Support NeoGAF

[Jarmel]

There are too many female objectification in this movie, not just once. On top of my head: the newborn replicant, the big female statues, the sex workers, the house AI. It's easy to notice that all the women in this movie are attractive (except maybe the one eyed rebel) but I can't say the same about the men. Funny that because aren't they in an age where replicants are ubiquitous and everyone should be gorgeous? Yet somehow there are no demand for male beauty.

I don't actually believe that this movie intends to criticise male gaze. Instead I actually think it's one of those movies where it's giving a heavy nod to the good old days, where women are objectified and used in many stereotyped female roles ie. MacGuffin, femme fatale, sexy sidekick, but always put in a second rate position to the white man hero.

Some of the scenes should as Wallace with the newborn female replicant aren’t so much female objectification but Wallace treating the Replicant as a thing. He views the Replicants as objects to do with as he pleases. It could have just as easily been a male if not for the reproductive aspect. The movie depicts the female AI in a very questionable light throughout the film and asks if having an AI like this is really a good thing for people.

The cast is super small in the film. A lot of the people K encountered are humans, not Replicants. The guy running the child orphanage/sweatshop was human. All the Replicants looked attractive as they should be.

It’s also worth looking at the director’s past work and going off that, I very much doubt he would intentionally objectify women.

As for the female opinions, well they’re entitled to their opinions I guess. I will say though that anyone saying Tarantino should be anywhere near a Blade Runner film is fucking insane and their opinion is garbage.

 

[Chichikov]

What does this have to do with the box office numbers? Post this in the OT if you want to try and make an argument that this film is sexist towards women.

Don't police the thread. You can go back and see how this discussion developed, and I think it's pretty clear that enough people find it interesting and important enough to engage in it, if you don't, feel free to browse other threads.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

There are too many female objectification in this movie, not just once. On top of my head: the newborn replicant, the big female statues, the sex workers, the house AI. It's easy to notice that all the women in this movie are attractive (except maybe the one eyed rebel) but I can't say the same about the men. Funny that because aren't they in an age where replicants are ubiquitous and everyone should be gorgeous? Yet somehow there are no demand for male beauty.

I don't actually believe that this movie intends to criticise male gaze. Instead I actually think it's one of those movies where it's giving a heavy nod to the good old days, where women are objectified and used in many stereotyped female roles ie. MacGuffin, femme fatale, sexy sidekick, but always put in a second rate position to the white man hero.

Also it's rich that you all disregard bsb's point of view, isn't this thread made to discuss how poorly received this movie is? Here I quote a sentiment from Paul Dergarabedian, someone who is paid to analyse movies: “The core of enthusiastic and loyal ‘Blade Runner’ fans were over 25 and predominantly male and propelled the film as expected to the top spot, but a lengthy running time and lesser interest among females made it tougher for the film to reach the original weekend box office projections"
"According to PostTrack, males over 25 represented 50% of the audience and females over 25 were 27%, while males under 25 represented 15% of moviegoers and females under 25 were 8%."

But yeah, sure, handwave away all the criticism about this movie, especially if it comes from a woman, right?

Here are some women's pov (in underline), just from this thread...












And finally, this gem...



Yes, guys, you certainly know best of what women want.

I think you're way off base. Women aren't traditionally into science fiction and fantasy like men. So a business decision focusing more on the male audience makes sense. Plus, we JUST had a future scifi blockbuster movie with a woman lead: see Ghost in the Shell.

The "hero" in this movie was the the replicant K. Hero, not really. Protagonist yes, because his character has an arc and an emotional payoff.

Spoiler

He wants to be a real boy with a soul. Pinocchio was also male.

The most important characters in this movie's universe were 2 women, which I won't reveal for story reasons. But you should know who I'm referring to if you watched the movie. The most important of the women was not objectified at all. Sure she didn't have warts, wasn't overweight, didn't have crooked teeth, etc. but she wasn't sexualized at all.

 

[Gattsu25]

I think you're way off base. Women aren't traditionally into science fiction and fantasy like men. So a business decision focusing more on the male audience makes sense. Plus, we JUST had a future scifi blockbuster movie with a woman lead: see Ghost in the Shell.

 

[Opto]

I think you're way off base. Women aren't traditionally into science fiction and fantasy like men. So a business decision focusing more on the male audience makes sense. Plus, we JUST had a future scifi blockbuster movie with a woman lead: see Ghost in the Shell.

Women are just as into nerdy shit as guys. But then we say they aren't. And then going into a direction to intentionally focus on one gender for the audience (I'd say that wasn't the goal), which then goes into a weird gender feedback loop.

But don't worry, we have the one female lead sci-fi film that made no one happy

 

[balgajo]

I didn't see any issues in the movie. Like Mad Max: Fury Road we have strong women but at the same time in a society dominated by patriarchy.

Also, do we know the split numbers for Mad Max?

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Sure thing.

okay :> will do in a bit!

Science fiction has historically always benefitted from alternative perspectives and contrarian viewpoints. You should articulate why you feel the way you do about it in the main thread, regardless of my opinion on it.

But there is perhaps a kernel of truth to what you're describing. The demographic data for this film was overwhelmingly male if I recall. Perhaps influenced by the reasons you describe.

oh, i dont know. i dont really want to ruin other people's enjoyment. im just here to back bunny up since she's a fellow woman and that she's deciding not to go see it in the cinemas has something to do with maybe how the movie is doing at the box office (vis-a-vis female audience's lack of enthusiasm for this movie)

again, the movie is not without good points. but those good points have been covered to the moon and back by other posters in that thread, so that'll leave me as bringing the perspectives that most people do NOT want to hear :3

To go further into the future makes less sense on why we'd have more white people. Infact, the lack of the actual ethnicity that would bring over the cultural markers appropriated makes it even more Orientalism. You can't say there's no hint of it especially with those vending machines.

And I guess, this has been posted?

Did we watch the same movie? The protagonist literally

Spoiler

is told in no uncertain terms that he is not special and that the daughter is truly special. She is shown to be of immense talent and the key to the future, while the male lead is just another cog in the machine.

You pointed out instances of women appearing in the film yet you didn't say how they are objectified or how it makes little sense in the context of the movie. A TV show or film depicting something does not mean it endorses it. The future on display is clearly a dystopian one that no one in their right mind would want to live in.

spoilered:

Spoiler

tbh, i felt it was a cop out. as soon as the movie said there was a special jesus replicant child, i knew it was going to be a girl. but of course, she's only 'important' as a macguffin. the real importance was really the struggle of gosling being not-jesus-child-replicant. i think if gosling was a woman, this movie would have been more women-friendly. maybe with a beautiful man househusband AI. maybe that's pushing it too much :>

as for the objectification, the male nudity i remembered were the dead bodies and the floating replicant templates at wallace place. there were soooooooooooooooo many female nudities. plus high heels are terrible.

but just so you know i dont hate the movie, i really liked the cinematography and the soundtrack and the plot and pacing were deftly handled. that opening scene really set the tone right, and the movie is super faithful to the original, in terms of themes and tones. i appreciate all of that.

it's just that it's not women-friendly (to me)

 

[Window]

Can't say I ever made the connection of Hoeks' outfit being Asian but interesting tweet.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Can't say I ever made the connection of Hoeks' outfit being Asian but interesting tweet.

jared leto wore kimono and joi wore cheongsam in the movie

clearly that's enough asian representation

 

[Opto]

jared leto wore kimono and joi wore cheongsam in the movie

clearly that's enough asian representation

And all the asian people went from street vendors to off-world billionaires I guess

 

[Moonkid]

Thanks for posting ynnny, I appreciate hearing your perspective. I didn't really think about the movie from a feminist lens until someone in my class, incidentally a guy, mentioned how the depiction of women made him feel uncomfortable. Even if my visceral response to the film and my consequent interpretation is different, I think it's still valuable to hear differing opinions especially from women.

Also, that twitter thread is a classic example of the lengths folks will go to justifying something problematic about something they like. I'm going out on a limb and say it was most probably not intentional or meant to be a statement - it's just the Hollywood status quo.

And yeah, someone should probably have a woke talk with Hoek.

 

[Window]

jared leto wore kimono and joi wore cheongsam in the movie

clearly that's enough asian representation

Joi also wears an outfit of a archetypal 50's American housewife in order to appeal to K's desires.

Fair point on Leto.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

And all the asian people went from street vendors to off-world billionaires I guess

there's that one asian person doing luv's nails, i guess

i guess that person is representing the non-rich off-world asian billlionaires XD

Thanks for posting ynnny, I appreciate hearing your perspective. I didn't really think about the movie from a feminist lens until someone in my class, incidentally a guy, mentioned how the depiction of women made him feel uncomfortable. Even if my visceral response to the film and my consequent interpretation is different, I think it's still valuable to hear differing opinions especially from women.

Also, that twitter thread is a classic example of the lengths folks will go to justifying something problematic about something they like. I'm going out on a limb and say it was most probably not intentional or meant to be a statement - it's just the Hollywood status quo.

aaaa is good to have discussions :>

(im not particularly too bothered by the lack of asian representations in br2049 tbh. i mean it's jarring now that it has been pointed out to me, but eh, i'll let it slide) (im more bothered by the 'women' stuff)

 

[mlclmtckr]

*sees an irradiated dystopian hellscape of the ruins of a casino complex where giant statues of naked women are obscured by radioactive dust*

this is definitely the movie's male gaze and in no way a comment on or metaphor for society's view of women and sexuality

 

[BorkBork]

Blade Runner is a dystopia. Does its world trade in orientalism, male gaze, and a lack of representation? Absolutely, and it does so in order to show how bad things are, not to endorse or condone it. That's what the quote I posted means.

Blade Runner is not the type of story to right all these wrongs over the course of one narrative. Even the "happy" ending of the theatrical cut of Blade Runner still left Replicants at the mercy of the system, a devastated environment, an all-consuming commercial culture, no visible female/minority persons of authority, and cultural appropriation out the wazoo.

Ursula K. Le Guin wrote an essay titled "The Modest One" on Dick's work about how he, and by extension the original Blade Runner and 2049, offers glimmers of hope in dark times through relatively small redemptive acts.

(the above quote is shamelessly stolen from another GAF post I copied but can't find the source)

Hey that was me. I will take any opportunity I can to spread the word on UKL and PKD.

As someone who absolutely adores this film, I totally understand and respect anyone who feels excluded from the experience. There's no need to justify your stance. Excluded is how you feel. And going along with one of the core takeaways from the movie, that is absolutely real.

If you do become interested in delving into the many interesting themes the film tries to explore, please come check out the spoilers thread. It's a bit of a beast but there's a ton of great discussion going on around the film, from literary inspirations, interpretations of love, production notes, scene breakdowns, and lots more.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Ill post this again for the new page, but yeah, I do not see this as a misogynistic film at all. Joi, a woman, was by far the film's most interesting character. To me anyway. As others have explained: depictions are not endorsements, especially if that character does enough to subvert the expectations that come with these sexist depictions.

 

[Moonkid]

aaaa is good to have discussions :>

(im not particularly too bothered by the lack of asian representations in br2049 tbh. i mean it's jarring now that it has been pointed out to me, but eh, i'll let it slide) (im more bothered by the 'women' stuff)

That's fair. At the end of the day we all have our own tastes and levels where we draw the line c:

 

[StWilson85]

. Plus, we JUST had a future scifi blockbuster movie with a woman lead: see Ghost in the Shell.
.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. 1 movie per sex per genre and none more.

 

[Poimandres]

Just saw this on a Sunday afternoon in Australia... Cinema was half full, not bad!

The movie... Was great! Really happy with it!

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Ill post this again for the new page, but yeah, I do not see this as a misogynistic film at all. Joi, a woman, was by far the film's most interesting character. To me anyway. As others have explained: depictions are not endorsements, especially if that character does enough to subvert the expectations that come with these sexist depictions.

but are you willing to accept that what is seen as 'misogynistic' by a male audience and by a female audience might carry different weight?

what a woman audience might feel as 'sexist' might carry a different weight than what a man audience deem as 'not sexist'

spoiler:

Spoiler

i dont think the movie is misogynistic but i do think it presents issues in terms of women representations. having those issues do not make the movie misogynistic, entirely.

That's fair. At the end of the day we all have our own tastes and levels where we draw the line c:

ayup :> that is fine and good.

 

[Fallout-NL]

but are you willing to accept that what is seen as 'misogynistic' by a male audience and by a female audience might carry different weight?

what a woman audience might feel as 'sexist' might carry a different weight than what a man audience deem as 'not sexist'

spoiler:

Spoiler

i dont think the movie is misogynistic but i do think it presents issues in terms of women representations. having those issues do not make the movie misogynistic, entirely.

ayup :> that is fine and good.

Yes, I do accept that.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Yes, I do accept that.

:thumbup emoji:

 

[MeatGrinder]

“Seek and you will find”. You can say every movie/ series is sexist if you look into it enough. I did not see this movie as sexist or anything and neither was the first one. The cast had plenty of women, and they all had important roles.

Spoiler

The antagonist was a women, K’s boss was a woman, K’s AI had much more feelings than him, the baby was a girl, the leader of the replicants was a woman.

Like, how can the movie be sexist? Because of prostitutes? Come on.

 

[KiN0]

spoilered:

Spoiler

tbh, i felt it was a cop out. as soon as the movie said there was a special jesus replicant child, i knew it was going to be a girl. but of course, she's only 'important' as a macguffin. the real importance was really the struggle of gosling being not-jesus-child-replicant.

To add to this point

Spoiler

she is a waif with child-llike characteristics who holds purity and innocence at the core of her characterization. Had she been a man, I highly doubt he would have been portrayed with those same traits

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

“Seek and you will find”. You can say every movie/ series is sexist if you look into it enough. I did not see this movie as sexist or anything and neither was the first one. The cast had plenty of women, and they all had important roles.

Spoiler

The antagonist was a women, K’s boss was a woman, K’s AI had much more feelings than him, the baby was a girl, the leader of the replicants was a woman.

Like, how can the movie be sexist? Because of prostitutes? Come on.

because of

Spoiler

panty flash, high heels, plethora of nude women figures

. but no, im seriously saying that the movie isn't misogynistic for me, either. i can accept, though, if some people would say that it has elements that are gender problematic.

To add to this point

Spoiler

she is a waif with child-llike characteristics who holds purity and innocence at the core of her characterization. Had she been a man, I highly doubt he would have been portrayed with those same traits

:thinking emoji:

that's very true and very interesting

 

[wazoo]

I will not go to see it on theater.

I will buy the Blu Ray edition, which will cost me more, but I can enjoy it quietly at home. And the experience will be better, because videoprojector at home.

 

[Blinck]

I thought the movie was great, but obviously an almost 3h philosophical cyberpunk sci-fi movie is gonna bother many people in today's world attention span.
I honestly felt that every scene was interesting and I don't see where it could have been cut. The slow burn is part of a movie like this.

My GF loved the movie but she did think it was overly long and a bit tiring.

Also calling this film sexist in part because of all the naked holograms, the subservient A.I. and so forth, is basically not understanding the point. This is DYSTOPIAN sci-fi. Earth is supposed to be at the bottom of the barrel, that's why just like in the first film there are so many references to leaving to a better world.
A male sex driven world is part of this shitty future earth. It's like the medieval ages but in the future lol.
What do you imagine that the holograms for a dystopian future would be on the low bottom shitty streets? For hot girls and companion A.I that promise to indulge your every need, or for a big brand new car, the latest bestselling novel or videogame? -.-

 

[BocoDragon]

^ Yeah I'm sure the way this movie uses issues of female possession is in no way critical and purely exists to gratify the needs of male moviegoers.......

It's clearly intentional. It's part of the "text". Anyone using the film's own "text" to bludgeon it with is a lazy thinker.

 

[Camper Van Beethoven]

Sex bots are the logical conclusion to all human technological advancements.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

^ Yeah I'm sure the way this movie uses issues of female possession is in no way critical and purely exists to gratify the needs of male moviegoers.......

It's clearly intentional. It's part of the "text". Anyone using the film's own "text" to bludgeon it with is a lazy thinker.

If anything, his reaction to this moment ends up being the climax of the film and the turning point in his character arc.

 

[derder]

Sex bots are the logical conclusion to all human technological advancements.

You joke, but I think sexbots might be where humanity collapses.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. 1 movie per sex per genre and none more.

Rogue One?

And the upcoming Annihilation.

 

[Theodoricos]

Saying that this film is sexist is a dangerous line of thinking that very well may lead to the dumbing down of movies. For some people it feels like movies need to spell out "this is wrong" at every single scene involving something controversial instead of letting the audience reach that conclusion themselves. I wonder if these same people would try to paint Schindler's List as antisemitic by taking some of Oskar Schindler's early scenes out of context, for example. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can one leave the movie theater thinking it's sexist is just beyond me.

Especially when there are so many well-realized female characters (who are also integral to the plot and move it along).

 

[Camper Van Beethoven]

You joke, but I think sexbots might be where humanity collapses.

I’m not joking blade runner seems totally realistic to me. Joi especially. That shit is going to happen.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Rogue One?

And the upcoming Annihilation.

And Last Jedi/current Star Wars trilogy

And Arrival

Like if the criticism is that women are still being treated on the outside of science fiction, I'm not going to argue against that. But this past year in film is most definitely the argument against that trend, not in reinforcement of it.

 

[Timbuktu]

Saying that this film is sexist is a dangerous line of thinking that very well may lead to the dumbing down of movies. For some people it feels like movies need to spell out "this is wrong" at every single scene involving something controversial instead of letting the audience reach that conclusion themselves. I wonder if these same people would try to paint Schindler's List as antisemitic by taking some of Oskar Schindler's early scenes out of context, for example. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can one leave the movie theater thinking it's sexist is just beyond me.

Especially when there are so many well-realized female characters (who are also integral to the plot and move it along).

I don't think this is an either or argument, a movie isn't just sexist or not. It can be critical of sexism but also suffers problems to do with depiction of gender.

I agree that 2049 is critical of patriarchy in that it presents it as a dystopia in a similar way to Mad Max Fuy Road. In comparison, it can be argued that the female characters lack agency beyond who they are in relation to the male protagonists, whether as mother figures, daughters or spouse. Their worth throughout is also largely related to their biology or manufactured nature. The idea of whether a female body is able to bear children being the line dividing humanity and artificiality isn't entirely resolved in my opinion.

I'm not sure if the movie ever say if a replicant male can reproduce with a human female, and what would be the nature of that offspring?

 

[michaelius]

There are too many female objectification in this movie, not just once. On top of my head: the newborn replicant, the big female statues, the sex workers, the house AI. It's easy to notice that all the women in this movie are attractive (except maybe the one eyed rebel) but I can't say the same about the men. Funny that because aren't they in an age where replicants are ubiquitous and everyone should be gorgeous? Yet somehow there are no demand for male beauty.

I don't actually believe that this movie intends to criticise male gaze. Instead I actually think it's one of those movies where it's giving a heavy nod to the good old days, where women are objectified and used in many stereotyped female roles ie. MacGuffin, femme fatale, sexy sidekick, but always put in a second rate position to the white man hero.

It was typical vision of decadent future where people are pursuing their own hedonistic needs and the scene with AI and sex worker was disturbing as hell vision of future- not something for male gaze.

I watched it with a group of friends and all girls really liked the movie.

 

[Theodoricos]

I don't think this is an either or argument, a movie isn't just sexist or not. It can be critical of sexism but also suffers problems to do with depiction of gender.

I agree that 2049 is critical of patriarchy in that it presents it as a dystopia in a similar way to Mad Max Fuy Road. In comparison, it can be argued that the female characters lack agency beyond who they are in relation to the male protagonists, whether as mother figures, daughters or spouse. Their worth throughout is also largely related to their biology or manufactured nature. The idea of whether a female body is able to bear children being the line dividing humanity and artificiality isn't entirely resolved in my opinion.

I'm not sure if the movie ever say if a replicant male can reproduce with a human female, and what would be the nature of that offspring?

Spoiler

Everything K does in 90% of the film is because he follows the orders of Lieutenant Joshi. Even Joi, who is designed to meet the customer's needs, makes decisions that ultimately impact the plot - her requesting to be transported to the mobile emitter and to accompany K, for example. 2049 is certainly far from flawless, but there is no basis for arguing that female characters lack agency.

With that in mind, I could come with a similar conclusion and say that the male protagonists lack agency beyond who they are in relation to the female characters: K follows the orders of Lieutenant Joshi for the majority of the film whereas Joi is his primary source of motivation for his independent actions. Similarly, everything Deckard does is to protect his daughter. See how that oversimplifies things and unnecessarily opens a can of worms?

There's so much more when it comes to discussing a (good!) film than trying to analyze characters through the prism of sex/gender. And 2049 is certainly a good film with a lot to offer.

Edit: Sorry, forgot we were not in the spoiler thread.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

It was typical vision of decadent future where people are pursuing their own hedonistic needs and the scene with AI and sex worker was disturbing as hell vision of future- not something for male gaze.

I watched it with a group of friends and all girls really liked the movie.

but what about the rich women of the future? they dont get to be served with their hedonistic needs? why the future in many sci-fi movies do not take into account that women, too, can be a powerful consumer base? (which is ironic considering the women's consumer statistics for this movie's box office performance :3)

i dont know how many times i have to say this, personally, but i liked the movie. it was beautiful and i will definitely get the bluray, but it's not without its flaws. i dont know why it is so hard to accept that some people can enjoy a movie and acknowledge that it may have issues with some of its elements........

im glad your women friends enjoyed the movie. i went with my girl friend and we both walked out full with thoughts (both appreciative and critical).

 

[N7.Angel]

Saying that this film is sexist is a dangerous line of thinking that very well may lead to the dumbing down of movies. For some people it feels like movies need to spell out "this is wrong" at every single scene involving something controversial instead of letting the audience reach that conclusion themselves. I wonder if these same people would try to paint Schindler's List as antisemitic by taking some of Oskar Schindler's early scenes out of context, for example. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can one leave the movie theater thinking it's sexist is just beyond me.

Especially when there are so many well-realized female characters (who are also integral to the plot and move it along).

Agreed, this movie isn't sexist at all.

 

[JaggedSac]

So it looks like it will make about the same amount as Ghost in the Shell. A real shame.

Ouch

 

[Diprosalic]

this was the second weekend and i expected an empty theater but when i tried to buy tickets they only had front row available. weird.

 

[Window]

but what about the rich women of the future? they dont get to be served with their hedonistic needs? why the future in many sci-fi movies do not take into account that women, too, can be a powerful consumer base? (which is ironic considering the women's consumer statistics for this movie's box office performance :3)

i dont know how many times i have to say this, personally, but i liked the movie. it was beautiful and i will definitely get the bluray, but it's not without its flaws. i dont know why it is so hard to accept that some people can enjoy a movie and acknowledge that it may have issues with some of its elements........

im glad your women friends enjoyed the movie. i went with my girl friend and we both walked out full with thoughts (both appreciative and critical).

I think you're raising points worth considering and you should continue to make them! I don't think the poster you quoted is trying to shut you down, just presenting their experience and take on the film. I think the OT thread can definitely benefit from your input. I like the film a lot but have raised aspects of the film which I think it failed on too, and so have others in the OT. An OT shouldn't just be for celebration but a place for discussion and I think it would be good to have new perspectives brought forward.

 

[gooderthanu]

Me and my wife were about to go see it but 2.45 hrs turned us off

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

I think you're raising points worth considering and you should continue to make them! I don't think the poster you quoted is trying to shut you down, just presenting their experience and take on the film. I think the OT thread can definitely benefit from your input. I like the film a lot but have raised aspects of the film which I think it failed on too, and so have others in the OT. An OT shouldn't just be for celebration but a place for discussion and I think it would be good to have new perspectives brought forward.

ohhh.... well im writing a long PM to kirblar maybe if he thinks it's worthwhile, i can post it also at the thread. thank you for the encouragement, window :> much appreciated.

Me and my wife were about to go see it but 2.45 hrs turned us off

the length and pace of the movie was perfect. one of the elements that it nailed so well. you wouldn't feel it as 'long and tedious'. the plot and scene progressions are very well knitted together.

 

[UrbanRats]

Me and my wife were about to go see it but 2.45 hrs turned us off

Every other blockbuster seems to be 2+ hours nowadays.
Which is often due to extreme bloat.

This movie takes its time for sure, and you can argue a couple of scenes from the first half could've been done without, but i think overall, it earns its length pretty decently.
It builds up to something, so it's easy to forget of the passing time.

In comparison, i felt the original film dragged on more, albeit shorter.

 

[#1 defender]

but what about the rich women of the future? they dont get to be served with their hedonistic needs? why the future in many sci-fi movies do not take into account that women, too, can be a powerful consumer base? (which is ironic considering the women's consumer statistics for this movie's box office performance :3)

Spoiler

The first time we meet Luv, she's offering "pleasure model" replicants to a female client.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Me and my wife were about to go see it but 2.45 hrs turned us off

A whole 20 mins longer than Avengers.

 

[Ctlead]

Me and my wife were about to go see it but 2.45 hrs turned us off

The time flies by. I actually wanted it to be longer than that by the end.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

spoilered.

mindful of spoilers, please, for those here who hasn't seen the movie :> ty :>

Spoiler

yeah, but we dont see these present on-screen in the movie? all the visible visual cues are of nubile female forms. WHYS THAT THO

i'd like to see variety pls