Blade Runner 2049 (Post-release)

Did anyone else think that K and JOI passed by a Sulaco style ship when they're headed to San Diego? It seemed to be looming above the ground but I guess it may have been a piece of a building
 
Did anyone else think that K and JOI passed by a Sulaco style ship when they're headed to San Diego? It seemed to be looming above the ground but I guess it may have been a piece of a building

I noticed it as well, I was hoping that the fog would clear up so we could see the whole ship but it did look very similar to the Sulaco in shape.
 
& a robo 3some

J

Well all that stuff was mostly just implied. The only scene I think would have made the R rating was when Niander cut open the newly "born" female replicant. Everything else was nothing you would not see on the science channel or AMC. (ex. nude replicants in stasis tanks or the already mentioned Asian style giant hologram).
 
I wonder if the numbers 6 10 21 on the tree and the wooden horse also have some biblical relationship, reference or meaning.:confused
For Example; Bible - Ephesians 6:10-21 The Armor of God.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ephesians 6:10-21 New International Version - The Armor of God
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I think it was intentionally a biblical reference as Deckard and Rachel are effectively Tyrell's Adam & Eve. I don't hate that idea, but I didn't much care for how they wrote Deckard, his daughter, or the situation with Rachel. If I understood the situation correctly Rachel died in child birth just a few short years after the end of the first film. Deckard then gives his new born baby up to a shifty replicant underground (how did that happen? where did they come from?) and goes his own way disappearing to an abandoned Vegas where he stays for 30 years until K appears and things start blowing up.

I really hate that idea. Why would the underground wait 30 years to reveal her to the world? Why would they make a decoy in the first place? She was born in the middle of no where while her parents are fugitives. Nobody official would even know she existed. How did she go from being part of the replicant underground to writing memories for Wallace? How did they "place" her there? That was just too easy.

Why would she knowingly put her memories into a replicant to find her father, assuming she knows he was hiding and didn't want to be found? Wasn't that part of the plan? None of that rings true for me. It just feels very forced and contrived. It may be that because this isn't the crux of the story and they don't spend much time on these ideas on screen, they just didn't develop them logically. But either way, it just rankled me that they chose to spend so much time with K standing around doing nothing (talking to a hologram) when they could have been developing more interesting ideas.

I'm not buying that Deckard is going to give up his child and go be a hermit bee keeper in a radiated city simply because "That was the plan" and "some times to love someone you have to be a stranger". I think he'd of been intimately involved with hiding her. I think he'd of found a way to keep an eye on her and be part of her life, if not flat out just raising her on his own and telling the underground to pound sand. Wait, where did this underground come from again?

All that said, I did'nt hate the film. I'll watch a moody replicant wandering around in a snowy LA talking to a hologram and trying to avoid sex with his real girls, while trying to keep a baseline temperment so they don't kill him. That's not bad stuff in and of itself. Finding Rachel's bones was interesting, but also contrived as ultimately burying her there was just sloppy. They had to know that eventually she would be found, and it would lead them right to Ana.

Unless, I guess, that was also part of their really terrible 35 year "plan".

Obviously the visuals were a home run. I enjoyed all the callbacks to the first film immensely. I could have just watched 2 hours of the drone flying around a Syd Mead designed future Vegas. That was my favorite sequence in the movie.

Not a Ryan Gosling fan, and I could take him or leave him in this film. I did like his character though.

Loved many of the props. The blasters are growing on me, but I do not think 35 years from now we'll be paying serious money for the replicas of these guns the way so many people are shelling out big money for Deckard's gun today.
 
Sounds like Rachael is the not quite virgin Mary who has given birth to the replicant savior.
Either way.
This is why I never wanted those characters dragged into the fray again, now their lives are of epic impact to the whole planet.
Not just a burned out cop caught up in the whole mess running off with the girl and we never know what happens to them, as it should be.
I hate that they have now made them these key people who have now determined the destiny of humanity.
Again another family determining the fate of every one like the Skywalkers, or Spock's family seems to be as Trek is degenerating.

Stealing from another Rick.........The troubles of two people don't amount to a hill of beans in this world!
 
Last edited:
Well if Deckard isnt a replicant, he really wasnt special in any way. Wallace only wanted him for whatever knowledge he may have of what happened previously. He isnt some key to the destiny of humanity.

We've kind of always knew Rachael was special in some way, Tyrell even said she was an experiment.

I dont see it really changing much about the characters or what happened unless you blow it out of proportion. I think Wallace hinting to Deckard that it was all destined to happen and was orchestrated was him just screwing with Deckard to get what he wanted. The fact that he went through the trouble of making a fake Rachael for the same purpose is proof of that.
 
If you want to examine the biblical angle it might be worth looking directly at Rachael/Rachel.

From Genesis Chapter 30:

1 Rachel saw that she could not have children for Jacob, and she became jealous of her sister. She said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!”

2 Jacob became angry with Rachel and asked, “Can I take the place of God, who has kept you from having children?”

...

22 Then God remembered Rachel. God answered her prayer and made it possible for her to have children.

Also worth noting – and this is wild – in the Bible/old testament/whatever you want to call it, Rachel is the only one of the original matriarchs/patriarchs not buried in the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

Rachel was buried... separately.

And by the way, in the Bible story Rachel died in childbirth.

*mic drop*
 
For a couple of weeks I consider the wooden horse to be a spoiler,
and seeing as this is the rpf,
I'm going to post a few pics right here...

webbrh700.jpg


webrh701.jpg


Yay :)
 
Well if Deckard isnt a replicant, he really wasnt special in any way. Wallace only wanted him for whatever knowledge he may have of what happened previously. He isnt some key to the destiny of humanity.

We've kind of always knew Rachael was special in some way, Tyrell even said she was an experiment.

I dont see it really changing much about the characters or what happened unless you blow it out of proportion. I think Wallace hinting to Deckard that it was all destined to happen and was orchestrated was him just screwing with Deckard to get what he wanted. The fact that he went through the trouble of making a fake Rachael for the same purpose is proof of that.

I thought once Wallace had Rachel's bones and was able to create another Rachel he needed Deckard because his seed might have somehow been special.

I still didn't get if Deckard was or wasn't a Replicant.
Wallace says to Deckard "... how instant your connection. Did it never occur to you that's why you were summoned to her in the first place? Designed to do nothing short of fall for her right then and there. All to make that single, perfect specimen. That is, if you were designed,,, love... or mathematical precision... yes... no."
Deckard responds "I know what's real." then has a pained, confused/conflicted expression.

Overall, it wasn't bad. I was surprised that either I managed to avoid the spoiler or they didn't make it public that Gosling was a Replicant. It was revealed pretty quick into the movie. That changed my perception quite a bit. I don't think Gosling is much of an actor so I credit the casting director for knowing how to pick someone that has a very vacant, empty "style" of acting. In other words, he makes a good Replicant. It's too bad Michael Fassbender already played an android because he could have nailed this part as well, although he's not as boyish.

The story, given enough thought, can probably be torn apart pretty easily. I'm not sure why all the trouble was made to hide their child. Was anyone really hunting them? Could they not have gotten far enough away that nobody would have bothered them? Or was it that once she was pregnant they both knew something bigger than them was happening and that their child was somehow important. Yes, a Replicant giving birth seems pretty special... but was it an anomaly or by Tyrell's design that she be able to procreate? If it was intentional, why wouldn't he have sent that model off world to procreate without fear of being hunted?

That raises a question that would be worth seeing in a third movie.... what IS off world? If they have terraformed and colonized other planets, why do they continue to stay on Earth. It seems like a mess. K didn't get too far out of LA and was shot down by wastelanders. What's the rest of the planet like? Just as messed up?

I was about as disappointed as K when they said he wasn't their child.
Were the rogue replicants the last others he was hunting?
I was also hoping that Joi the hologram was actually going to be real and guiding him or would be the child or something. It was sad when Luv breaks her device... and when he sees the advert-hologram.

I also didn't understand why either side (human or Replicant) knowing that a Replicant had been able to get pregnant would cause a war. If they had to be impregnated by a human male... wouldn't it mean they could live together? Or was the issue that they were always created to be slaves, and it would free them of slavery because they had "souls" and weren't just products?

Just some after thoughts... I'll have to process it a little more.
 
First he was cut to shape and then a few larger scoops taken with the bandsaw,
then I took some more weight out with a power file...

https://s19.postimg.org/6r4y0deo3/webbrh10.jpg

but most of the rest is being done with ordinary chisels and a stanley knife

https://s19.postimg.org/9l83dtok3/webbrh14.jpg

Still quite a bit more to do though :)
Looking great!

I have an antique piece of walnut wood that I plan on doing using for this exact thing. :thumbsup

I pre-ordered the NECA version, & will be back-engineering mine with that one, once it arrives.
 
I had to fill in the blanks to a lot of things myself, and think things through when it came to some of the events.

As far as Rachel getting pregnant. I really had a hard time grasping this idea, simply because I really wasn't sure that a Replicant was something purely biological. If it was 100% biological, then I can understand it. In the context of this movie, Tyrell's desire for perfection could have driven him to create a 100% synthetic human with a 100% engineered genome that was patented and created in a lab. Patenting this genome and DNA could have given them the rights to claim ownership of the entity, and therefore consider them a product and less of an entity. What gave the Tyrell corporation the right to create a fully biological self aware entity and make it property? The 4yr lifespan was a way to prevent them from developing empathatic abilities (and, therefore, immunity to the test) to see if they were actually human. Allowing them to live past a 4yr lifespan is what probably caused them to develop enough experiences that they started to exhibit emotional responses and start to actually question their own self worth and sense of individuality.

Creating a "self replicating" Replicant would be an amazing feat of engineering, and if Tyrell could do it, it would actually elevate him to a God like status. Certainly a lofty goal, something I could see him trying to achieve. It would enable him to create replicants without the need to engineer them and grow them in a factory. Imagine trying to build a facility off world, it would take a lot of resources, and that what Wallace was telling Deckard, he couldn't grow enough in his factories to meet demand. If the human race was colonizing planets, and there was a need for replicant slave labor, having self replicating replicant slaves would solve the problem, no need to build factories, the womb is now the factory.

This then raises another question, if they rely on the idea that their DNA and genome are a "product" and patented, and that makes them a product and therefore a slave, what happens to a child born of this union? Are they born with serial numbers, probably not, is their genome predetermined, probably not, it's left to a certain amount of chance unless its in vetro, and the genetic makeup is determined artificially. So, if a child is born that wasn't "patented" engineered in a lab, grown in a facility, has "parents" and has it's own unique genetic makeup , how does that child differ form a human? Can it be considered a "product" and subject to slavery? That could be a basis for a war. You have an entity or replicant that is in all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a human, able to reproduce and give birth to living offspring. What makes them different from a human? They were grown in a facility, but what about their children? Was this the deciding factor that differentiates them from actual humans and allows them to be considered property, that they were grown and not born? So if that is the deciding factor, that a Replicant is engineered and grown, and now they can reproduce, and their child is born, would the child be a product and subject to slavery, or would it be considered human and free. It seemed to me that Wallace was hinting to Deckard that "Off world" has different laws. Perhaps to gain access to an off world colony, you can enter into an endentured servitude to pay your way to a new world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I liked it overall. I too was surprised about K being a replicant. The thought didnt even cross my mind until Sapper said something along the lines of "you kill your own". I really like that they didn't reveal if Deckard is a replicant or not. I figured this was going to end the big debate but it goes on! I felt bad for K losing his "girl" and I thought there maybe some happy ending for him but it ended how it had to for him. Also I found it so interesting how he behaved once he thought he was human or a hybrid.

So with the replicant rebellion shown and nothing done with them, is setting things up for a third film?
 
As far as Rachel getting pregnant. I really had a hard time grasping this idea, simply because I really wasn't sure that a Replicant was something purely biological.
When I saw the original Blade Runner, I had got the impression that they indeed were biological but because there was an eye-expert that was a subcontractor for Tyrell, making the eyes for the Nexus 6, that replicants were combined together from multiple lab-grown parts, each part therefore having its own genetic makeup.

Allowing them to live past a 4yr lifespan is what probably caused them to develop enough experiences that they started to exhibit emotional responses and start to actually question their own self worth and sense of individuality.
According to the prequel short to BR2049: Black Out 2022, they started to rebel very early. The female replicant that blew up the data centre was just two weeks over one year old.
 
I'm more confused how Tyrell was able to make Nexus 8 models after the head of the company died... AND without a shorter lifespan. Didnt Tyrell explain all the reasons to batty why he couldnt make them last longer? Or was that only after being made they couldnt be made to live longer..
 
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