Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017) *SPOILERS*

[Luminous]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

I personally can't watch the narration versions of the film. It takes me out of the experience.

 

[Khev]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Ending the film as the elevator doors close behind Deckard and Rachael is such an exclamation point of awesomeness that I can never go back to the scenic flight across the sunny countryside.

However having said that I'm still glad that the original theatrical cut has stayed in print for those who prefer that version.

 

[Tyderium]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Ultimately it's Villeneuve's film, not Scott's and he has masterfully kept the ambiguity of Deckard's humanity intact. That's where the interest lies, in not really having questions like these answered. If Scott had directed he would have removed any mystery surrounding Deckard once and for all and it would have been a lesser film for it IMO. I fall in the camp of preferring Deckard to be human and concur with Ford's thoughts that as an audience we need a human to identify and have an emotional connection with. In my view, the profundity of Deckard's relationship with Rachael is greater than if he were simply a replicant as well.

 

[Khev]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Absolutely Tyderium. If Scott were still helming the story he not only would have removed all mystery but would have spelled everything out in disappointing fashion to boot. So I guess we can be thankful that Covenant distracted him away from BR.

I also think that the final exchange between Deckard and K

Spoiler

"What am I to you?"

plays much better if Deckard is *not* saying that to a fellow replicant but rather is a human asking said question to a synthetic construct.

 

[Tyderium]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Yeah exactly. There is also still an obscurity lingering in that final exchange and the moments after and it's full of emotional weight. Perfect ending.

 

[Khev]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Perfect ending.

It really was.

 

[rushmore223]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

I too have always rejected the Ford as Replicant revisionism, it just doesn't make sense to me, he's obviously quite physically outmatched by every one of the Replicants he faced.

 

[Username]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

I too have always rejected the Ford as Replicant revisionism, it just doesn't make sense to me, he's obviously quite physically outmatched by every one of the Replicants he faced.

Just throwing this out there, but how better to convince him he's human than to give him human-equivalent strength?
Just an idea.
I like to think that the red eyes are a give away, and are shown in every cut of the movie.
I also like to think that Deckard, an "early thirties" guy who has apparently retired from a career of hunting replicants(Despite his apparent youth), was created just for that job(Roy, Pris, Zora, Leon), and merely "thinks" he's a retired Blade Runner. That any time Replicants show up(That the cops can't deal with themselves), the cops call up Tyrell, and the Tyrell Coproration uncask a new Deckard and pop him on the street opposite the sushi bar to get his marching orders.
I don't mind the idea of him being human, but personally, it makes more sense to me "in universe", that rather than wasting two actual cops, once one goes down, they'd just throw Deckard after Deckard at the problem, lol, till the problem goes away.

 

[**16k**]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

I too have always rejected the Ford as Replicant revisionism, it just doesn't make sense to me, he's obviously quite physically outmatched by every one of the Replicants he faced.

Yeah, but if you watch the eyes, the only one that shines are those of the replicant and Ford's. The replicants seem to be the only ones with a soul left, so Ford has to be one of them.

 

[xipotec]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

All you have to do to accept Ford as the 6th replicant is see that a replicant , who thinks he is human, may be crippled and unaware of their extra strength and powers....hell they could have just been plan ol' turned off....

Rachel did not seem to have any strength , speed or anything else that made her different than any other girl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EVILFACE]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Yea but the other replicants didnt flop around like a fish when being hit. Or maybe that was just some Ford Bad Acting.

Not a replicant.

 

[Khev]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Just throwing this out there, but how better to convince him he's human than to give him human-equivalent strength?
Just an idea.
I like to think that the red eyes are a give away, and are shown in every cut of the movie.
I also like to think that Deckard, an "early thirties" guy who has apparently retired from a career of hunting replicants(Despite his apparent youth), was created just for that job(Roy, Pris, Zora, Leon), and merely "thinks" he's a retired Blade Runner. That any time Replicants show up(That the cops can't deal with themselves), the cops call up Tyrell, and the Tyrell Coproration uncask a new Deckard and pop him on the street opposite the sushi bar to get his marching orders.
I don't mind the idea of him being human, but personally, it makes more sense to me "in universe", that rather than wasting two actual cops, once one goes down, they'd just throw Deckard after Deckard at the problem, lol, till the problem goes away.

There wouldn't be any point in having a Blade Runner force at all if all the police do is have Tyrell send the latest model over to the station anytime a few replicants get loose. And if they put a replicant on the case anytime a human cop can't handle it then why specifically only choose replicants engineered with human strength? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of getting an upgraded hunter? "Hey Tyrell, our best blade runner Dave Holden was just put down, can you send us a Nexus-6 that's weaker than even your basic pleasure model to hunt the rest? Yep have him able to play the piano just as long as he can't fight or do anything helpful."

I get that some might find it more interesting if the main character actually is what he's hunting and you're free to interpret it that way but I think that the film works best if the only characters that are replicants are just the ones actually called out as such by the characters in the movie.

Rachael didn't appear to have a lot of fight in her but the truth is we never saw her try to move fast or resist Deckard's advances so we simply don't know what she's capable of. She could easily have been as capable as Pris if truly put to the test.

 

[rushmore223]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

There wouldn't be any point in having a Blade Runner force at all if all the police do is have Tyrell send the latest model over to the station anytime a few replicants get loose. And if they put a replicant on the case anytime a human cop can't handle it then why specifically only choose replicants engineered with human strength? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of getting an upgraded hunter? "Hey Tyrell, our best blade runner Dave Holden was just put down, can you send us a Nexus-6 that's weaker than even your basic pleasure model to hunt the rest? Yep have him able to play the piano just as long as he can't fight or do anything helpful."

I get that some might find it more interesting if the main character actually is what he's hunting and you're free to interpret it that way but I think that the film works best if the only characters that are replicants are just the ones actually called out as such by the characters in the movie.

Rachael didn't appear to have a lot of fight in her but the truth is we never saw her try to move fast or resist Deckard's advances so we simply don't know what she's capable of. She could easily have been as capable as Pris if truly put to the test.

Precisely!

 

[karamazov80]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Yea but the other replicants didnt flop around like a fish when being hit. Or maybe that was just some Ford Bad Acting.

Not a replicant.

There wouldn't be any point in having a Blade Runner force at all if all the police do is have Tyrell send the latest model over to the station anytime a few replicants get loose. And if they put a replicant on the case anytime a human cop can't handle it then why specifically only choose replicants engineered with human strength? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of getting an upgraded hunter? "Hey Tyrell, our best blade runner Dave Holden was just put down, can you send us a Nexus-6 that's weaker than even your basic pleasure model to hunt the rest? Yep have him able to play the piano just as long as he can't fight or do anything helpful."

I get that some might find it more interesting if the main character actually is what he's hunting and you're free to interpret it that way but I think that the film works best if the only characters that are replicants are just the ones actually called out as such by the characters in the movie.

Rachael didn't appear to have a lot of fight in her but the truth is we never saw her try to move fast or resist Deckard's advances so we simply don't know what she's capable of. She could easily have been as capable as Pris if truly put to the test.

Seems to me that it would be a damn good PR move to have a weaker Blade Runner that people thought was a real human. We saw how people reacted to K in the second film. It would also be easier to get access to other replicants that way. It seems that everyone knew that Gosling was a replicant, as word got around I guess. And the general debate in terms of using robots in military or law enforcement situation is that your cut down on the human costs. So, there could be a rationale to it. A) It's more physically dangerous to hunt replicants than other kind of work; and B) given that the intention is usually to kill/destroy these entities that have human like qualities, there could be negative psychological impacts to humans.

I've heard the arguments for Deckard being a human, and personally I don't come down strongly one way or the other. I would be OK if he was a replicant though. Just a much more emotionally nuanced/advanced version than most, who acts and thinks much like a human.

 

[Khev]

Since the movie has been out for more than three weekends now I went ahead and added "SPOILERS" to the thread title so that people can openly discuss anything about the new film without tags. If you haven't seen BR 2049 then you need to go out and remedy that immediately.

 

[karamazov80]

Thank goodness. I love the scene when Deckard's head gets blown off by Batista.

 

[Khev]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

We saw how people reacted to K in the second film.

I found it fascinating that he seemingly wasn't allowed to look any human cops in the eye as he walked through the station to take his first baseline test.

 

[Luminous]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

I found it fascinating that he seemingly wasn't allowed to look any human cops in the eye as he walked through the station to take his first baseline test.

You think he wasn't allowed? I thought he was just avoiding unnecessary confrontation.

The idea of what he is and isn't allowed to do brings up a question I've had about the film. In the intro it is stated that Wallace's replicants are different from pre-black out models because they obey. Did Officer K essentially disobey his commander when he lied about having taken care of the replicant child? But then Luv says to Lieutenant Joshi that Joshi bought what K said because "we are incapable of lying". What am I missing here?

 

[abake]

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, 2017)

Ford Played Deckard as a human as has said as much. Ridley said he's a replicant. I still think of Deckard as human and like it that way. Movies are both great and will be watched tandem to fully appreciate them. I love the final cut but still prefer the first version with the narration overall.

How is that relevant?
He wasn't supposed to know he was a replicant...

I find it far more interesting that Deckard is a replicant, just like Rachael.
They are both new models, with built in memories to give them emotional maturity, unlike Nexus 6, who are quite childlike in their lack of maturity.
It also makes perfect sense to make them (Deckard and Rachael) less overtly strong than Nexus 6. If you think you're a normal human and then find out you have super strength and resistance, it won't take long before people around you and you yourself start asking questions.
Even so, Deckard takes quite a beating from Batty and is still able to walk away.

If you think about it, the fact that all the major characters, and the ones who display more human traits, are all replicants in both movies just makes the entire premise of what is it exactly that makes us human so much more interesting.

 

[Bravomite]

Blade runner is one of my favourite movies and 2049 has the potential to get right up there as well. Only seen it once so far but very keen to catch it again... Unfortunately my wife has classified it as "boring" (like the original) so will be seeing it solo for round two.

I do enjoy the ambiguouity over whether Deckard is replicant or not and I'm glad that it remained in the sequel. However, I don't find it that integral to the plot and view it more as a narrative device for exploring our own prejudice as an audience, which I will try to explain later.

My take from the film(s) is that it shouldn't really matter who is and who is not 'born of a woman' as it's your actions and the way you treat life that defines whether you are truly 'human'. For all intents and purposes Deckard spends most of the original film as just another cog in the machine, carrying out his function as a blade runner, even though he would rather just be out of the game. When you meet him it is apparent that he is a solitary man who drinks too much. His rather slovenly unkempt appearance (in comparison to Gaff) match the dirty, rain soaked 2019 environment in both mood and look with suggestions of oppression and depression. Deckard views replicants as machines, as long as they fulfill their function and are a benefit then they are not a problem.

It's only later through his interaction with Rachael and Roy that he changes. He rejects his function as a blade runner and the prejudices of his society. In doing so he is free and for the first time in the picture shows some compassion and humanity.

Rachael and Batty, two replicants or (as Deckard previously viewed them) machines, save Deckard both emotionally and physically. Rachael saves Deckard from Leon and Batty catches Deckard's hand before he falls off the roof. Batty's actions and his tears in the rain speech impress upon Deckard the value in all life whether it be human or replicant (or even AI as explored in 2049). With Rachael, Deckard finds love for another and it no longer matters to him what that other person is because their love is real (echoes of Joi and K).

By the end of the picture Deckard is acting and behaving more like the person I would hope to be in the same situation and that's why he is relatable to me. If the audience feel that they can only relate to Deckard because he is a human and not a replicant then we are just as prejudiced as 2019 LA society. It shouldn't matter whether Deckard was born or made because by the end he behaves like a human and that is all that matters.

There is a nice moment in 2049 when K asks Deckard whether the dog is real or a copy and Deckard suggests he asks the dog. The point being that it should not matter, much like the audience should not get hung up over whether or not Deckard is a replicant.