Blade Runner 2049 (Post-release)

My god it was just tremendous. Like others said, this is going to require some processing.

I have some gripes about the soundtrack too, but sometimes that changes with repeat viewings.

And once is definitely not enough. There’s so much to take in.

But overall... staggering. This is one for the record books folks.
 
Majority of the reviews I have read, have been outstanding. This one, is just insulting and stupid:
http://nypost.com/2017/10/04/youll-love-the-new-blade-runner-unless-youre-a-woman/

Such a stupid review , why can't we just judge movies on their merit , rather than making everything thing about diversity and feminism?!:darn kids


Well , at the least I would have thought she would have pointed out that its a woman who gets to dispense the bulk of violence and suffering in this story in a role that "traditionally" would have been given to a man ( I dread to imagine what may have been said had that actually been done so). But I guess if you want to have a go at the movie its a simple angle to take.

The problem was that nearly all the characters were "unlikeable" in that they were rendered less than human by either their origin or circumstance or both . That was the major point of the movie I felt, the inhumanly manufactured were struggling to attain their humanity ,the humans left on Earth had lost or surrendered most of theirs. And under those conditions I think the choices of the roles given were a reasonable extension of what technology is enabling us to develop anyway ,much like the original.

Certainly the slow pace of the first two thirds of the film very much allowed you to explore those ideas, and I did like how much misinformation and misdirection early on allowed a few ambiguities to survive to the end of the story. But the jump to the climax felt oddly miss paced though, though maybe I missed how K tracked Deckard to the final showdown ( I may have been somewhat distracted by the fifty foot digitally enhanced nude appearance of his ex girlfriend).

And there were a small number of plot stupidities I disliked , like having tripwires in a building with a dog is not to be recommended, an immune compromised child is put in an orphanage ,bee hives thriving where there were no flowers ?????? The rest of the story seemed very straight forward though and didn't seem to have as many contradictions within it like the original ( apart from the smartly kept main question of course).

But those were small niggles in comparison to the impact the entire movie had on you. It was a " movie experience" in every sense of the word , but its one I'd prefer to watch on Blu-ray again. There were a few quiet, thoughtful moments in it in which were difficult to appreciate above the loud grazing noises in the audience.

I understand if some people don't like the soundtrack. I enjoyed the combination of the musical score with powerful sound effects , much like they did in "Arrival", though it was loud enough at points to feel in your body, and I don't know if its a coincidence but I have a slight numbness in the ears today. I've been to quieter concerts!!!

Just one more question. Did anyone catch what was meant when Luv says "Now I am the last one" at the end?



PS DId anyone think this felt very like some of the episodes in the Ghost in the Shell series?
 
Last edited:
Well , at the least I would have thought she would have pointed out that its a woman who gets to dispense the bulk of violence and suffering in this story in a role that "traditionally" would have been given to a man ( I dread to imagine what may have been said had that actually been done so). But I guess if you want to have a go at the movie its a simple angle to take.

The problem was that nearly all the characters were "unlikeable" in that they were rendered less than human by either their origin or circumstance or both . That was the major point of the movie I felt, the inhumanly manufactured were struggling to attain their humanity ,the humans left on Earth had lost or surrendered most of theirs. And under those conditions I think the choices of the roles given were a reasonable extension of what technology is enabling us to develop anyway ,much like the original.

Certainly the slow pace of the first two thirds of the film very much allowed you to explore those ideas, and I did like how much misinformation and misdirection early on allowed a few ambiguities to survive to the end of the story. But the jump to the climax felt oddly miss paced though, though maybe I missed how K tracked Deckard to the final showdown ( I may have been somewhat distracted by the fifty foot digitally enhanced nude appearance of his ex girlfriend).

And there were a small number of plot stupidities I disliked , like having tripwires in a building with a dog is not to be recommended, an immune compromised child is put in an orphanage ,bee hives thriving where there were no flowers ?????? The rest of the story seemed very straight forward though and didn't seem to have as many contradictions within it like the original ( apart from the smartly kept main question of course).

But those were small niggles in comparison to the impact the entire movie had on you. It was a " movie experience" in every sense of the word , but its one I'd prefer to watch on Blu-ray again. There were a few quiet, thoughtful moments in it in which were difficult to appreciate above the loud grazing noises in the audience.

I understand if some people don't like the soundtrack. I enjoyed the combination of the musical score with powerful sound effects , much like they did in "Arrival", though it was loud enough at points to feel in your body, and I don't know if its a coincidence but I have a slight numbness in the ears today. I've been to quieter concerts!!!

Just one more question. Did anyone catch what was meant when Luv says "Now I am the last one" at the end?



PS DId anyone think this felt very like some of the episodes in the Ghost in the Shell series?

I thought she actually said "Now I am the best one" which aligned with her clear desire to be favoured by Wallace.


That...was freaking brilliant. I don't think it will resonate immediately with some, but you can just tell its going to ripen so well with age.

Its packed full to the brim with feeling, and yet has times that feel so...empty. On purpose of course.

It's telling that the most human character in this film is the AI, Joi. I think, anyway.
 
an immune compromised child is put in an orphanage
Well, she did say that she had reached a certain age when her problems appeared. Was it seven or eight?

I thought she actually said "Now I am the best one" which aligned with her clear desire to be favoured by Wallace.
I don't remember the words, but I remember that that was the gist of it that I got out of it, anyway.
 
And there were a small number of plot stupidities I disliked , like having tripwires in a building with a dog is not to be recommended, an immune compromised child is put in an orphanage ,bee hives thriving where there were no flowers ??????

I had the problem of people pawing through their plastic bags and an average theatre sound system as well that made me miss stuff.
Love the whole dog thing and thought it was very cool to make that the object of what is real and what is not in the movie and done with humour as well. By the way, what does Gaff`s origami of that dog tell us? I`m a little confused on that one.

I dont think the child was ever immune compramised, that was a cover story to protect her. I would be confused about the bees too but my neighbour has them and in winter he leaves a sugary liquid in a dispenser for them outside the hives. I think the worms in the movie are sustained and grown in the same way. Man I love this film and there is so much to be unravelled
 
I thought she actually said "Now I am the best one" which aligned with her clear desire to be favoured by Wallace.


That...was freaking brilliant. I don't think it will resonate immediately with some, but you can just tell its going to ripen so well with age.

Its packed full to the brim with feeling, and yet has times that feel so...empty. On purpose of course.

It's telling that the most human character in this film is the AI, Joi. I think, anyway.

Thanks, I probably miss heard due to the ringing in my ears, it was pretty loud at that point.

I didn't think it was dog, it was an origami sheep ( a hint towards the old novel title of the original Bladerunner film, "Do Androids dream of electric sheep)

And yes, the inclusion of the dog really touched a cord with me, being a dog owner. Over the debate whether it was real or not I'd have really liked to see the "red eye" effect included as it walked out of the shadow. That would have really put the cat amongst the pigeons!!!
 
Did anyone think the spinners were off? Was thinking about it this morning but in the original they really didn't have much sound and had a great sound as they passed, but these felt like they come out of the last Tron.

Loved the film, get what people have said about the music but did enjoy it still (actually listening to soundtrack now). The scenery was amazing and the story was good, but for all that wish it had not been made I loved the way the original ended hanging like that, that is now gone!
 
I like that the answer Deckard have if the dog was real was “ask him”. Because to him, it didn’t friggn matter, just like it didn’t matter that Rachael was, that’s how I took it.

i also found it odd that Deckard had a police spinner and not his car. I suppose it made sense to swap cars somewhere but you’d think stealing a police vehicle would have tipped someone off.

Also, how awesome was it that they got to use that original opening idea for the first film with the farm, the soup, and the replicant.

And, called this accurately back when the trailer first came out. Still curious if the date is when she dies, or when she gave birth.

https://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=109660&p=4242978&viewfull=1#post4242978
 
Last edited:
Considering there was the photo of her in front of the tree holding the child.... dont think so.
 
Considering there was the photo of her in front of the tree holding the child.... dont think so.

No, I believe she did did in childbirth. There was an emergency c-section to save the baby.

Wasn’t the woman holding the baby in the photo the resistance leader we meet later who has removed her right eye? She talks about being there, etc.

I could be wrong. It was a late night showing and I need to see it... a few more times. But I definitely got the clear impression Rachael died in childbirth.
 
Wasn't that the droid with the missing eye, picture didn't look like Rachel to me.

Bingo.

The real question is, within Villeneuve's diegesis (ignore what Ridley Scott has said for a moment), is Deckard a replicant?

Clearly Rachael was given a human reproductive system, but if Deckard is a replicant, Tyrell must have done the same for him. One thing we know for sure is that Deckard was not shooting blanks.

Was Wallace telling Deckard straight up he was designed to reproduce with Rachael, or was he taunting/manipulating him?

I need to get back in the theater...
 
He definitely was trying to mess with him, making another Rachael is proof of that, so I wouldnt believe anything he said, just as Deckard doesnt.

I think it was a way to just raise that question again without taking one side or the other. If he was designed to reproduce with her, why put him in such a dangerous line of work, there are several times where he almost didnt make it, and there goes the plan.
 
I need to watch it a second time to really have an opinion but I honestly felt like I was back in the blade runner universe but at the same time, it didn't feel like the original Ridley Scott type of story telling or the type of story to tell in that universe, if that makes any sense. The parts I loved about the original was the dystopian grim relationships between the characters. Funny how Joi's relationship with K was so...human.

I was feeling a bit John Wick'ed during the attack on K, Deckard, and his dog. Thought the fella bought it in the explosion. Was instantly happy to see the dog was okay. Also, Kylash...When K's drone was surveying the city, I saw many abandoned police cars. Deckard probably just appropriated a working one...like the many, many, many bottles of liquor.

I'm definitively going back to see this again this weekend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joi's relationship with K was the result of clever programming. She was a software package, designed to be a dream girl for whichever Joe Q Loser that bought a copy.
Designed to fall in love with him and to make him fall in love with her - and that required adapting to the customer. K was a non-human who was desperate for humanity, so that is what he got.

The real question is, within Villeneuve's diegesis (ignore what Ridley Scott has said for a moment), is Deckard a replicant?
All I've heard points to that Villeneuve would have chosen to leave that question open-ended for each audience member to decide for him/herself.

That, and that Villeneuve had asked reviewers not to spill spoilers makes Villeneuve an awesome person in my book.
 
I got the impression that Rachael was specifically created to entice Deckard (or someone like him), not that he was a replicant, necessarily. Apparently Tyrell's experiment was more than just seeing if she could pass for human.

By the way, maybe it's just me but was seeing Rachael like R1 Leia all over again?
 
Yeah there was some weirdness in her facial movements. But they were smart and kept her face out of picture for most of her lines.
 
I loved the answer to Is he or isn't he a replicant. Answer: Yes, No, Maybe. It doesn't matter. Ask the dog if it's real. It's alive and it wants to stay that way. Real or not.
I saw the film last night and it's easily one of my favorite science fiction movies already. It was just that good. There's no way I'm making it through the weekend without seeing it again.
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
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