Amazon's BLADE RUNNER 2099 Series

Surely after 2049 and the way they were made by Old Silver Eyes I may be missing something here but aren't Replicants basically Humans now.. maybe thats their angle..
Unless I'm missing something, I thought Replicants were, other than their strength & resilience, ALWAYS just manufactured humans. The point of 2049 was that one Replicant had proven to be compatible for mating & reproduction. Now, I guess the BIG question is, was this a Human/Replicant union, or was it 2 Replicants?

I think one of the big ethical questions to be answered would be if Wallace were to be able to manufacture Replicants that could breed, would those born naturally from artificial humans, would that offspring be Wallace's property as well?
 
Unless I'm missing something, I thought Replicants were, other than their strength & resilience, ALWAYS just manufactured humans. The point of 2049 was that one Replicant had proven to be compatible for mating & reproduction. Now, I guess the BIG question is, was this a Human/Replicant union, or was it 2 Replicants?

I think one of the big ethical questions to be answered would be if Wallace were to be able to manufacture Replicants that could breed, would those born naturally from artificial humans, would that offspring be Wallace's property as well?
Wasn't it Dekker and Rachel's love child that she died giving birth too ?
K wrongly thought it was him but the Big reveal showed us he wasn't.. just impregnated stories or shared visions..

Like All major corps its all about intellectual copyright and ownership and he certainly looked like he would certainly be on the ball or his minions in that area..
 
Wasn't it Dekker and Rachel's love child that she died giving birth too ?
K wrongly thought it was him but the Big reveal showed us he wasn't.. just impregnated stories or shared visions..

Like All major corps its all about intellectual copyright and ownership and he certainly looked like he would certainly be on the ball or his minions in that area..
Yes. That's what I meant, because Rachel was ABSOLUTELY a Replicant, & it's not absolutely known if Deckard was human or a Replicant.

For all of Wallace's brilliance, the one thing that eluded him was to have self-replicating Replicants. He wanted Rachel's remains & Deckard to dissect to see what it was about that combination that resulted in a child.

Just imagine, after an 18-20 year start up period, he could stock off-world colonies with breeder Replicants & supply the colonies without manufacturing costs or transportation costs

Lots of interesting stories that could be told.
 
I'm kind of surprised it's getting more live-action treatment so soon when 2049 failed to break even only five years ago. Then again, if any studio was going to take the risk, I suppose the same one that bet a billion on TROP does seem to fit.

TV strikes me as a bit of an odd medium for Blade Runner, though. Granted, I haven't seen the recent anime or read the novel, but I've always thought of the original film as primarily an experiential work as opposed to a narrative one, and overall 2049 achieved a comparable feel (with the notable exception, in my opinion, of the score). Obviously there are characters and there is plot, but it's the concentrated experience of spending multiple hours so entirely immersed in the world's atmosphere and the intense mood set by the stories' very fundamental philosophical ideas that I find most compelling. I'm not sure how well that works if broken into one-hour segments and spread out over weeks. But hey - hopefully I'm wrong!
 
Dear Hollywood,

Please stop milking decades-old franchises just because you are completely and totally creatively bankrupt. BLADE RUNNER should have remained a unique one-off. It does not need sequels, prequels, reboots, or TV series. And it most certainly does not need…sigh…a “cinematic universe”, like all of the other dead franchises have attempted to become.

Sincerely,

Joe Q. Public
 
And it most certainly does not need…sigh…a “cinematic universe”
I was thinking the same thing. I personally enjoyed 2049 for the most part - certainly not a match to the original, but I thought it was worthwhile and retained enough connective tissue through Deckard and Rachael to justify its existence. Yet beyond these two, I have a hard time thinking of Blade Runner as a franchise.

That gets into the other oddity of the announcement. Even the idea of a direct sequel to 2049 feels a little superfluous. Fifty years in the future? That pretty much wipes the slate for any direct connection to 2049, let alone the original film. Presumably it will still involve "blade runners" chasing replicants, but if that and a general resemblance to the world aesthetic are the only things that make it a Blade Runner film, then 2012's Total Recall was already half-way there.
 
I was thinking the same thing. I personally enjoyed 2049 for the most part - certainly not a match to the original, but I thought it was worthwhile and retained enough connective tissue through Deckard and Rachael to justify its existence. Yet beyond these two, I have a hard time thinking of Blade Runner as a franchise.

That gets into the other oddity of the announcement. Even the idea of a direct sequel to 2049 feels a little superfluous. Fifty years in the future? That pretty much wipes the slate for any direct connection to 2049, let alone the original film. Presumably it will still involve "blade runners" chasing replicants, but if that and a general resemblance to the world aesthetic are the only things that make it a Blade Runner film, then 2012's Total Recall was already half-way there.

For the record, I also like 2049, flaws aside. But BLADE RUNNER is such a…well…unicorn in pop culture history that anything else dilutes it. A big, expensive sci-fi film which bombed, became a cult classic, and was eventually reevaluated and became a legitimate classic, beloved and studied by fans and film scholars alike. Its brilliant look and mood are unmatched, its flaws are charming and fascinating, its production history is legendary, and its influence is huge.

It insists upon itself. It is the only one of its kind, and should have stayed unique.
 
2049 had a boring and lame plot. It seemed like a deliberately bland end battle and fade to black daddy's little girl ending. Not in a good way but in a way it was trying too hard to mimic the original which upon itself was to be lighting in a bottle realized years later. 2049, in one word, forgettable.
As I've said before the real story should have been K going rogue to turn Joi into a living replicant. No daddy's girl, no discount Tyrrell, no am I baby *****, no sidekick body guard...

I also think going forward in the time line is the wrong way. Go back and tell the story of the original replicants becoming self aware and rebelling. Not like westworld, make it actually coherent and linear.
 
Hollywood coming up with new (and good) ideas.....when theres SO many old shows and movies that can be messed up even more.
I suppose we're due for Tron TV show on Disney+ about now. Lets see, what other stuff hasn't been messed with yet.....
 
2049 had a boring and lame plot. It seemed like a deliberately bland end battle and fade to black daddy's little girl ending. Not in a good way but in a way it was trying too hard to mimic the original which upon itself was to be lighting in a bottle realized years later. 2049, in one word, forgettable.
As I've said before the real story should have been K going rogue to turn Joi into a living replicant. No daddy's girl, no discount Tyrrell, no am I baby *****, no sidekick body guard...

I also think going forward in the time line is the wrong way. Go back and tell the story of the original replicants becoming self aware and rebelling. Not like westworld, make it actually coherent and linear.
I will grant that the end battle onwards is the weakest and most forgettable portion of 2049. I was okay with a lot of the rest plot-wise, though your alternative idea is intriguing. And besides the score paling in comparison to Vangelis, my second-biggest issue with the film was the casting of "discount Tyrell" Wallace. The role was originally conceived as David Bowie, who I think would have brought worlds' more gravitas than Jared Leto.

Fair point regarding prequel vs. sequel. While I lean towards further installments being kind of unnecessary, a chronicle of the original replicant rebellion sounds way more compelling than randomly jumping forward 50 years. I wonder who you could ever cast as prequel Batty... talk about impossible shoes to fill.
 
Easiest work around is to follow a different group of replicants. Fourth season ends with one survivor whose time is at the end, meeting up with a newer model replicant that is already self aware by default, that's the deepfake Batty. Tell a new story keeping the original film cannon and you can go all over the place. But follow the replicants, not a side quest, no bit characters that take over the story, don't insult the viewer with agenda politics... The prequel time frame is easy on production with practical locations and set dressing. Blade Runner 2098, no. Blade Runner 2012, yes.
 
For that near perfect Blade Runner film (short) we already had made with all the progress updated here, in the model section.
Even if only a side short story, was so well made.

 
Amazon Prime's Blade Runner practically writes itself.

Female Blade Runner.
Thrashes anyone who dares to say "skinjob."
No moral dilemmas.
Ends up rescuing (ethnically diverse) replicants.
Kills the (male) Blade Runners who try to stop her.
Overthrows Wallace Corp.
Has Jared Leto in it.
 
Last edited:
Finding a way to talk about wokeness before the first page of script is done. Love this forum.

Also.... Looooove me some 2049 I rewatch that on the regular... it's as "Beautifully Boring" as the first! I put it up there with new Dune as a flick to just pour a drink, smoke a joint, and just take in the slow rolling greatness.

I feel that BR sequel is another unicorn, and I REAAALLY want them to just leave it all alone.

HOWEVER, if it gets made, and it's great.. AWESOME. And it sucks, I will just stop watching. I know... I know... but then I won't be upset and complaining about it for years and my life will not be so negative...

But what'm I gonna do? I'm just to old to complain about stuff anymore *shrug* and there's too much content.


'Cept Rogue One... F*ck that movie. It's my one allowance to get bitter about.
 
Finding a way to talk about wokeness before the first page of script is done. Love this forum.

Also.... Looooove me some 2049 I rewatch that on the regular... it's as "Beautifully Boring" as the first! I put it up there with new Dune as a flick to just pour a drink, smoke a joint, and just take in the slow rolling greatness.

I feel that BR sequel is another unicorn, and I REAAALLY want them to just leave it all alone.

HOWEVER, if it gets made, and it's great.. AWESOME. And it sucks, I will just stop watching. I know... I know... but then I won't be upset and complaining about it for years and my life will not be so negative...

But what'm I gonna do? I'm just to old to complain about stuff anymore *shrug* and there's too much content.


'Cept Rogue One... F*ck that movie. It's my one allowance to get bitter about.
I wasn't just making a cheap shot at "wokeness", if that's what you're implying. We already know that Amazon has an internal policy regarding a diversity quota in all future productions (Amazon "Inclusion Policy") that would, no doubt, be applied to Blade Runner.
The policy is well-intentioned, but in the end it's still a creative restriction.
This is an excerpt from their policy, if anyone is interested. Since this is Amazon I don't think we can avoid addressing this altogether, but I also don't want to derail this discussion either.
From Amazon Inclusion Policy
"To reduce invisibility in entertainment, and where the story allows, we aim to include one character from each of the following categories for speaking roles of any size, and at minimum 50% of the total of these should be women: (1) lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming / non-binary; (2) person with a disability; and (3) three regionally underrepresented racial/ethnic/cultural groups (e.g. in the US, three of the following: Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Middle Eastern/North African, or Asian / Pacific Islander or Multi-Racial). A single character can fulfill one or more of these identities.

Most productions have a multitude of speaking roles, from leads to smaller roles. Where it doesn’t compromise the authenticity of the story, the minimum aspirational goals for casting across speaking roles are 30% white men, 30% white women and non-binary people, 20% men from underrepresented races and ethnicities, 20% women and non-binary people from underrepresented races and ethnicities. Where we can have more people from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, we will seek to do that. These goals apply to open casting roles as well as talent attached to the project at the time an agreement is signed with Amazon Studios. We also aspire to cast at least 10% of our roles with people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming / non-binary; and 10% with people who self-identify as a person with a disability. Amazon Studios is dedicated to making a good faith effort to inclusive casting and we encourage our partners to do the same."
In the beginning I was also convinced that 2049 was going to be a terrible mistake. Boy was I wrong. BR 2049 was lightning in a bottle for sure. So I won't exclude the (remote) possibility that this show might actually be good. But don't blame me for being really, really skeptical.



But I feel the opposite about Rogue One. I'd rather see more of that and The Mandalorian than just more and more Jedi and Skywalker lore. I will fight you on that.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top