Blade Runner 2049 (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
darth_myeek
Sr Member
Tan Djarka
Sr Member
Why didn't it do better in the theaters? I don't think I'm going out on a limb here, but it could have something to do with being a sequel to movie that wasn't successful 35 years ago.
You beat me to it...
Imho, Blade Runner is the type of movie that appeals to people who are interested in how movies are made. I have tried to like the original movie several times through the years and don't really see what fans of the film rave about. The effects are amazing for the era in which it was filmed. The sequel is also a very beautiful movie. But I find both movies boring.
I also never cared for Ridley Scott's retcon of "Deckard is a replicant". If that is true, then the whole setup for your movie doesn't work (ie Deckard coming out of retirement).
Nth
Sr Member
Critically it did amazing, however I think the film genre itself of slow burn science fiction is still really geared toward a niche audience. General audiences are still expecting something more action oriented like The Matrix and Ghost in the Shell. Blade Runner really isn't that kind of a sci-fi movie.
I can now officially say I picked up the Blu Ray in the mail on the way home from work, got my copy of the soundtrack and even got my refund from the Ebay seller on the Art and Soul book and put down an order on Amazon for it. Was going to wait until I was off shift to watch it, along with the first movie back to back; but cannot wait.
Mr Webber
Master Member
How is it a retcon? Scott has stated going back to the original days that Deckard is a replicant.
What do we know of Deckard`s past? Everything we do know could all be implants. All we have is a picture of his wife and that is about as significant as Rachels photo of her and her mother, which we knew was not real. Deckard may have been the first Nexus 8 for all we know. The whole bringing back from retirement thing could all have been a set up from the start, maybe he only came into existence a day before we found him waiting for noodles.
It is more than clear that the LAPD openly uses replicants in 2049 but you have to consider the fact that Tyrell was possibly making them for the LAPD back in the day, only secretly and Bryant was fully aware of that and so was Gaff, hence the unicorn at the end.
I think that the eclectic array of furnishings in Deckards apartment is also a tell. There is a bit of every possible style of furniture, art etc to be found there, which tells me that it was put there by someone else to give Deckard a further sense of grounding.
I stopped watching the Oscars many, many years ago. I used to watch religiously until the 1990’s when I realized the whole thing was just a load of bull-crap industry narcissism and just a platform for typical Hollywood virtue-signaling. Oscars mean nothing.
Mr Webber
Master Member
I`m not a fan of watching way over paid people getting handed golden statues much either but I single out the Oscars to watch as movies are a fairly big deal to me. I`m more into the technical awards.
I love movies, too. I used to be excited about seeing if my favorite films got recognition. Maybe my tastes changed but inevitably it became impossible to ignore how internally political the process was. I realized I didn’t enjoy watching Hollywood stroking itself on national television.
I think the final “straw” was 1994 where the best picture went to Forrest Gump which (In my personal opinion) was a fine “feel-good”, emotionally contrived movie about a moral Mary Sue - a character dealt the ultimate social “victim card” who basically plays out an epic wish-fulfillment fantasy. I know my opinion here isn’t popular and I actually like Tom Hanks a lot but 1994 also gave us Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption and Good Will Hunting. Each one of those an instant classic and more deserving IMO. 1994 Oscars was an incredible letdown.
Last edited:
Mr Webber
Master Member
Agreed. My opinion is not that popular either. I nearly gave up after George Miller and Mad Max Fury Road were overlooked after sweeping the first five awards for a film that has bearly been discussed anywhere since. See what I did there.
Darth Lars
Master Member
I find the best bits at the Oscars are often in the acceptance speeches. That is what I get up at 2 AM (local time) for. Well, that and to see that the movies I rooted for won...
Yes and George Lucas said that he always intended for Greedo to shoot first.
I said it was a retcon because I am under the impression that the whole "Deckard is a replicant" thing didn't come about until one of the later versions of the film. In my opinion, the basis for the movie is "Replicants go rogue and kill a Blade Runner, Deckard is brought out of retirement to track them down because he used to be really good at it." Why have this as the setup if it isn't true. If Tyrell wanted to trick Deckard into believing that he was human and introduce him to Rachel he could easily have done so without involving Gaff or Bryant. To me, they go too far in establishing that stuff for it not to pay off.
Compared to the Nexus 6 models we see, Deckard displays comparatively human frailty. Leon beats the snot out of him and would have killed him had Rachel not intervened. Pris beats hims up pretty good. Roy wipes the floor with him also. Roy easily made a jump that Deckard can't do.
When I originally saw the movie, I interpreted the unicorn to say "I know that you are helping Rachel instead of doing your job and killing her". The unicorn didn't have any significance until Scott added it later. And it was footage he reused from Legend, another movie he was working on.
You may see the same things and interpret it to mean that he is a replicant. I can't refute any thing in your post. Sure, all the statements that you made can be interpreted the way that you interpreted them. I guess I just interpreted them differently. As I stated in my earlier post, I'm not a big fan of this movie although I have grown to appreciate it more as I grow older. So, I'm probably no the best person to debate on the finer points. But I am in the Deckard is a human camp.
I am typing this while at work and I hope it is coherent. :wacko
Point taken. I may have erred in using the term retcon. That's the way I see it. Although it may not be the best way to describe the situation we have with this movie. I will say that I am skeptical when directors say "I always intended this or that...". Especially when they say it many years after the movie was released. It will probably always be a mystery.
At least, it gives the fans something to do in the 40 year intervals between movies.
(Edited to add last comment)
Mr Webber
Master Member
Scott said right from the start that Deckard was a replicant, he and Ford even had famous arguments about it on set.
Deckard takes many beatings throughout the movie, brutal ones too and just keeps on ticking, yeah, he shows the signs of those beatings just as KD6-3.7 does in 2049. But they had had nearly twenty years to improve "Joe`s" abilities. The thing with Roy is that he was specifically made to be a brutal killer, maybe that sort of intensity would not have been suitable for a cop.
I think the only reason Roy made the jump easily is because he wasnt wearing any cloths apart from spandex shorts and Deckard had a full set of cloths on plus a trenchcoat and they were all ringing wet. Theres logic behind it all, Scott is a genius, pure genius.
Last edited:
Similar threads
