Support NeoGAF

[BorkBork]

minor questions have been bugging me

why did Luv have tears when she killed the police chief

My interpretation is she has no idea how to control any of the emotions that she is feeling while lying and murdering, so everything – exhilaration, terror, remorse, pleasure – mixed together is coming out at once.

and what was the point of wallace slicing open the uterus of the new replicant ready for inspection while monologuing his frustration at not having the key.

He was trying to make a new model that could reproduce but knew it was again a failure. That sets up his need to procure Rachel or her child.

what was the purpose of sticking a chip on his neck and the elaborate case of other chips, he couldn't wirelessly get information inside his own office?

He's blind. The neck chip allowed him to see diagnose the replicant.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Maybe this is the kind of film that improves upon rewatch, much like the original, but upon initial viewing I thought the film was middling at best. The pacing and the acting were the two low-points, but there were some neat (albeit well-trodden) sci-fi concepts and ideas.

That's my evaluation of the film on its own merits. As a Blade Runner sequel? Not even close to the original. This didn't have the film noir motifs, the vibrant use of color (lots of gray and brown and black in this one), the sense of wonderment at the world (in spite of the grime and squalor), or the gorgeous soundtrack.

One other thing: I've noticed that the a lot of modern sci-fi, if not a lot of modern storytelling in general, hinges on plot twists. So much of this movie is a build-up to twists. Compare that to the original film. It had a single plot twist that is so subtle and non-essential that many viewers miss it entirely. The original is enjoyable from the first dazzling opening shot and musical chord. I'm soaking the world in the entire time, not waiting for the next plot point to happen. The sequel lacked that. I was bored, frequently. And baffled at how sterile and dull the movie looked and sounded, because if there's one thing that nearly everyone appreciates about the original, it's the visuals and sound.

I liked last year's Arrival quite a bit, and 2049 is actually stylistically closer to that than Blade Runner, which makes sense I suppose. But I think Arrival benefited from a leaner budget and scope.

Yeah this is a big problem with movies nowadays, that and being written to support additional branching content, a more recent problem resulting from super hero movies' successes. BR2049 had a little bit of both of those issues. When your movie relies so much on solving a mystery, it loses its ability to have a long lasting impact if said mystery is solved.

Again, I was entertained throughout, but it really pales to me compared to the original. It sadly followed a very typical movie structure, with typical plot points as well. BR1 hid the usual three act structure, which existed behind the scene for Batty and co., since we have no hero to follow, it portrays the hero of its unseen three act structure as the antagonist. It was part of what made it feel so dream like, or like a string of memories, rather than what you usually feel when watching a movie. It didn't try to get its audience to support a hero, feel like all was lost, then cheer for their victory. Instead we followed this character that was literally lost, like he wasn't supposed to have the camera on him throughout, like his character would usually be the type to show up as a bad guy who hunts them down. In a way it was a metaphorical humanization of the antagonist; the longer the story follow hims, the more he has to become the hero we can support, and when he finally becomes this character, the movie ends.

I felt BR2049 had that potential to be unusual in its story telling early on, until K goes to his apartment. Sadly it developed as expected overall, even though it had the background to support a more unusual way of telling its story unlike a lot of other movies.

 

[Aselith]

minor questions have been bugging me

why did Luv have tears when she killed the police chief

and what was the point of wallace slicing open the uterus of the new replicant ready for inspection while monologuing his frustration at not having the key.

what was the purpose of sticking a chip on his neck and the elaborate case of other chips, he couldn't wirelessly get information inside his own office?

I thought maybe she was crying because she said she was going to lie to Wallace? Like maybe her zealotry made her feel so bad about the forthcoming lie that she started crying.

 

[HariKari]

Maybe this is the kind of film that improves upon rewatch, much like the original, but upon initial viewing I thought the film was middling at best. The pacing and the acting were the two low-points, but there were some neat (albeit well-trodden) sci-fi concepts and ideas.

The acting was a low point?

Which performance?

 

[Freshmaker]

Yeah this is a big problem with movies nowadays, that and being written to support additional branching content, a more recent problem resulting from super hero movies' successes. BR2049 had a little bit of both of those issues. When your movie relies so much on solving a mystery, it loses its ability to have a long lasting impact if said mystery is solved.

Again, I was entertained throughout, but it really pales to me compared to the original. It sadly followed a very typical movie structure, with typical plot points as well. BR1 hid the usual three act structure, which existed behind the scene for Batty and co., since we have no hero to follow, it portrays the hero of its unseen three act structure as the antagonist. It was part of what made it feel so dream like, or like a string of memories, rather than what you usually feel when watching a movie. It didn't try to get its audience to support a hero, feel like all was lost, then cheer for their victory. Instead we followed this character that was literally lost, like he wasn't supposed to have the camera on him throughout, like his character would usually be the type to show up as a bad guy who hunts them down. In a way it was a metaphorical humanization of the antagonist; the longer the story follow hims, the more he has to become the hero we can support, and when he finally becomes this character, the movie ends.

Except it really wasn't K's story. It was Deckard's.

 

[Foxix Von]

Except it really wasn't K's story. It was Deckard's.

One of the most important implications of the twist in the narrative is that it's explicitly not K's story. It's his realization and wrestling with this fact that sort of serves as the lynchpin to much of the film's themes and ponderings on humanity.

I'd actually argue the opposite to Ether_Snake's view and say that the only reason the movie works as well as it does is due to the fact that K is explicitly not following the expectation that comes with the typical three act/protagonist structure. In fact the movie is subverting those expectations in a very clever way, especially by returning to Deckard's narrative who really wasn't the true protagonist in the last film. At least not in the typical sense.

I find it interesting that you and Mango viewed the film this way, but absolutely cannot agree or draw the same conclusions that you two have.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The movie's plot unfolds in the typical way, doesn't matter if K dies and Deckard gets his "prize". K is the protagonist, the character arch is his, not Deckard. The movie really ends with him dying, even if we unnecessarily then see Deckard meet his daughter. It plays out as the usual three act structure to a T.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-act_structure

The first act is usually used for exposition, to establish the main characters, their relationships and the world they live in. Later in the first act, a dynamic, on-screen incident occurs that confronts the main character (the protagonist), whose attempts to deal with this incident lead to a second and more dramatic situation, known as the first turning point, which (a) signals the end of the first act, (b) ensures life will never be the same again for the protagonist and (c) raises a dramatic question that will be answered in the climax of the film. The dramatic question should be framed in terms of the protagonist's call to action, (Will X recover the diamond? Will Y get the girl? Will Z capture the killer?).[1] This is known as the inciting incident, or catalyst. As an example, the inciting incident in the 1972 film The Godfather is when Vito Corleone is attacked, which occurs approximately 40 minutes into the film.

K thinks he's the kid.

The second act, also referred to as "rising action", typically depicts the protagonist's attempt to resolve the problem initiated by the first turning point, only to find him- or herself in ever worsening situations. Part of the reason protagonists seem unable to resolve their problems is because they do not yet have the skills to deal with the forces of antagonism that confront them. They must not only learn new skills but arrive at a higher sense of awareness of who they are and what they are capable of, in order to deal with their predicament, which in turn changes who they are. This is referred to as character development or a character arc. This cannot be achieved alone and they are usually aided and abetted by mentors and co-protagonists.[1]

That's the bulk of the movie up to the rebels telling him "The Truth".

The third act features the resolution of the story and its subplots. The climax is the scene or sequence in which the main tensions of the story are brought to their most intense point and the dramatic question answered, leaving the protagonist and other characters with a new sense of who they really are.[1]

The end fight/resolution.

I think it's disappointing because a lot of what I consider weak points in this movie result from it following this structure. I think the Blade Runner world is so full of unknowns, uncertainties, doubts, fear, paranoia, that it had a great foundation to handle its plot structure accordingly like the original did. It would have simply been fitting for the kind of world it's set in.

edit: Also read that three act again, imagining Batty as the protagonist, from leaving Mars to the end of the movie. Fits perfectly for his story.

 

[Zom]

Shouldn't replicants rebels just give Reachel baby to Wallace so he can make replicants that can have childrens and THEN make a war?? so they can procreate after they win???? I mean, if they take a stand now and kill Wallace there will be no more replicant production, and that means in some years there will be only humans again, or thats the point?

 

[blakep267]

Watched the first movie last week at 3am on Saturday so I figured why not watch the sequel.

It not bad, but it's a pretty big tonal shift from the first one. Granted the OG was slathered in noir sauce and this movie felt like a normal sci fi movie(not knocking that)

2049 is imo a better movie than the OG but not as interesting from the world building perspective. I feel like 2049 can be set in the same world as GITS(2016) or Total Recall 2012. There were little things that drew me in like JOI but at times it felt a bit generic from the world perspective. What I mean to say is I found the OG movie to be kinda bleh but was really interested in the concept and the world that was created. It's the opposite for 2049

I also thought they could've leaned more into the K/JOI relationship. While she was around him a lot, aside from those 2 apartment scenes I don't even know if they had much back and forth between each other(she'd say stuff or be there but no conversing) then she gets crushed. Also I don't believe that K would feel betrayed by the JOI revelation. It's not as if she was obviously saying generic stuff to him when they were alone. She seemingly had a mind of her own

Finally, may be against the grain but I think this would've been better as a stand alone movie not having anything to do with the OG movie. I felt it went downhill as soon as Deckard and the resistance were introduced

Side note: Sean Young was stunning in the original film and this lookalike just didn't do it for me at all

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Shouldn't replicants rebels just give Reachel baby to Wallace so he can make replicants that can have childrens and THEN make a war?? so they can procreate after they win???? I mean, if they take a stand now and kill Wallace there will be no more replicant production, and that means in some years there will be only humans again, or thats the point?

Why would they give their "miracle" to someone who will probably just dissect her?

 

[Seductivpancakes]

I find it hard to believe that Wallace thinks replicants being born instead of manufactured is the fastest way to create a million workers.

Don't even need to make those new workers human like at all.

 

[blakep267]

I find it hard to believe that Wallace thinks replicants being born instead of manufactured is the fastest way to create a million workers.

Don't even need to make those new workers human like at all.

I was confused about that as well. I mean 9 months to make a baby then 18 years till they can actually contribute. How is it not more efficient to make grown replicants by the boatload instead of building an actual population of workers that takes generations

 

[BaconHat]

I was confused about that as well. I mean 9 months to make a baby then 18 years till they can actually contribute. How is it not more efficient to make grown replicants by the boatload instead of building an actual population of workers that takes generations

Maybe its a limited resource issues with whatever materials is used to make replicants?

 

[ParadigmGamer]

"You always know a Working Joe!" This has been running through my head since the movie! Funnily enough, both working Joes and Joe are android/replicant.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Shouldn't replicants rebels just give Reachel baby to Wallace so he can make replicants that can have childrens and THEN make a war?? so they can procreate after they win???? I mean, if they take a stand now and kill Wallace there will be no more replicant production, and that means in some years there will be only humans again, or thats the point?

Pretty sure Wallace would breed them to absolute obedience. Wallace would just send his children to fight the rebels and he would clearly win off numbers alone. No way he takes the risk in giving them the ability to procreate without knowing exactly how they will behave.

 

[Window]

We don't know what time and resources are required to create a replicant so it's odd to come to the conclusion that artificial replicant creation is faster than the near-exponential growth rate of natural reproduction when the film tells us otherwise.

 

[CouchDweller]

I think it's disappointing because a lot of what I consider weak points in this movie result from it following this structure. I think the Blade Runner world is so full of unknowns, uncertainties, doubts, fear, paranoia, that it had a great foundation to handle its plot structure accordingly like the original did. It would have simply been fitting for the kind of world it's set in.

But it's not following that structure. By the time we get to what you would supposedly consider the third act, there's no release of tension that you typically feel in a story of that traditional route. When I finished watching the film, there's WAS many arcs left to be accounted for, but it chooses to focus on the one that matters most, Deckard reuiniting with his family. However the air of this reuinitment is uncertain, and full of doubt as to whether it will be harmoniously carried out or not. It's filled with an emotional inquiry as to whether or not he can answer his question of whether or not his place in the world includes his daughter at his side. That literally flies in the face of 3-act plot structures

 

[Ether_Snake]

Pretty sure Wallace would breed them to absolute obedience. Wallace would just send his children to fight the rebels and he would clearly win off numbers alone. No way he takes the risk in giving them the ability to procreate without knowing exactly how they will behave.

As opposed to the current replicants who don't behave as he'd want?

But it's not following that structure. By the time we get to what you would supposedly consider the third act, there's no release of tension that you typically feel in a story of that traditional route. When I finished watching the film, there's WAS many arcs left to be accounted for, but it chooses to focus on the one that matters most, Deckard reuiniting with his family. However the air of this reuinitment is uncertain, and full of doubt as to whether it will be harmoniously carried out or not. It's filled with an emotional inquiry as to whether or not he can answer his question of whether or not his place in the world includes his daughter at his side. That literally flies in the face of 3-act plot structures

That's because you latch on the idea that Deckard is the protagonist because we see him meet his daughter for 30 seconds. K is, and the three act plot carries itself fully through him from beginning to end.

 

[shintoki]

I was reading the wiki for 2049.

They originally planned for Bowie to be Wallace and not Leto.

Q_Q

 

[Seductivpancakes]

Maybe its a limited resource issues with whatever materials is used to make replicants?

I also find it hard to believe they colonize all these planets and have limited resources.

 

[Curious Puppy]

I was reading the wiki for 2049.

They originally planned for Bowie to be Wallace and not Leto.

Q_Q

Yeah that was weird to me. They are absolutely nothing alike, not to mention Bowie was around 25 years older. Leto is a 45 year old who looks 30, while Bowie looked his age in his later career.

 

[Ushojax]

I was reading the wiki for 2049.

They originally planned for Bowie to be Wallace and not Leto.

Q_Q

Makes sense that they wanted an ageless actor, they want some ambiguity as to whether Wallace is a replicant himself. He seems to have sprung from nowhere.

 

[Zom]

Pretty sure Wallace would breed them to absolute obedience. Wallace would just send his children to fight the rebels and he would clearly win off numbers alone. No way he takes the risk in giving them the ability to procreate without knowing exactly how they will behave.

Hmmm good point.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The reason for needing replicants is not all that important to the film. And Wallace isn't necessarily a reliable narrator. I'm sure he's driven by ego as much as any real reason.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

The reason for needing replicants is not all that important to the film. And Wallace isn't necessarily a reliable narrator. I'm sure he's driven by ego as much as any real reason.

This I'll concede too. Maybe he's at the height of his corporate power and thinks of himself as a god.

 

[Blizzard]

I finally saw the movie tonight. Overall I was happy and would say 8/10 personally.

I think if someone enjoyed the style of the original, there's a good chance they would like this. However, it is very slow in some scenes, which both my friends didn't enjoy. I remember the original also being slow in that very stylistic way.

I might not have minded the music, but it was SUPER ULTRA MEGA LOUD in the final big fight scene. Some scenes earlier in the movie were loud but not that bad. My non-IMAX theater isn't usually that loud, and my fiance doesn't even mind loud movies, but even her ears were physically hurting after that scene. And some other scenes would have the flying car going somewhere and then suddenly BRAWWWWWWWWW for no apparent reason.

Acting seemed good overall. I liked Gosling better than in La La Land, and Ford seemed to really care about this role, as with Force Awakens. The only real overacting I noticed was when Gosling flipped out thinking he was the mystery child, when it seemed to me he should have just run his own DNA and asked one of the many super advanced computer thingies he had access to for a comparison.

I liked the NCIS Kung Fu Abby villain and the Super Alexa assistant.

The plot was decent enough. Early on I was thinking it was too cliché for Gosling to be the mystery child, but it turned out not to be the case. I actually should have predicted the dream architect to be the mystery child a scene or two earlier, but for some reason I didn't anticipate that. I also REALLY didn't anticipate the call girl returning as part of the robot revolt because I forgot that goggles lady put her up to it.

 

[Einchy]

Priscilla Page is the best.

 

[Poimandres]

Just saw this. Very good. Solid 4/5 for me.

 

[diaspora]

She liked him.

Is that what Villeneuve said? It just reads to me like she's just trying to imitate "dad". It's her way to be more like him and consequently get closer to him imo.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

So, this movie made me wonder, how Replicants work. Are they 1:1 human, just artificial, but also with every human trait of organic function? The movies remain silent about that, but maybe someone has read the book and say something about that.

 

[Calabi]

I also find it hard to believe they colonize all these planets and have limited resources.

There's a possibility that the colonies arent the bounty full resources that we are lead to believe.

Even if those planets are doing well getting resources from those planets to earth would likely cost a lot of money and not be profitable.

 

[Thug Waffle]

how did Wallace know there was a child before they examined the bones?

 

[N7.Angel]

So, this movie made me wonder, how Replicants work. Are they 1:1 human, just artificial, but also with every human trait of organic function? The movies remain silent about that, but maybe someone has read the book and say something about that.

they are enhanced human but all biological, they have no exosquelette or whatever, they're super us...

how did Wallace know there was a child before they examined the bones?

We discuss this with my girlfriend after we saw the movie and we came to the conclusions that he was already searching for a way to make replicant that could have babies but failed everytime, he probably learn about the miracle kid wxith a joi product or by spying the LAPD or anything else...

the fact that replicant can't reproduce in the Blade runner world itself is completely nonsensical, we can produce perfect biological human ( clone ) but can't make them reproduce ? come on lol...

 

[JB1981]

how did Wallace know there was a child before they examined the bones?

It seems he was looking for the key to reproduction before learning of the child. I could be misremembering tho

 

[Thug Waffle]

It seems he was looking for the key to reproduction before learning of the child. I could be misremembering tho

i just saw it for the third time. the scene where he talks to luv and kills the newborn replicant, he says "but there is a child" and basically orders her to find it. then luv hits up the lapd to retrieve the bones.

just curious where and how she found out about the bones, and how wallace knew about the child before they had that confirmation.

 

[Window]

i just saw it for the third time. the scene where he talks to luv and kills the newborn replicant, he says "but there is a child" and basically orders her to find it. then luv hits up the lapd to retrieve the bones.

just curious where and how she found out about the bones, and how wallace knew about the child before they had that confirmation.

I thought K visiting the HQ was the tip-off for this, given that it was about Rachel whom he may have known about earlier as being 'unique'.

 

[Thug Waffle]

I thought K visiting the HQ was the tip-off for this, given that it was about Rachel whom he may have known about earlier as being 'unique'.

but how would wallace know it was about a child instead of just an old, MIA model that needed to be retired? her records stated she was unremarkable and not dissimilar from most other replicants of her era.

still not seeing the literary evidence for this in the film. we're just guessing, really.

 

[Window]

but how would wallace know it was about a child instead of just an old, MIA model that needed to be retired?

From recovering incomplete records off Tyrell? He seems have recordings of Rachel and Deckard's meetings. I don't find it a stretch to believe he has other pieces of information which belonged to Tyrell, just not enough to replicate what he did. How he acquired them is of little importance honestly.

her records stated she was unremarkable and not dissimilar from most other replicants of her era.

I don't remember the tone of the scene but I think it was implied that Luv was being dishonest? She tries to coax more information from K doesn't she?

 

[Thug Waffle]

From recovering incomplete records off Tyrell? He seems have recordings of Rachel and Deckard's meetings. I don't find it a stretch to believe he has other pieces of information which belonged to Tyrell, just not enough to replicate what he did.

"her records stated she was unremarkable and not dissimilar from most other replicants of her era.

still not seeing the literary evidence for this in the film. we're just guessing, really."

 

[Shaanyboi]

I was confused about that as well. I mean 9 months to make a baby then 18 years till they can actually contribute. How is it not more efficient to make grown replicants by the boatload instead of building an actual population of workers that takes generations

Pretty sure child labor laws won't be a concern when dealing with replicant children. In Wallace's eyes, anyway.

 

[JB1981]

i just saw it for the third time. the scene where he talks to luv and kills the newborn replicant, he says "but there is a child" and basically orders her to find it. then luv hits up the lapd to retrieve the bones.

just curious where and how she found out about the bones, and how wallace knew about the child before they had that confirmation.

Yea there doesn't seem to be a good explanation for this in the movie. Seems like a continuity error in the editing. That makes it even more of a Blade Runner sequel LOL

 

[Thug Waffle]

I don't remember the tone of the scene but I think it was implied that Luv was being dishonest? She tries to coax more information from K doesn't she?

yeah i got that she was trying to fish out more information from him (when she flat-out asked what warrants an investigation) but i don't know that there's enough there to assume she knew it was about a child (considering wallace didn't even tell her about it yet)

also luv wasn't the one who said that about Rachel - it was the bald clerk who led K to the data vault.

 

[N7.Angel]

"her records stated she was unremarkable and not dissimilar from most other replicants of her era.

still not seeing the literary evidence for this in the film. we're just guessing, really."

that's what Luv said to K, not especially the truth.

 

[Window]

yeah i got that she was trying to fish out more information from him but i don't know that there's enough there to assume she knew it was about a child (considering wallace didn't even tell her about it yet)

At the very least, I got the feeling she knew Rachel was a person of interest to Wallace. The birthing scene takes place soon afterwards right? I just assumed a causal connection between the two scenes, that a dormant search had now become active with the discovery of Rachel's bones.

 

[Thug Waffle]

that's what Luv said to K, not especially the truth.

no it wasn't, it was the clerk who checked the records in the first place.

 

[Thug Waffle]

At the very least, I got the feeling she knew Rachel was a person of interest to Wallace. The birthing scene takes place soon afterwards right? I just assumed a causal connection between the two scenes, that a dormant search had now become active with the discovery of Rachel's bones.

yeah that's what i thought too. i even thought maybe the newborn was supposed to be Rachel until the end when she made an appearance.

now that i think about it, i'm not even sure K knew about the dig team's results until he left Wallace's. so how did Wallace already know and prep this "scene"?

idk how luv couldve known rachel was a person of interest to wallace beyond her being his personal assistant (much like luv's own relationship with wallace)

 

[jett]

I thought maybe they knew simply from her DNA somehow. K did give the Wallace Corp a strand of her hair, right?

As much as this movie likes to explain its plot points, I guess this is one thing that escaped the editing room.

Speaking of DNA, considering they have mastered genetic bioengineering, I don't understand how they weren't able to perfectly clone Rachel anyway, fertility included.

 

[Thug Waffle]

I thought maybe they knew simply from her DNA somehow. K did give the Wallace Corp a strand of her hair, right?

As much as this movie likes to explain its plot points, I guess this is one thing that escaped the editing room.

Speaking of DNA, considering they have mastered genetic bioengineering, I don't understand how they weren't able to perfectly clone Rachel anyway, fertility included.

if they knew from her dna - assuming they have access to the record, or it wasn't lost in the blackout - then why didnt wallace just keep building rachels to try and breed them?

 

[jett]

if they knew from her dna - assuming they have access to the record, or it wasn't lost in the blackout - then why didnt wallace just keep building rachels to try and breed them?

This is what I'm saying. They had their DNA. Hair, bones, the works.

 

[UrbanRats]

Doesn't Wallace mention at some point that Tyrell knew how to create reproductive Replicants, but died with the secret? Or am I remembering wrong?