Blade Runner 2049 (2017) - WITH Spoilers

[Brian G Turner]

As far as misogyny goes, if 2049 is guilty of it, so is The Handmaid's Tale.

The Handmaid's Tale is specifically about misogyny.

 

[Toby Frost]

Yes, but I don't think you could call The Handmaid's Tale misogynist.

 

[Onyx]

The Handmaid's Tale is specifically about misogyny.

Yup. And Bladerunner is about slavery, with all the attendant abuses of both men and women that implies. This is not a society on the moral high ground.

 

[Onyx]

A further thought:

In BR people own artificial animals as the real ones are mostly extinct. But the film ends with wild doves. The bees in 2049 are that film's doves - a thematic element signaling hope that the world (including all kinds of humanity) can recover from the course they are on.

 

[Judderman]

It could be, though the bees are at a manmade hive. Considering the lack of other animals it is perhaps showing there is no wildlife left. Though there are some who still persevere in some kind of farming like this.
Perhaps replicants like to try to breed life.

Also I read around. Rachel says she would kill a wasp if it landed on her arm, in the original Bladerunner. To mimick human response. K does not do this to the bee in 2049, which may link to them not being related. Or perhaps it is just that they think humans kill wasps but not bees...

 

[Onyx]

Also I read around. Rachel says she would kill a wasp if it landed on her arm, in the original Bladerunner. To mimick human response. K does not do this to the bee in 2049, which may link to them not being related. Or perhaps it is just that they think humans kill wasps but not bees...

I think the wasp line both demonstrates that wildlife is so rare that even a wasp might be considered precious, and that Rachel's response is meant to be both disconcerting/stark and one of the response questions she failed.

Bee hives can be man made, but that doesn't mean the bees are or are not. Regardless of whether they are "real" or engineered, replicant animals have to eat, and bees eat nectar that comes from flowers. Which is why I think that the bees are an indicator that life may be renewing itself out away from where people live, and Deckard has noticed this and taken up bee keeping in his hermitage.

Both films alternate between signs of depressing failure and hopeful possibility. Rachel's escape with Deckard in the first film is the optimistic result of Roy Batty's life and death. Unlike a total dystopia, there is always something to look forward to in both films. Which is why K isn't shown to die - the audience might guess that he dies, but has every reason to believe that he survives, if they wish.

I think this is a much more sophisticated way to craft a story than to tell the audience that the future they're watching is definitely one sort of thing or another. It is both good and bad, shameful and beautiful, broken and repairable. Deckard's own humanity remains a question mark - is he a good and noble "man", or the first humanity's more human replacements? The question is better than knowing for sure.

 

[Onyx]

Deckard has noticed this and taken up bee keeping in his hermitage.

Thinking about this, it may be another one of those subtle hints (or canards) about what Deckard is. In BR, Deckard has a photo collection like Leon. In 2049, Sapper cultivates the natural food garlic and Deckard cultivates honey.

 

[Judderman]

Yes, Onyx. Like I said replicants like to breed life. Though don't humans too...

K is lying in the snow, bleeding heavily, at the end. I think it is safe to say that is a death scene surely. But avoiding the final moment helps to keep the audience a bit more positive on the way out.

 

[Onyx]

K is lying in the snow, bleeding heavily, at the end. I think it is safe to say that is a death scene surely. But avoiding the final moment helps to keep the audience a bit more positive on the way out.

One thing we know from watching Zora, Holden and Deckard is that replicants can take an enormous amount of damage. I wouldn't be shocked if the new models we're even tougher.

 

[Al Jackson]

Now that BR49 has been officially released to the world, please use this thread if you want to comment about revealing details from the film.

Blade Runner 2049 surprised me. I was impressed with the way Hampton Fancher meshed the 1982 Blade Runner story with this sequel. In fact this is a better story. This is a sophisticated science fiction film , it is also not a casual viewer movie. I loved the slower pace , I sometimes think everyone under the age of 40 has contracted attention deficit disorder! I thought this was a fine film that should have gotten more love.

 

[Rodders]

I had no objection to the pace. I thought it was well shot and wouldn't have minded if it lingered on certain issues longer.

 

[Al Jackson]

Yes, Onyx. Like I said replicants like to breed life. Though don't humans too...

K is lying in the snow, bleeding heavily, at the end. I think it is safe to say that is a death scene surely. But avoiding the final moment helps to keep the audience a bit more positive on the way out.

It is odd that Deckard has a line in the movie , when he asks K how he is doing and the screenplay where he says nothing. The screenplay makes if lead pipe clear that K dies , for some reason the film leaves an ambiguity regardless of TEARS IN THE RAIN playing.

 

[ctg]

very good short

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

very good short

Actually I learned last night that a Blade Runner 2049 anime series was in prep. It will be called Black Lotus.

 

[Judderman]

very good short

Thans for posting ctg. It is very good indeed. There could easily have been another full film made set during that period. No need for the Deckard character either.

 

[Rodders]

This is interesting.

 

[HanaBi]

Finally got round to watching this film a few days ago, and was quite impressed by all accounts. But I rather think it will take a second or third viewing to really make me appreciate the film even more. In fact I recall watching the original BR back in 1982, and hated it, not least for the distracting voice-over and tacked-on ending. But over the years (along with better releases) I have grown to love and admire Blade Runner hugely.

I do get quite fed up with all the VS and IP critiques that seem to manifest and subsequently suck the life out of a balanced and objective review of any form of entertainment these days, and not just cinema. And I certainly won't go down that path here. That said my favourite character in 2049 would have to be the replicant female, Luv (played by Sylvia Hoeks).

Despite being a Nexus-9 herself, and programmed to obey humans (or just her maker, Niander Wallace?), she reminded me of renegade Nexus-6 Roy Battey from the original. So many inner conflicts, not least when she witnessed the "murder" of the newly born replicant at the hands of her maker. She stands there looking quite helpless as she sees one of her own kind mercilessly killed, but seems to take great pleasure in killing human, Lieutenant Joshi (killed in almost the same way). It is this inner conflict in her that reminded me of the same "pain" Roy went through near the end of BR, which for him resulted in saving Deckard rather than letting him die.

Both replicates seem to be at odds/prisoners of their own programming as they begin to realize what it is to be human and to be free of such binary coded shackles. (Isaac Asimov and his 3 (or 4) Laws of Robotics, comes to mind here.)

I was also quite struck in the wooden horse influence in this film compared to the unicorn on BR. It was a shame neither was fully discussed or developed within the film, but it still lingers as a curious afterthought.

 

[-K2-]

@HanaBi ; your point regarding inner conflicts, pain and "odds/prisoner of their own programming" is spot-on and I believe goes right back to the sales-pitch of, 'More human, than human.'

Slaves to their programming, whether ordered or programming-logic-compelled to kill, their actual (not designed) 'more human' aspect suffers the pain of that. Actually, making what they are forced to do by the sub-human humans, that much more cruel.

K2

 

[Matteo]

Well, that was an interesting read (all the posts in this thread).

I very deliberately avoided all reviews and trailers for this film as I suspected (perhaps wrongly, but nevertheless...) that there would be spoilers (to some degree) and intending to watch it "cold" sometime. Also, I am a fan of the original and so was a little trepidatious.

On Friday evening I finally saw it - at a mate's house on his home-cinema set up (1m screen, great sound).

First impression: it looked gorgeous. Incredible cinematography. Second impression: it was slow. But, and it's a big but, when it ended I thought "was that almost three hours?". In other words, I wasn't looking at my watch or thinking "come on, come on" throughout the film.

@Dave's comments from March last year pretty much sum up what my response to any of the above posts would be.

Would I watch t again? Definitely; it deserves another look to pick up on a few points I may have missed.

 

[reiver33]

I’ve always preferred the original cinematic BR (complete with plot inconsistencies) as I believe those who rave about the later versions still have that voiceover playing in their heads. I was with someone watching the Directors Cut as their first exposure and they found parts simply confusing.

I’d agree the sequel would perhaps appeal more to those of a contemplative nature, and that despite the run time it didn’t drag.