Blade Runner 2049

[oohrah]

I'm an original Blade Runner fan. I have all five versions of the original movie, and the book. I am a Philip K. Dick fanatic.

The 2049 movie stands alone in it own right, and the plot is compelling, not to mention the continuance of the dystopian future. If you're ever in Hong Kong out on the streets at night, you will see where it comes from.

My take is that is a perfect sequel to the theme of Roy Batty's humanity, replicants wanting an independence and life of their own. I think if you haven't seen the original, you are missing key elements.

In the book, Deckard was most definitely human, but in the movie, Scott muddied that water. It has been said that the book was about Deckard's humanity, and the movie about Batty's humanity (not my words). I would say 2049 is a warning about what you could create - and what could happen with artificial intelligence and genetic engineering.

I liked seeing Edward James Olmos again as Gaff. Nice touch.

 

[majormadmax]

Sean Young was exquisite, and never looked better than she did in the original...so Ana De Armas has some pretty big shoes to fill.

Archival footage, audio and stills of Sean Young from the original film are used to represent her character Rachael in Blade Runner 2049.

Additionally, Young's likeness was also digitally superimposed onto stand-in actress Loren Peta, who was coached on how to recreate her performance in order to briefly portray Rachael in a hallucination had by Deckard and to portray the "Rachael Replacement Double" a replicant designed by Niander Wallace to be physically identical to the original Rachael.

The voice of the Rachael Replacement Double was created with the use of a sound-alike actress to Sean Young.

 

[stdreb27]

There are several versions of the original....iirc the director's cut is the best and added deleted scenes back in. There are also 3 short films on youtube that fill in the timeline between the original and this one...2029...2039...2048.

Post links for the short films

 

[majormadmax]

Post links for the short films

 

[TheDan]

The wife had never seen the original and it had been many years since I had seen it so we watched that before going to 2049. We were both very amused that it takes place in 2019. We're looking forward to flying cars and everyone giving up their cell phone in favor of payphones with Facetime.

The wife's comment on the original was, "So this was considered a good movie back in the day?" She also said Deckard seems like a shitty blade runner, not a good one as they intimated in the movie
I think she has a point. It makes sense that Roy would kick his ass, but he almost got killed by the sex robot.

As we were watching 2049 she said she's glad we watched the original first. We both enjoyed it... As far as sequels go, I think it was a good one.

 

[TheDan]

Very groundbreaking when it came out in 1982.

It was a good update to Metropolis which came out in 1927

 

[Mikewood]

The wife had never seen the original and it had been many years since I had seen it so we watched that before going to 2049. We were both very amused that it takes place in 2019. We're looking forward to flying cars and everyone giving up their cell phone in favor of payphones with Facetime.

The wife's comment on the original was, "So this was considered a good movie back in the day?" She also said Deckard seems like a shitty blade runner, not a good one as they intimated in the movie
I think she has a point. It makes sense that Roy would kick his ass, but he almost got killed by the sex robot.

As we were watching 2049 she said she's glad we watched the original first. We both enjoyed it... As far as sequels go, I think it was a good one.

Decard is a shitty replicant. He is designed to apear human, blend in on earth and age like normal humans.

Taking the phrase a “candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long” the replicants have a much shorter lifespan but heightened strength, stamina and agility. Deckard simply can’t match the physical abilities of off world replicants designed to operate normally on planets with greater than 1 gravity or handle The heightened G forces of boost and space combat.

Our Atlas rocket is undergoing significant redesign to change its acceleration envelope to be slow enough that it does not kill a human crew. What if we could redesign the human body to handle the g-forces of the rocket? That’s what replicants do.

 

[majormadmax]

The wife had never seen the original and it had been many years since I had seen it so we watched that before going to 2049. We were both very amused that it takes place in 2019...

Watching the original 'Director's Cut' on DVD as I trudge on the treadmill this week. While it is set for almost two years from now (November 2019), the inception dates of the different Nexus 6 replicants are as follows:

- Roy Batty: January 8, 2016

- Leon Kowalski: April 10, 2017

- Zhora: June 12, 2016

- Pris: February 14, 2016

That means they are among us right now!

 

[stdreb27]

Muchos grassias


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

Watching the original 'Director's Cut' on DVD as I trudge on the treadmill this week. While it is set for almost two years from now (November 2019), the inception dates of the different Nexus 6 replicants are as follows:

- Roy Batty: January 8, 2016

- Leon Kowalski: April 10, 2017

- Zhora: June 12, 2016

- Pris: February 14, 2016

That means they are among us right now!

Now Las Vegas all makes sense.

 

[benenglish]

In the book, Deckard was most definitely human, but in the movie, Scott muddied that water.

Depending on the version, I'd say that Scott didn't muddy the water but was crystal clear on this point...eventually. People were open to the Deckard-as-replicant interpretation even before the cut with the unicorn in both dreams and origami. The unicorn essentially slapped us in the face and screamed "Deckard is a replicant!"

 

[pronstar]

This thread delivers.
I hadn't really even thought about the potential angles that are being presented in this thread.

I can't wait to watch the old and new movies now.

 

[oohrah]

Depending on the version, I'd say that Scott didn't muddy the water but was crystal clear on this point...eventually. People were open to the Deckard-as-replicant interpretation even before the cut with the unicorn in both dreams and origami. The unicorn essentially slapped us in the face and screamed "Deckard is a replicant!"

Yeah, I'll agree with this. I still have my unicorn from the box set I got years ago.

 

[majormadmax]

Depending on the version, I'd say that Scott didn't muddy the water but was crystal clear on this point...eventually. People were open to the Deckard-as-replicant interpretation even before the cut with the unicorn in both dreams and origami. The unicorn essentially slapped us in the face and screamed "Deckard is a replicant!"

Harrison Ford said Deckard wasn't a replicant, and the unicorn scene isn't definitive evidence that he was. Much like we saw in 2049, (SPOILER ALERT) while human memories are not supposed to be used in replicants, that doesn't mean they're not!

 

[benenglish]

Anybody who wants can find millions of words on the internet debating whether or not Deckard was a replicant. Usenet and IRC used to burn up with those debates. I don't want to re-start them here. However...

Harrison Ford said Deckard wasn't a replicant, ...

...is meaningless.

What did Hitchcock say? "Actors are cattle." I expect them to be just about as smart. Plenty of actors have made movies that they didn't understand. The number of times that actors have demonstrated absolutely no grasp of either the source material or the director's vision are too numerous to count. (Don't get me started on Sucker Punch! )

Ford's declaration counts for nothing.

Also...

Much like we saw in 2049, (SPOILER ALERT) while human memories are not supposed to be used in replicants, that doesn't mean they're not!

...I can't put this in context because I haven't seen 2049. If you consider your statement out of context, though, the idea that Deckard was given human memories that were known by another (presumably human, including physical flaws) blade runner indicates that Deckard was a replicant.

The original movie can go either way, depending on the mindset of the viewer. I'm hoping that when I see 2049, I'll get a better understanding. I'm entirely open to the notion that said understanding will be different. Heck, every released edit of the original changed my mind about some parts of the movie.

Shall we discuss the value of the opening voice-over? Some people think the movie was diminished when it was lost.

 

[majormadmax]

...is meaningless.

What did Hitchcock say? "Actors are cattle." I expect them to be just about as smart. Plenty of actors have made movies that they didn't understand. The number of times that actors have demonstrated absolutely no grasp of either the source material or the director's vision are too numerous to count. (Don't get me started on Sucker Punch! )

Ford's declaration counts for nothing.[/quote]

The same argument can be had for Scott's opinion. The only person who can answer that question is Philip K. Dick and he's been dead since 1982.

And I aptly disagree with you and Hitchcock believe, you honestly expect an actor's role is simply to mindlessly spout lines? Obviously you haven't paid attention to Ford's performance in the first or even second movie. He knows Deckard just as well as Scott, and has every right to his opinion and it is just as valid as Scott's.

Also...
...I can't put this in context because I haven't seen 2049. If you consider your statement out of context, though, the idea that Deckard was given human memories that were known by another (presumably human, including physical flaws) blade runner indicates that Deckard was a replicant.

The original movie can go either way, depending on the mindset of the viewer. I'm hoping that when I see 2049, I'll get a better understanding. I'm entirely open to the notion that said understanding will be different. Heck, every released edit of the original changed my mind about some parts of the movie.

Wow, you're arguing without even having seen 2049? That's tantamount to an unmarried marriage counselor. Go see it and we'll continue this discussion at a later time...

 

[benenglish]

The same argument can be had for Scott's opinion.

Scott's opinion of the source material is as questionable as anyone else's, sure. But the first movie is his and there his opinion is authoritative. Has he ever made an unambiguous statement on the subject? I seem to remember that he has...several times, on the record.

...you honestly expect an actor's role is simply to mindlessly spout lines?

Ideally, no. But plenty of directors have felt that way. Plenty of actors have demonstrated no understanding of their role and simply spouted lines with the inflection dictated by a director while hitting their marks. Some make good livings doing exactly that.

There are craftsmen and there are artists. I note that most actors who are not obvious space cadets like to talk about honing their craft, not making art.

He...has every right to his opinion...

Of course he does. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Wow, you're arguing...

Actually, no. I was trying to courteously withdraw from what I feared might turn into an argument, the last thing I want. See my previous lines about not wanting to re-hash old Usenet exchanges and my clearly ineffective attempt at a humorous deflection by bringing up the voice-over.

This medium isn't suited to subtlety. My mistake. Entirely. For forgetting that, I sincerely apologize.

Go see it and we'll continue this discussion at a later time...

I happily accede to the wisdom of that suggestion.

 

[BRD@66]

 

[easy rider]

This is a fictitious movie, right?

 

[benenglish]

This is a fictitious movie, right?

Yes.

And doing a man's job, sir, of clinging to discretion, I'll leave it at that until I've brought myself up to date.