Blade Runner 2049 - Spoilers!

There doesn't seem to be a thread for this, and I wanted a place to discuss the movie. These are scattered thoughts because I've averaged 3 hours of sleep/night this week.

I was terrified by how many ways it would be possible to screw up a Blade Runner sequel. After the reviews came out, I knew I wanted to see it the first weekend to make sure nothing got spoiled. It's almost 3 hours long, but even in my exhausted state and seeing a 10:45 showing, my eyelids never drooped.

I enjoyed it a lot. I liked the twists. Villeneuve is like a better Shyamalan, he doesn't try to beat you over the head with them. I expect it to be nominated for Best Cinematography, at the very least.

TIL K's baseline test is from a poem in Nabokov's Pale Fire. Lines 704-707 are:

A system of cells interlinked within
Cells interlinked within cells interlinked
Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct
Against the dark, a tall white fountain played.

HOLY sh*t THO' THAT WAS AMAZING :O

I...don't really have much else to add right now.

It's the best movie I've seen in quite a while. The fact that it's nearly 3 hrs long makes me think it might not do that great in the theater though. I hope I'm wrong.

JeremyK wrote:

It's the best movie I've seen in quite a while. The fact that it's nearly 3 hrs long makes me think it might not do that great in the theater though. I hope I'm wrong.

Movie length does seem to affect their earnings, but I plan to see it at least one more time in the theater, which I rarely do.

Unfortunately it appears 2049 is not doing as well as hoped at the box office, primarily because younger viewers aren't buying tickets. One tracking service showed only 24% of opening night viewers were under 25, and CinemaScore's percentage was worse, only 14% under 25. The long run time and lack of a story hook in trailers didn't help either. Variety mentioned that the MLB playoffs probably kept a lot of baseball fans at home.

Boxofficemojo was originally predicting a $50M+ opening weekend, but it's looking more like it will be in the neighborhood of $30M. Hopefully the movie will have legs. It also hasn't opened everywhere internationally yet.

I didn't see the original so wasn't sure what to expect with this one. I guess I expected more action or, just something. Seemed drawn out and somewhat confusing. I thought going into it blind was a good idea as most of the time, having no preconceived ideas about something has allowed me to enjoy something without nitpicking it apart and comparing it to a book, comic, or original release. I think this time it may have hurt me some in my enjoyment of the film.

Honestly, I think the opening crawl pretty much gives you all the setup you need. There is only a loose connection between the two movies (Deckard and Rachel), and 2049 (eventually) explains why they are important. There is some fanservice in the brief recording that Wallace plays, but he explains its significance right away, and that significance is mostly only relevant to 2049's story, not so much the original.

Annnd I danced around a bunch of spoilers forgetting this is the spoiler thread. Oh well, the explanation works anyway!

I went and watched it on the weekend and it was, OK. I really enjoyed the original and I felt like this one just tried too hard at times. Like the dark room with the lights under water so it's constant rippling lights... like really, who would actually sit in a room like that? It'd drive me nuts within 10 seconds. Maybe it's just me.

It was certainly interesting, but I just felt that the original was better.

BlackSabre wrote:

like really, who would actually sit in a room like that?

A blind man?

yregprincess wrote:
BlackSabre wrote:

like really, who would actually sit in a room like that?

A blind man?

Yeah, agreed. To me it came across as a tactic to unsettle anyone that entered the room to talk to him. I liked the imagery it created and the motive behind it.

I watched the first film. Also watched this one. This one is better. I felt like the original one's twist and point was a little too obvious. Even when it was made, the topic had already been covered. But this one. Lots of stuff to unpack here. Is Joi really dead? Was she really alive? To what extent is having a relationship with a fictional character bad if you're sterile? If Joi is alive, is she an AI and are there others?

The film is extremely good, though it is absolutely not an action film. In many ways, I felt like this is the sci fi film the original tried to be. There's a lot of panning shots meant to establish mood, scene, and world. There are some still shots that just are meant to be seen and interpreted, without words or sound or action - to establish the world and the coming scenes. The entire flying scene over the solar farms was completely unnecessary and overly lengthy just to set the location. It was also painting the world and that specific locality. Joe's foot search for Deckard was also unnecessarily lengthy for something meant to simply establish that he's looking.

And all of that is just technique and style and method. The overall story is layered on top of it. To the extent that it overexplains the details of the world, it could be said to be the equivalent of a Dickens novel.

I entered the theater hopeful, and left utterly pleased. I saw the original during original theatrical release, and have seen various permutations since.

There was so much to like. I enjoyed every second of those long shots. Being in those moments.

more than anything I'm really, REALLY glad i went to see this one in a cinema rather than waiting for a bluray at home. this is one of those films you absolutely have to see on the biggest and loudest screen possible.

I just... Wow. Blade Runner is one of my favorite films, and I'm not sure what I was expecting, but... this wasn't it. And that isn't saying anything bad.

I came out of it feeling that it managed to tap the underlying theme of the original and carry it further, and in a different way, while not diminishing it. When K's boss said (forgot her name and I'm not remembering exactly) said...

Spoiler:

you're doing well for someone without a soul

I almost blurted out "Seriously?" in the theatre. Wow. It so underscored the theme.

Loved the relationship between K and Joi. And how they somehow managed to be consistent with every version of the original, no matter who or what you think Deckard is or was.

I hate that it isn't doing that well. We need more sf like this.

Edit: I specifically have to call out one thing. They did such a good job with the trailers and promos that...

Spoiler:

I didn't even know K was a replicant until I saw it.

In this age of trailers giving away the entire plot, that was a "What the..." moment. Hell, the primary plot isn't even hinted at in the trailers. I've seen a few reviews blaming the fact that no one knew what the plot was from the trailers (and it isn't my spoiler above) for the low box office. What... we can't see movies these days unless we know everything about them?

tanstaafl wrote:

I hate that it isn't doing that well. We need more sf like this.

Amen to that.

BadKen wrote:
tanstaafl wrote:

I hate that it isn't doing that well. We need more sf like this.

Amen to that.

Yeah, I'm quite disappointed it's doing so poorly. It deserves better.

I very much enjoyed it. I felt they hammered the revelations at the end a bit hard, with all the flashbacks. I didn't need the film to flash back to the beginning of the movie to understand that K was deciding he had something to die for. I certainly didn't need the voice over of Wallace telling him that from two scenes prior.

Other than that, which I'm relatively certain was added in because of test screenings and/or studio fiat, I was pretty happy with it.

LarryC wrote:

Is Joi really dead? Was she really alive? To what extent is having a relationship with a fictional character bad if you're sterile? If Joi is alive, is she an AI and are there others?

I think we are meant to think the relationship between Joi and Agent K is something meaningful and unique then the scene where giant naked Joi advert talks to him dispels that when she calls him Joe. This was a unique connection they had that now seems just programmed. Heartbreaking after he just found out he's not a real boy.

I felt the opposite. It's a Little Prince thing. She calls him Joe because it's the only thing she could have thought of. The ad was meant to reveal to us that detail, but also realise that K knew all that the whole time because this is an ad for a popular product and he sees it all the time. Presumably that's why he got one.

So his acknowledgement of that sentiment from Joi was real, even if the name was not. The very name - Joe - signifies that the naming, not the name, was important.

Lots and lots of layers and thinking to do about all the scenes.

K may get another Joi and also call her Joi. But if he grows fond of that one, it will be its own thing and it will not be the same person. Both of them knew that when they erased her console data.

LarryC wrote:

K may get another Joi and also call her Joi. But if he grows fond of that one, it will be its own thing and it will not be the same person. Both of them knew that when they erased her console data.

I don't think K will be getting another Joi...

Spoiler:

That was the "Tears in the Rain" theme that was playing as he was lying there at the end. It was his... time to die.

LarryC wrote:

I watched the first film. Also watched this one. This one is better. I felt like the original one's twist and point was a little too obvious. Even when it was made, the topic had already been covered. But this one. Lots of stuff to unpack here. Is Joi really dead? Was she really alive? To what extent is having a relationship with a fictional character bad if you're sterile? If Joi is alive, is she an AI and are there others?

Both movies like playing with the concept of "alive". Were the Replicants simply machines, or were they alive? Was Joe/K a machine, or is he alive? Was Joi just a program, or was she alive? That's the question in both movies; what is "alive"?

They were also playing with the idea of relationships, permanence, individuality, and identity. That's what I meant when I reference The Little Prince. K's Joi may not have been unique or all that remarkable, but they have memories and history together, and that makes her his Joi, and his Joi only. She is unique in that sense, even though there are many like her who may even behave the same or look the same.

It is also implied that Replicants aren't quite human, and may be transhuman. Or at least not human in the way we are. K's ideas of what it means to be alive and what it means to die can't be the same as ours, in the same way that our ideas of what it means to be alive is different from what it was 300 or 500 years ago. They seem indifferent to pain or to death - truly indifferent, not merely trained to be. Or perhaps their memories are designed so that they would be, as if they were fanatical soldiers. All of the Replicants in the movie aren't merely looking to exist. They're looking for a reason to die meaningfully - and therein a reason to live. So when once they found their purpose and their calling, who is truly alive, the driven Replicant or the human who lives only to exist?

The Real Reason Blade Runner 2049 Flopped At The Box Office
*Kind of interesting

Playing the movie back in my head, I'm still amazed that a movie of this budget, this quality, and this sort got made in Hollywood on this topic for this property. It's both one of the hardest core scifi ideas and properties there is, and an artistic masterpiece in terms of worldbuilding and cinematography. I do not mind if there was no other sequel. It would be very difficult to create a followup to this film.

It's kind of like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, except that it's classic golden age scifi, it's true to the original and explores more ideas, and it's beautifully shot with big budget effects. And it's neither a drama nor an action flick.

Saw it last night. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

K and Joi was *brilliant* - my favorite part of the movie by far. Not least of all because of the narrative symmetry between Deckard and K both falling in love with a “fake” woman then losing them, but the marvelous weirdness of the sex scene was something to behold.

My biggest gripe – the distinction the film draws between being born and being created felt like a flawed primary assumption. Like, you’re still a bioengineered replicant either way – because genetics is a thing.

I agree. I didn't get what the "bad guy" need the be able to breed replicants so badly. Maybe the process for growing a replicant takes more resources than a mother growing a baby?

I believe the film draws many different distinctions, each for their own reasons.

Wallace wants replicants that reproduce because that's the only way he can fulfill his dream of seeding humanity to a million stars.

The replicants want a born replicant because it a sociological symbol that proves their humanity.

Pepper Roger, representing humanity, doesn't want a born replicant because it would violate her view that replicants are not human, but superficially because she wants to avoid the inevitable revolution that would follow.

farley3k wrote:

I agree. I didn't get what the "bad guy" need the be able to breed replicants so badly. Maybe the process for growing a replicant takes more resources than a mother growing a baby?

I think replicants are currently manufactured and that requires a lot of normal factory resources. Not only must these be centralized, they also cost a lot. If they can make a line of replicants that "breed true," meaning that the replicant line retains the bioengineered traits of the original models, then they could offload a great deal of their manufacuring on-site and with no more resources than is needed to feed and mature a normal human.

I think manufacturing mature replicants would be much cheaper than breeding them naturally but then having to grow them to maturity.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I think manufacturing mature replicants would be much cheaper than breeding them naturally but then having to grow them to maturity.

Indeed, but growing them in your high technology manufactory, THEN shipping them to the colony where they're needed will get expensive real quick.

Spoiler:

never mind the fact that we have no information about the economy of 2049 provided to us, so we're basically making sh*t up out of whole cloth here

Glad to see a lot of people enjoyed it! I remarked in the general movie thread that I thought it was the best live-action anime I've seen. It just really hits all the themes that I love seeing in anime. It also has a similar pacing. Slow and character interaction driven, interspersed with short and intense action sequences.