levels had returned to normal by 2049, they had been much higher years before that. How long had Deckard been in Las Vegas? Decades, if I understand it correctly - maybe even since 2021?

One cultural reference that jumped out at me was the wooden horse: I read this as an allusion to the story of Kaspar Hauser, "a German youth who claimed to have grown up in the total isolation of a darkened cell". He claimed that his only toys were two wooden horses and a wooden dog. He wasn't believed at the time and his story is still disputed and the subject of fiction e.g. Werner Herzog made a film about it in 1974. (I know the story from the Suzanne Vega song Wooden Horse (Caspar Hauser's Song).) To me this ties in with the notion of false childhood memories, living a lie or not trusting your own past.

expectationlost

how is harrison able to meet his daugher now ? and wasn't before?

expectationlost

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't think they all had the same exact memory, but different real memories involving the wooden horse that she had (illegally) given them. This is why they all felt that they were the one. However, he was possibly the only one with a memory that was verifiable and/or was in a position to prove it. So yes it was a coincidence (or fate) but not an implausible one.

so the daughter never was at that labour camp?

pixelburp

expectationlost wrote: »

how is harrison able to meet his daugher now ? and wasn't before?

I'd have to watch it again to confirm, but apart from himself being something of a fugitive, and her very existence a world-changer, IIRC he knew nothing of the child beyond that he had one on the way. He intentionally stayed away from her to keep her safe from discovery.

mrcheez

"Uncanny valley" , my new words for the day, cheers

Boards.ie. The more you know.

expectationlost

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd have to watch it again to confirm, but apart from himself being something of a fugitive, and her very existence a world-changer, IIRC he knew nothing of the child beyond that he had one on the way. He intentionally stayed away from her to keep her safe from discovery.

he chose not to know anything about her to keep her safe, is still not the best plan?

Tony EH

conorhal wrote: »

I'd agree with that assessment, 2049 is a flawed film in my book but still manages to be a damn good one, the original if we're honest about it has many flaws too. 2049 suffers some of the same flaws, largely around the muddy nature of the replicants, while other flaws that the original has, 2049 does much to improve upon, such as the fact that Deckard is a detective that does little or no detecting.
The 'replicant underground' sequel bating was an annoying misstep as far as I was concerned and shone a light on the worst aspect of the film, the half baked and underwritten nature and reasons for the existance of replicants and their status in society, which is at best muddy and at worst often contradictory.

There's also a slight flaw in that potential set up, in that Replicants now have a built in mental obligation to explicitly follow human commands, up to and including killing themselves.

TinCool

I'm a massive fan of the original and have pretty much every box set of it released. I've seen 2049 in the cinema twice and have watched it a few more times since. I love both of them. 2049 certainly gets better on subsequent re-watches.

The fact they still keep the ambiguity of whether or not Deckard is a replicant is definitely a plus point and I would definitely say that is mostly down to Hampton Fancher having written both screen plays. Ridley Scott must not have had a great deal of influence on it, as it's widely known that he felt that Deckard was a replicant in the first one.

2049 is long but the cityscapes and overall feel of the movie more than make up for it.

As for Sean Young's scene. I thought it looked amasing. The only obvious CGI'ness is where Love/Luve shoots her in the head. Quite obvious when she falls to the ground.

There is only one scene that I think looks crap. When K gets picked up by the police after she has visited Deckards daughter, the police spinner looks like it's just plonked in to the shoot.

Aside, great movie which I will be watching again and again.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mrcheez

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's out on digital download already. I'm not au fait with iTunes or Amazon Movies or whatever so perhaps this is the norm nowadays and physical comes later.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Potential-Monke

So I got around to watching this last night. And I have to say, it's the exact same as the first film in every way, ie: terrible. Nothing happens, there's too many 'Breaking Bad' style drawn out shots with nothing happening, I could see the ending a mile away, and Ryan fecking Goslings face... I didn't like the original at all, nearly fell asleep, but I was told this was better. It wasn't. It was just as bad. And so unnecessarily long! I couldn't recommend this to anyone.

conorhal

Tony EH wrote: »

There's also a slight flaw in that potential set up, in that Replicants now have a built in mental obligation to explicitly follow human commands, up to and including killing themselves.

That's a minor quibble, or, it could even become a potential major future plot point (which is seems we are sadly unlikely to ever see).
Just like Roy Batty's quest for 'more life' that motivates his group in Bladerunner, 2049's rebel replicants could be on a quest for ‘more self-determination’ to drive their motivation.
There is one thing about that particular little ‘nugget of plot-McGuffin’ that doesn't work for me though, the fact that K has to be tested for his level of compliance on a regular basis. If he has an in-built, automatic subservience, then why bother testing to see if he’s been naughty? Or do they only test replicant cops because cops face more tricky and nuanced situations that might challenge or subvert that genetic programming? And if so, why does some fool on the internet like me have to end up postulating/theorizing about that instead of the writer adding one explanatory line of dialogue to a scene so that it makes some sort of internal logic to the plot?
I suspect the answer to that is, ‘well the original has the famous Voight-comp scene in it so 2049 has to have one too’ and that’s the sole reason those scenes exist, even if they contradict what the characters are supposed know about replicants.

As I said, my main issue is not with minor (forgivable) quibbles but rather with the fundamental flaws in the internal logic of the Bladerunner 2049 universe regards replicants. These are of course the very same problems that the original suffered from and rectifying them was a missed opportunity in the sequel.

The problem for both films stem, I think, from the ill-defined nature of the replicants.
What is a ‘replicant’? You may think that the clumsily inserted title card explaining exactly this in the original answers that question, but the film is actually pretty fuzzy on the issue and this fuzziness stems from the original script, which couldn’t decide if replicants were machine/human hybrids or genetically modified people.

On the one hand replicants are so human, only Voight-comp psychological analysis can differentiate them from human, on the other hand Deckard traces Zora through a snake scale he finds in her bath tub with a serial number on it. Now I know both Dick’s story and the film came from an age before the’ CSI-ification’ of every damn cop drama which pulls instant DNA results out of its ass, but if you can genetically encode a serial number into the DNA of ‘artificially created life’ then why can’t a simple blood test identify one, or at the very least, why don’t they all have ‘Property of the Tyrell Corporation’ stamped across their forehead as a birth mark?

2049 plays fast and loose with the internal logic of its own universe in the same way, but worse, because rather than a minor quibbling incidental plot point, it makes a fundamental lapse of logic central to the whole damn plot.
The main driver of the plot is that Jarred Leto’s character Wallace is on a quest to create replicants that can breed/cover up the fact one already has, and Rachel and Deckard’s ‘miracle child’ seems to be key to his plans.
So tell me again since the film didn’t bother, why can’t he create a fertile replicant? If replicants were genetically engineered to be sterile, what exactly is stopping him from tweaking whatever minor DNA change that inhibits reproductive ability from ‘off’ to ‘on’? If you can build humans from scratch how hard could that possibly be?
That is something that could bare a bit of explanation, especially to a modern audience that is literate about DNA and in fact lives in a world where 'gene-editing' and GMO are a actual thing. It creates confusion in the story and raises too many questions.
If he wants to create ‘self-replicating replicants’ why does Rachel’s baby matter? As soon as he creates them, the child just becomes yet another replicant child amongst many. If Deckard is a replicant (a question left deliberately open) then it wouldn’t matter. Of course it DOES matter in the context of a human-replicant hybrid and the societal ramifications of such a thing, would it’s human DNA attribute it with a different status/rights? This means that leaving 'The Deckard Question' ambiguous becomes more ‘problematic fan service’ rather than helpful to the plot.

Another problematic issue is the VERY muddy and underwritten status in society of replicant’s themselves. I can understand their creation in the context of the original film, there is dangerous and dirty work to be done in space for which heavily modified humans would be useful (even if you just ignore the obvious question, why not use robots instead, they must exist in such a technologically advanced world). The question of what they are doing on Earth in 2049 however is never really answered adequately.
In an over populated world in which life is cheap and there are factory/orphanages full of abandoned children, who needs replicants for their dirty work? Is there not a surfeit of people and labour? What societal circumstances came to permit replicants? If slaves so human that they could be human are A-OK, then what’s the problem with human slavery? The corporations seem to ‘own’ most folks anyhow.

The problem with 2049 is (like the original) that many fundamental plot and story points come with more questions than answers, and not good questions, questions that pull you out of the film and make you question if any of it makes sense. Questions that inhibit investing in the story and universe, particularly when the plot and characters are so under-writen. Replicants are slaves, isn’t that awful? Yeah, but I don’t care because I’ve seen nothing of their plight so I don’t know the stakes ergo I have no investment in their ‘struggle’. I’m invested in K’s struggle and Deckard’s struggle. But the struggle of the replicant resistance? Not so much.


PS, Sorry about the essay!


TL;DR :

2049 suffers from the same flaws and the original. It's a masterpiece of visual storytelling, but far too much of the world building is done by the production design rather than the somewhat thin script or characters, but in the case of 2049, with added confusion.

Tony EH

conorhal wrote: »

There is one thing about that particular little ‘nugget of plot-McGuffin’ that doesn't work for me though, the fact that K has to be tested for his level of compliance on a regular basis. If he has an in-built, automatic subservience, then why bother testing to see if he’s been naughty? Or do they only test replicant cops because cops face more tricky and nuanced situations that might challenge or subvert that genetic programming? And if so, why does some fool on the internet like me have to end up postulating/theorizing about that instead of the writer adding one explanatory line of dialogue to a scene so that it makes some sort of internal logic to the plot?

I think K is being tested for mental stability, not really subservience. IIUC these Replicant Blade Runner units could be subject to going off the rails because they are essentially retiring their own, which has the potential to play on their pscyhe. How this test determines just how level headed the BR replicants are is beyond me though and probably best left that way.

conorhal wrote: »

I suspect the answer to that is, ‘well the original has the famous Voight-comp scene in it so 2049 has to have one too’ and that’s the sole reason those scenes exist, even if they contradict what the characters are supposed know about replicants.

Maybe it's just a quicker, and possibly automated, update to the Voight-Kampff test? Stands to reason that somebody would have come up with a less clumsy way of testing Replicants. Voight-Kampff was used to determine emotional responses. Some Replicants became adept at faking emotion and therefore became quite good at evading society if they decided to run and make it back to Earth, where they were illegal.

conorhal wrote: »

As I said, my main issue is not with minor (forgivable) quibbles but rather with the fundamental flaws in the internal logic of the Bladerunner 2049 universe regards replicants. These are of course the very same problems that the original suffered from and rectifying them was a missed opportunity in the sequel.

The problem for both films stem, I think, from the ill-defined nature of the replicants.
What is a ‘replicant’? You may think that the clumsily inserted title card explaining exactly this in the original answers that question, but the film is actually pretty fuzzy on the issue and this fuzziness stems from the original script, which couldn’t decide if replicants were machine/human hybrids or genetically modified people.

On the one hand replicants are so human, only Voight-comp psychological analysis can differentiate them from human, on the other hand Deckard traces Zora through a snake scale he finds in her bath tub with a serial number on it. Now I know both Dick’s story and the film came from an age before the’ CSI-ification’ of every damn cop drama which pulls instant DNA results out of its ass, but if you can genetically encode a serial number into the DNA of ‘artificially created life’ then why can’t a simple blood test identify one, or at the very least, why don’t they all have ‘Property of the Tyrell Corporation’ stamped across their forehead as a birth mark?

Yeh, I've often had problems with 'Blade Runner' and the vagueness of its Replicants. One the one hand they're "more human than human" and on the other you can simply shine a light in their eyes and see a red reflection - although this was simply a camera/lighting anomaly, that was artificially expanded after the fact by Ridley Scott, so I've never counted it myself.

But, Replicants are so ridiculously engineered genetically that it doesn't bear thinking too much about really. Chop and arm off and it'll bleed, but if you know where to look, you'll find a serial number on a bone or something.

It's hard to believe that there wouldn't have been laws enacted in the America of the 21st century that required manufacturers of Replicant parts to clearly show their serial numbers, or as you say make their artifical blood type so different to humans that no mistake could be made.

This has been rectified in 'Blade Runner 2049' though, as Replicant eyes clearly have a number stamp on their cornea, doing away with the need for something as time consuming as a 30 question test and their inherent sociopathic nature has been neutered with an inbuilt failsafe of having to obey an order from a human, no matter what that order is.

The "fuzziness" is very deliberate though. We, as an audience, are supposed to understand the plight of the Replicants, while not entirely sympathising with them. It's hard to sympathise with objects that are essentially sociopaths and could kill you in an instant without feeling a single thing - which is, after all, why they are illegal on Earth. Roy Batty may want more life (and we understand that), but he doesn't care a jot about anything else's life, except (possibly) at the very end when he saves Deckard on the roof of the Bradbury building and realises a little something of what it means to be human (and the loss that death is for all living, conscious, beings), while subsequently Deckard realises that Replicants have a right to life too and his life of hunting them down and killing them has been mispent.

conorhal wrote: »

The main driver of the plot is that Jarred Leto’s character Wallace is on a quest to create replicants that can breed/cover up the fact one already has, and Rachel and Deckard’s ‘miracle child’ seems to be key to his plans.
So tell me again since the film didn’t bother, why can’t he create a fertile replicant? If replicants were genetically engineered to be sterile, what exactly is stopping him from tweaking whatever minor DNA change that inhibits reproductive ability from ‘off’ to ‘on’? If you can build humans from scratch how hard could that possibly be?

Tyrell unlocked the fertility secret with his Rachel model, who was a special version of Nexus 6 or 7, she also was the first model without the 4 year lifespan. But he was murdered by Roy and took that particular secret to the grave. That's why Wallace wants Rachel's child so badly. He believes her Replicant DNA can help him in his quest to create and army of Replicant slaves, that can reproduce rather than have to be manufactured.

conorhal wrote: »

If Deckard is a replicant (a question left deliberately open) then it wouldn’t matter. Of course it DOES matter in the context of a human-replicant hybrid and the societal ramifications of such a thing, would it’s human DNA attribute it with a different status/rights? This means that leaving 'The Deckard Question' ambiguous becomes more ‘problematic fan service’ rather than helpful to the plot.

This is where Scott's interference with the original story becomes even more annoying and why I reject the "Deckard is a Replicant" nonsense even more now with 'Blade Runner 2019'. If Replicants cannot reproduce in the original 'Blade Runner', why would you bother making a male Replicant capable of producing sperm and ejaculating? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

To me there's no "Deckard Question". He's always been a human in 'Blade Runner' and even more so in the sequel.

conorhal wrote: »

Another problematic issue is the VERY muddy and underwritten status in society of replicant’s themselves. I can understand their creation in the context of the original film, there is dangerous and dirty work to be done in space for which heavily modified humans would be useful (even if you just ignore the obvious question, why not use robots instead, they must exist in such a technologically advanced world). The question of what they are doing on Earth in 2049 however is never really answered adequately.

Simply put, most people have buggered off into space in the 30 years between films.

Thargor

Tony EH wrote: »

Simply put, most people have buggered off into space in the 30 years between films.

Ive seen that in a few places but whats the source? Thats logistically impossible, the world was massively overpopulated in the first film, they didnt lift them all into space...

Tony EH

Doesn't it mention it in the film? I can't recall where I heard if it didn't.

But it seems that Replicants dropped a nuke over Vegas and pretty much fucked everything up, after humans went on the rampage against them. In the intervening years, more and more people fled to the "Off World colonies" that were being advertised in the first film, to the point where it was the poor and less well off that remained on Earth.

It's certainly clear that in 'Blade Runner 2049', L.A. isn't as populated as it was in 'Blade Runner'.

pixelburp

Yeah, while not outright stated it seemed heavily implied that Earth was basically reduced to a glorified slum, populated with all those who couldn't afford to get off-world. Replicants would very handily make up the shortfall in skilled labour on that front.

Thargor

I was thinking of that but Im 90% sure they presented it more like a brain drain, the 1% or whatever of the best had fecked off into space but the poor were still there in their billions. Lifting enough into space o depopulate a planet is impossible. Id love to see more of the universe, Im still amazed at what a dull story they went with.

Keplar240B

A Conestoga-class troop transport under construction near the sea wall in BR 2049

Aliens is set in 2183 AD where one of these ships the USS Sulaco is deployed

conorhal

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, while not outright stated it seemed heavily implied that Earth was basically reduced to a glorified slum, populated with all those who couldn't afford to get off-world. Replicants would very handily make up the shortfall in skilled labour on that front.

That's just a rationalization of of why the story doesn't work.

There's no suggestion that Replicants make up the shortfall in skilled labour, in Bladerunner they make up the short-fall of labour that requires the dirty work.
In 2049 we don't see replicant doctors or engineers, we see AI's replacing replicants as sex workers and replicants replacing cops.
What you're postulating is entirely a different movie. It's a movie in which humans would resent an elite tier of genetically modified humans (Gattaca is a great movie BTW that understands how to coherently world build)
None of that is in the movie.

pixelburp

Not rationalising anything, just speculating on the status of earth in the movie, which wasn't entirely defined from what I recall when I saw it way back when in the cinema. Seemed like Earth was reduced to a bit of an uber slum, bar pockets of futuretech presumably run by corporations. Honestly I sometimes find ambiguous world building more fun; if the broad strokes are there's it's a wheeze to think on the finer detail *shrug*

Tony EH

Also, weren't the prozzies Replicants? Wasn't the maddam the head of the Replicant underground?

Also Replicants were replacing Blade Runners cos there was no manpower to fill the ranks.

mrcheez

The 4K UltraHD BluRay reviews are coming in now... Looks like it's one of the best 4K releases ya lucky bastids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5Gy4xegfc

I'm sure I'll still be happy with my 1080p 3D one, but damn if there was any reason to swap my 55" for a 4K I think this might be it.

Skerries

my Blaster Edition which I ordered last year won't be available for another month

mrcheez

Skerries wrote: »

my Blaster Edition which I ordered last year won't be available for another month

European release seems to be 5th Feb but US (and China apparently??!) have it already

Reg'stoy

Where and how much can I get this for?

Skerries wrote: »

my Blaster Edition which I ordered last year won't be available for another month

rednik

I pre-ordered the Mondo exclusive from HMV, they do not deliver to Ireland so I used my brother's address. It includes the 4K, 3D and standard blu ray.

mrcheez

Purty.

I also like the combination of the 2 steelbooks available in the US. Would look nice mounted on a board.

https://youtu.be/D6UHAc1jNbE?t=739

PirateShampoo

Screw the blaster, is it sad that i really want his Jacket?

Skerries

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Where and how much can I get this for?

the only places I could see at the time were amazon.de for €140 but was sold out quickly so bought it from fnac for €200

unfortunately because this is Europe the the gun doesn't come off the stand

Skerries

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Screw the blaster, is it sad that i really want his Jacket?

https://www.fjackets.com/buy/Ryan-Gosling-Blade-Runner-2049-Coat.html

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mickeroo

Good day to pre-order the 4k blu ray on amazon. there's a £10 discount with the code BIGTHANKS just for today if you spend £50 or over. Just ordered this and Blue Planet 4k HDR blu ray for £46.

Thargor

Has anyone seen the trailers for this on Sky lately? They're presenting it as all action based on Harrison Ford saying "He's building an army, we have to stop him!", and it cuts to a line of uniforms standing at attention with rifles, its absolutely bizarre, they're presenting a fake plot, I dont even remember that quote.

mrcheez

3D BluRay arriving tomorrow!

Neighbours will have to get used to loud deep rumbling through my sound system for next few days

homerun_homer

I see Denis is calling the movie a monster to deal with in a Guardian interview. I can't read the rest of it. Anyone see the full interview for the context of it because headlines make it sound like he's apologising for it?

Here is where I saw one story.

peteeeed

spoiler special podcast with an interview with Denis Villeneuve
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/blade-runner-2049-empire-podcast-spoiler-special-denis-villeneuve/

mrcheez

homerun_homer wrote: »

I see Denis is calling the movie a monster to deal with in a Guardian interview. I can't read the rest of it. Anyone see the full interview for the context of it because headlines make it sound like he's apologising for it?

Here is where I saw one story.

Seems to have regretted the length despite trimming as much off as he could. The length and pacing are one of the things I like about it actually (I'm in the minority I know!)

Sad Professor

homerun_homer wrote: »

I see Denis is calling the movie a monster to deal with in a Guardian interview. I can't read the rest of it. Anyone see the full interview for the context of it because headlines make it sound like he's apologising for it?

Here is where I saw one story.

It's not that much clearer in the original Telegraph piece. Villeneuve's English isn't the greatest, so I wouldn't read too much into his use of "monster". I can pm you the whole article if you want, but here's the relevant excerpt:

They’d given the director of Sicario and Arrival $185 million (£131 million) to make a mature and uncompromising sequel to Blade Runner, and for better or worse, that was exactly what he had delivered. Four months on, Villeneuve recalls one of his producers’ gut reactions word for word: “The lights came up, and he turned around and said, ‘We’ve just made the most expensive art house movie in cinema history.’”
[...]
When we meet in a fashionably sterile London hotel room – high rise, low lights, the purr of air conditioning overhead – the 50-year-old French-Canadian admits the film’s wildly unbalanced reception means it will probably remain a one-off.

“Let’s just say it would not be a good idea for me to make a movie like that twice,” he chuckles, in mellowly accented English. “When you’re working on a film you’re in a bubble, and it was only when I came out that I realised we had made a monster.”

It’s also only now that he is able to dissect it. During the original press tour, the studio didn’t screen the film for fear of plot leaks, “and I was really tired of talking about the film with journalists who hadn’t seen it,” he says. With its mighty heritage and stars like Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, it was by far the biggest film Alcon had ever handled. “And they wanted it to be a total secret, like Star Wars,” Villeneuve says. “They didn’t want anyone to know a thing about it.”

For his part, Villeneuve lobbied for a more open approach. “I didn’t want people to think we were afraid to show it,” he says. So they did, once. A few days later, a story surfaced in the media that Sean Young, who played Rachel in the original film, made a cameo in the new one, as had long been rumoured. The studio “just closed up, like that,” Villeneuve says, and hunches over with a theatrical slurp.

He's talked in previous interviews about the pacing of the film being really important to him, so I doubt he regrets any of that. If the film is too long it was due to an overabundance of plot in the script which it was too late to deal with in editing. Ridley takes credit for the script, so I'm not really sure what he thinks should have been cut.

Shred

This is due to arrive on Saturday and it appears to have gone up by £85 since I bought it in November too :eek:

mrcheez

Soundbar set to max

(got it yesterday, but decided to watch the first film again)

Shred

{paraphrase} Don't you just love when you come back from a night on the pìss to find your 4k blade runner 2049 box set is waiting for you? {paraphrase}. OLED/Amp - engage.

peteeeed

Original composer johann johannsson RIP

Relikk

peteeeed wrote: »

Original composer johann johannsson RIP

Whaaa? Damn. :eek:

Kuva

Turd.

One word review from me.

BuilderPlumber

Saw Blade Runner 2049 during the week and thought it was very good. Watch the 3 short stories material first (and of course the original Blade Runner from 1982) as it makes sense of other things during the film. Harrison Ford did a good job with Rick Deckard and it is proof he was able to convincingly revive all 3 of his most iconic characters (Indiana Jones and Han Solo being the other 2) in recent times. There is good action and it has the feel of the original and is just as good.

Shred

I of course fell asleep half an hour into it last night but I've just finished watching it for the 4th time and it gets better with each viewing. I was a little worried it wouldn't translate as well to the small screen as it was such a spectacle on the big one, but it still looks and sounds fantastic; it really is incredible work. It's such a shame it didn't get the box office it deserved.

It's sad to hear about Johannsson too, 48 is way too young.

mrcheez

peteeeed wrote: »

Original composer johann johannsson RIP

His music wasn't used in the soundtrack though, is that right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hann_J%C3%B3hannsson#Film_scores

Lists Blade Runner 2049 as "unused"

peteeeed

mrcheez wrote: »

His music wasn't used in the soundtrack though, is that right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hann_J%C3%B3hannsson#Film_scores

Lists Blade Runner 2049 as "unused"

Correct , he was replaced

Shred

Yeah he was replaced by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch alright.