millarworld.tv Comics Creators

Blade Runner 2049 SPOILER THREAD


#64

It’s definitely closer to the whole “R.U.R.” ideal, where the word Robot is simply meaning someone who is part of a forced labor subset - yet also manufactured in some way.


#65

Replicants are entirely biological.

It’s scifi so it doesn’t really matter, Star Trek made it clear that Data was a person, even though he’s a robot, but in the Bladerunner universe the conflict is about biological creations, I guess, apart from the 80’s being a time when people were becoming more aware of things like cloning and the possibilities of genetic engineering, it also narrows the gap for some people. Replicants are not “toasters”.

It’s all about human rights though, biological or not.


#66

I saw it this afternoon. I absolutely loved it.

Following the example of Dave Wallace, I decided not to rewatch the original movie and take this one on it’s merits. And it succeeeded wonderfully well. And I think that it stood on pretty well on it’s own metaphorical two feet.

It felt a bit more Philip K Dick insprierd than the original one (at least to me). Officer K seems to be a lonely man wrapped up in events that he can’t fully understand and will inevitably be crushed by.

I thought Harrison Ford was great. I don’t think that I have seen a performance this good from him in years. He has always been able to convey world weariness with a sigh. I liked that he doesn’t become the film’s protagonist the moment he comes on screen. In this he’s a sad old man.


#67

I saw it last night and loved it, but I’ve been wanting to let it swish around in my mind before posting about it in detail, as there’s so much to think about and unpack there. So many great concepts and ideas, executed very well indeed.

But in short I thought it was a beautiful (almost hypnotic at times), thoughtful, sad, imaginative, original film that stood up in its own right, while also serving as a perfect sequel to the original. I liked that it never got too caught up in homages to the first movie or trying to recreate it, but definitely felt like it captured its spirit.

I’m glad I didn’t rewatch the first movie immediately before this one but I’m keen to go back and revisit it now.


#68

Yes, he was excellent. I didn’t know he had a performance like this left in him.

I also really appreciated the commitment to maintaining the ambiguity around his character, as discussed upthread. That was an important thing for them to get right, for me. It was clever to craft a story that worked well either way, and didn’t really make it a central part of the movie again.


#69

But - do they mention if Rachel died of natural causes, had the limit the final cut adds, or side-step it with his weariness?


#70

Have you seen the movie, Tom? Rachel’s death is a fairly central part of the story.


#71

The new one? Nah.
I’m seeing it tomorrow night with a friend.

Right now my closest memories of the original are the two theatricals I rewatched last month and then this month. And those have the “sweet” ending.
So if I’m mis-remembering the Final Cut, that’s my bad.


#72

In that case, I am saying nothing. See it for yourself.

I think that this is a movie that is going to stand up to multiple viewings. I am looking forward to a viewing back to back with the original movie.


#73

I think the way they handled Rachael was great. I mean, it’s very much a story reason that she’s deceased. At first I thought, ah, they did this so they didn’t have to bring Sean Young back.


Except of course they did! They de-aged her with computer effects, but that’s her there, acting alongside Harrison Ford.


#74

Those that have seen it, is this a 2D watch or a 3D watch? Want to get this right.


#75

I thought the colour in the Vegas scenes brought out the blue of Ryan Gosling’s eyes beautifully.


#76

During the scene where K takes the wooden horse to Dr. Badger,

does the doctor say the horse was exposed to deadly levels of radiation? I know that when K goes to Vegas he finds the radiation levels to be nominal but iirc Badger says they used to be very high.

If Deckard carved it 30 years ago then is that oblique confirmation he’s a replicant?


#77

I saw it in 3D because that was the only option on an IMAX screen. As with most films it doesn’t add much and 20 minutes in I stopped noticing it was in 3D.


#78

I saw it in 2D, I don’t feel like I missed anything.


#79

I think the film was a bit too oblique about that. It’s not really central to the plot, they should’ve either settled the question or just ignored it. The scene with Wallace floating the idea that Decker’s relationship with Rachel was some sort of planned experiment by Tyrell didn’t work for me.

Replicant or not, Deckard and Rachel was a random event in my mind, just as her giving birth was. It’s an example of how we can’t control as much as we would like to, and that all plans fall apart at some point.

It’s part of why I think the film’s first half is stronger than the second. The set up of the world and the mysteries and what’s at stake is better than the resolutions of a lot of those things. Villeneuve’s films often start to drift at some point. The overall quality of everything compensates for that, for me, but it’s still an issue I have with his movies.


#80

Dude, the BSS show is way more important. You can (and did) wait another day to see it :wink:


#81

Not sure if this has been posted but he is pretty much in accord with how I felt about the movie.


#82

For those who, like me, were waiting until after the movie to watch the shorts:




#83

I was waiting for right before my showing starts. So thanks!