I missed the first few minutes of the movie. Can someone fill me in on two things:
1. I came in when Ryan was talking to Dave B and Dave said something about you are killing you're own. What was the reveal that Ryan was a replicant? Did he just give his "name" or was there a bigger reveal?
2. Was there a scene/narration/title crawl ala star wars before this scene.
I missed the first few minutes of the movie. Can someone fill me in on two things:
1. I came in when Ryan was talking to Dave B and Dave said something about you are killing you're own. What was the reveal that Ryan was a replicant? Did he just give his "name" or was there a bigger reveal?
2. Was there a scene/narration/title crawl ala star wars before this scene.
Yes K is a replicant and knows it. He goes through the tests to maintain his compliance.. to the 2nd question...
the crawl talks about how Wallace took over Tyrell when it went bankrupt. They make new replicants who are more compliant, thus, K being a replicant blade runner.
Yes K is a replicant and knows it. He goes through the tests to maintain his compliance.. to the 2nd question...
the crawl talks about how Wallace took over Tyrell when it went bankrupt. They make new replicants who are more compliant, thus, K being a replicant blade runner.
You can also watch the 2022 short anime below (two other real-live short movies also online for free, covering events in 2036 and 2048) to get a summary of key events noted in the crawl text:
With Blade Runner 2049 now in theaters everywhere, I recently got the chance to talk with screenwriters Michael Green and Hampton Fancher about the making of the sequel. During the conversation - which contains spoilers – they discussed the genesis of the project, how it was originally pitched as a prequel, what would have happened if Harrison Ford said no, their thoughts on whether Deckard is a replicant, the evolution of the script, their thoughts on the nature of K (Ryan Gosling) and if he’s a one-off or one of many, the ending of the film, and a lot more. If you’re curious about the making of one of the best films of the year, I promise you’ll enjoy hearing what they had to say.
I might be remembering some of this incorrectly, but yes there was a crawl and it covers high level events in the 30 years between movies. Here is my attempt at recreating it:
Some kind of worldwide "blackout" event occurs. It wipes out all electronic data.
This causes a worldwide collapse, including Tyrell Corp going bankrupt and a food crisis.
Wallace solves the food crisis which saves everyone and makes him super wealthy.
Wallace buys Tyrell Corp's assets and makes compliant/obedient replicants that are considered safe enough to be used openly and legally on Earth.
There were a couple more lines I think, but I cannot remember.
I might be remembering some of this incorrectly, but yes there was a crawl and it covers high level events in the 30 years between movies. Here is my attempt at recreating it:
Some kind of worldwide "blackout" event occurs. It wipes out all electronic data.
This causes a worldwide collapse, including Tyrell Corp going bankrupt and a food crisis.
Wallace solves the food crisis which saves everyone and makes him super wealthy.
Wallace buys Tyrell Corp's assets and makes compliant/obedient replicants that are considered safe enough to be used openly and legally on Earth.
There were a couple more lines I think, but I cannot remember.
I thought the story, although it introduced an intriquung element to the story* was too focused on this search for an individual to the detriment of the bigger picture, the doctor, the replicant rebellion. Another movie is required to bring some kind of closure.
I thought the story, although it introduced an intriquung element to the story* was too focused on this search for an individual to the detriment of the bigger picture, the doctor, the replicant rebellion. Another movie is required to brimg some kind of closure.
That's the problem though, the film completely retcons the nature of replicants in order to shoehorn in one more bleeding monomyth. Let's not forget the original text crawl:
Early in the 21st Century, THE TYRELL CORPORATION advanced Robot evolution into the NEXUS phase - a being virtually identical to a human - known as a Replicant. The NEXUS 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence, to the genetic engineers who created them. Replicants were used Off-World as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets. After a bloody mutiny by a NEXUS 6 combat team in an Off-World colony, Replicants were declared illegal on earth - under penalty of death. Special police squads - BLADE RUNNER UNITS - had orders to shoot to kill, upon detection, any trespassing Replicant This was not called execution. It was called retirement.
I've highlighted the above to underline my point, most especially identical. The question becomes what 'identical' means. It descends from the Latin idem meaning 'the same' but it is used interchangeably for both superficial and substantial sameness, so which applies here? The crawl makes it clear that they are superior in strength and endurance to their makers, therefore it cannot reasonably be argued that they are essentially alike. That leaves that they are superficially alike, i.e. that their forms are, independent of rigorous testing, indistinguishable (an argument also supported by the V-K test).
In the end, replicants display physical aptitude that is far in excess of what their frames and musculature can support; I don't care how much genetic design you do, there's a limit to the tensile strength and elasticity of muscle tissue, and the temperature extremes of what skin can tolerate. Replicants copy the appearance of humans, certainly, but do so through synthetic, and presumably bioneutral if not biomechanical means. They are not humans. Except in Blade Runner 2049 , where they're gladlocked humans with serial numbers,
'cause Cyberpunk Jesus/Moses.
[doublepost=1509374520][/doublepost]Pursuant to my previous point, the nature of replicants-as-humans in Blade Runner 2049, completely undermines one of the major themes of the original film, that being replacement through artifice as a symptom of a dying world. Both of the animals featured prominently in Blade Runner are specifically referred to as fundamentally artificial, so much so that both Rachael and Zora dismiss the notion of their being essentially real as ludicrous.
More to the point, if legitimate genetic replication of specimens with superior faculties is possible, why do the ecosystems collapse between 2019 and 2049, as stated in the crawl? Why not rehabilitate them will species engineered to be hardier? Either replicants are just living beings with serial numbers or just very sophisticated clockwork, the screenwriters can't have it both ways.
That's the problem though, the film completely retcons the nature of replicants in order to shoehorn in one more bleeding monomyth. Let's not forget the original text crawl:
Early in the 21st Century, THE TYRELL CORPORATION advanced Robot evolution into the NEXUS phase - a being virtually identical to a human - known as a Replicant. The NEXUS 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence, to the genetic engineers who created them. Replicants were used Off-World as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets. After a bloody mutiny by a NEXUS 6 combat team in an Off-World colony, Replicants were declared illegal on earth - under penalty of death. Special police squads - BLADE RUNNER UNITS - had orders to shoot to kill, upon detection, any trespassing Replicant This was not called execution. It was called retirement.
I've highlighted the above to underline my point, most especially identical. The question becomes what 'identical' means. It descends from the Latin idem meaning 'the same' but it is used interchangeably for both superficial and substantial sameness, so which applies here? The crawl makes it clear that they are superior in strength and endurance to their makers, therefore it cannot reasonably be argued that they are essentially alike. That leaves that they are superficially alike, i.e. that their forms are, independent of rigorous testing, indistinguishable (an argument also supported by the V-K test).
In the end, replicants display physical aptitude that is far in excess of what their frames and musculature can support; I don't care how much genetic design you do, there's a limit to the tensile strength and elasticity of muscle tissue, and the temperature extremes of what skin can tolerate. Replicants copy the appearance of humans, certainly, but do so through synthetic, and presumably bioneutral if not biomechanical means. They are not humans. Except in Blade Runner 2049 , where they're gladlocked humans with serial numbers,
'cause Cyberpunk Jesus/Moses.
[doublepost=1509374520][/doublepost]Pursuant to my previous point, the nature of replicants-as-humans in Blade Runner 2049, completely undermines one of the major themes of the original film, that being replacement through artifice as a symptom of a dying world. Both of the animals featured prominently in Blade Runner are specifically referred to as fundamentally artificial, so much so that both Rachael and Zora dismiss the notion of their being essentially real as ludicrous.
More to the point, if legitimate genetic replication of specimens with superior faculties is possible, why do the ecosystems collapse between 2019 and 2049, as stated in the crawl? Why not rehabilitate them will species engineered to be hardier? Either replicants are just living beings with serial numbers or just very sophisticated clockwork, the screenwriters can't have it both ways.
Excellent points. Either we are applying to much logic, or the screen writers are not, or have painted themselves into a box, and they want the audience to just go with the flow.
As I said previously if the only way to figure out a replicant is not human (natural human vs manufactured biological human replication) is to give them a subjective psychological test, then this is a basic failure that existed in the original story. Now I can call it a failure, but that might have been the intent all along.
Now, biologically to be considered indistinguishable from humans, they could be in the top 1% of the human range for strength, which would make them superior to most humans, but that conceivably dedicated humans could match them in strength, so the description you posted seems to have inconsistencies.
Excellent points. Either we are applying to much logic, or the screen writers are not, or have painted themselves into a box, and they want the audience to just go with the flow.
It's entirely that they don't care, which is why the original film has such issues and why the sequel is an unmitigated mess. Hampton Fancher is very flaky in his writing and he's not at all grounded in his understanding of science, but the first time round he had David Peoples (the scribe of Unforgiven and 12 Monkeys) to help clean it up somewhat. On 2049, his co-writer was Michael Green, who's at least partially responsible for Green Lantern and Alien: Covenant so it doesn't take an Eldon Tyrell to suss out the culprit.
As I said previously if the only way to figure out a replicant is not human (natural human vs manufactured biological human replication) is to give them a subjective psychological test, then this is a basic failure that existed in the original story. Now I can call it a failure, but that might have been the intent all along.
One of the many narrative points that makes no bleeding sense, especially with the absurd stylistic glowing-eyes choice. If they do that whenever they're in low light, just turn the lights off, V-K is unnecessary. If, however, it's a visual cue meant for the audience, it's still stupid and undermines the film's reputation as being subtle and filled with symbolism.
Now, biologically to be considered indistinguishable from humans, they could be in the top 1% of the human range for strength, which would make them superior to most humans, but that conceivably dedicated humans could match them in strength, so the description you posted seems to have inconsistencies.
Eh, that's possible for endurance but not for strength. Pris and Zora, for example, both manhandle Deckard in the film despite being clearly of normal athleticism and musculature for their gender and age. If you take a man and a woman of proportionally equal muscle mass, the man is going to be physically stronger. That's basic human sexual dimorphism. But let's assume that you're correct in this instance. There is not, to my knowledge, a percentage of the human population that can fish an egg out of boiling water or dip their hand into liquid sub-arctic preservative fluid without tissue damage. No, at least from the depiction of the first film, replicants do not seem to be human in the biological sense.
It's entirely that they don't care, which is why the original film has such issues and why the sequel is an unmitigated mess. Hampton Fancher is very flaky in his writing and he's not at all grounded in his understanding of science, but the first time round he had David Peoples (the scribe of Unforgiven and 12 Monkeys) to help clean it up somewhat. On 2049, his co-writer was Michael Green, who's at least partially responsible for Green Lantern and Alien: Covenant so it doesn't take an Eldon Tyrell to suss out the culprit.
One of the many narrative points that makes no bleeding sense, especially with the absurd stylistic glowing-eyes choice. If they do that whenever they're in low light, just turn the lights off, V-K is unnecessary. If, however, it's a visual cue meant for the audience, it's still stupid and undermines the film's reputation as being subtle and filled with symbolism.
Eh, that's possible for endurance but not for strength. Pris and Zora, for example, both manhandle Deckard in the film despite being clearly of normal athleticism and musculature for their gender and age. If you take a man and a woman of proportionally equal muscle mass, the man is going to be physically stronger. That's basic human sexual dimorphism. But let's assume that you're correct in this instance. There is not, to my knowledge, a percentage of the human population that can fish an egg out of boiling water or dip their hand into liquid sub-arctic preservative fluid without tissue damage. No, at least from the depiction of the first film, replicants do not seem to be human in the biological sense.
I still need to stream this movie for a second viewing to decide if it’s worthy based on other artistic elements to add to my library. Or maybe they’ll produce a Final Cut version that fixes it. My problem is that at almost 3 hrs, it’s bloated for what it accomplishes in the narrative.
A side note, I like the digital girlfriend sequence including the intimacy scene even though it’s completely seperate from the story, because it adds a plausible sci-fi element of the future. Heaven help us when A.I. becomes so polished humans can fall in love with it.
I still need to stream this movie for a second viewing to decide if it’s worthy based on other artistic elements to add to my library. Or maybe they’ll produce a Final Cut version that fixes it. My problem is that at almost 3 hrs, it’s bloated for what it accomplishes in the narrative.
A side note, I like the digital girlfriend sequence including the intimacy scene even though it’s completely seperate from the story, because it adds a plausible sci-fi element of the future. Heaven help us when A.I. becomes so polished humans can fall in love with it.
It's a decent element though in a very cynical way, in that what you've essentially got in Joi is an app fostering expensive purchases. There are analytics firms that use your app behaviour and other metric data on your phone to alter app behaviour, everything from the tenor of notifications to the prices that you pay for in-app purchases. Joi, despite obviously being written as the heart of the film, is actually the avatar for the soullessness of the age of digital companionship. It's a powerful AI that encourages emotional co-dependence through the manipulation of innate pscyhosexual behaviour in men and then essentially uses that most potent reason-robbing cocktail of testosterone, dopamine, norepinephrine and oxytocin to extort money from you. How, you may ask? What's the very first interaction between K and Joi? He presents it with a surprise: an emanator, which as a mobile holographic emitter capable of housing a complete AI, can't be cheap, just so he can keep his personal drug with him at all times. How convenient, no? It's fairly insidious when you think about it. The payoff for that is when he encounters the massive Joi hologram that calls him by the same name as his 'version'. It is in that moment that he comes to realise that everything that has defined him as a being to that point, the dream and Joi, are nothing but fakery meant to keep him shackled.
But that's the movie's charm. Like the first movie, the plot is almost secondary to the movie experience of living in this future world for a few hours.
But that's the movie's charm. Like the first movie, the plot is almost secondary to the movie experience of living in this future world for a few hours.
