I enjoy watching Blade Runner 2049 , but I can see and agree with your points here. One problem that I have with the movie is that it didn't know what it wanted to be in terms of style. None of the details throughout the movie really match up with each other as well as those in Blade Runner.
I actually do enjoy 2049 too ... if only its a stand alone movie not a sequel to that masterpiece calleed simply Blade Runner. I mean being a sequel means it begs to be compared to its predecessor, in this case, a predecessor from over 3 decades ago ... I was not strictly wanting it to have exactly the same visual styles and tone from the first movie, but if it has to be a different style and tone it should be on an excellent level at least somewhere close to the original and also it should not deviate so much in the feel of the universe ... To me I'm not even close to being wowed like I was for the original, thats a big let down ... and the characters brought from the first movie now becomes rather uncool and dowdy and pedestrian Gaff is now a retired bored looking uncle sitting in an old folks home doing nothing but origamis ??!? The cool mysterious guy is now reduced to this and it really shatters the mystical feel of the character for me... not to mention Rachel and Deckard are now reduced to just a parent in a weepy soap drama with their long lost child ... it reduces the big sci fi concept of the first movie in scope to a very conventional drama about searching for a long lost child and putting a Matrix-franchise style rebellion against the slave master (humans) does not help, it just makes the whole poetic nature of the first movie less enthralling. The first movie was poetic and elegant because its not constructed to be an action adventure drama, its just a stand alone simple story about some artificial humans wanting to extend their life span but which give rise to questions about what it means to be human vs artificial humans ... but the sequel attempts to redefine the story into a drama sequel which feels very misguided to me ... A lot of things just looks very wrong and un-blade runnery ... like Deckard wearing tshirt and jeans throughout the movie seems very out of place, I feel like I watching Harrison Ford the down to earth actor more than Rick Deckard, the character from the first movie ... A lot of scenes have very flat uninteresting lightings which makes the lack of anything happening even more boring (like the furnace factory, the orphanage, the orange empty streets, the empty dark lounge etc etc) ..
I felt that the world lacked enough of the city, and what it felt like to live there. It felt like a communist world, where all that people could do is eat at vending machine depots, and visit prostitutes. It wasn’t akin to the capitalist neon world of bars, and restaurants of the original. Also, the way the holograms functions didn’t seem plausible at all. More akin to something from Star Trek The Next Generation, and not appropriate for the physical world of Blade Runner. They should have had K wear smart contacts or something, whereby Joi would appear only to him. Or, better yet, if they made mechanical love dolls, that were analogous to Replicants, but nowhere near as advanced.
@@Y2Kr4SHM4N that’s the whole idea Blade Runners world. It’s a dark dystopian, where humanity is lacking. Blade Runner is a art if loneliness and what it means to be human in a inhumane world. Why do you think everyone seems so disconnected with each other?
Harrison Ford was a throw away character in this film. His character was motivated by plot device; not character development. So, Deckard spends nearly 30 years protecting the identity of his daughter, apart from Rachel, having abandoned his baby to live as an orphan in a cruel sweatshop, living in isolation in the middle of nowhere … and along comes a Blade Runner that asks about the-child and Deckard coughs up the dirty secret without prompting, bargain or a single condition. WHAT? A crack addict has more sense than to tell the police how the crack in his pocket got there. But, the writer needed to move the story forward, and so Deckard sang like canary.
I totally agree that Hamptom Fancher´s script is the main problem here, too many clichéd plots, and most of them just fall apart or lack a satisfying pay off. Acording to Phillip K. Dick it was David Peoples´s rewrite what saved the script for the original, they could have given him a call. I don´t know if that would have fixed everything, but at least it could have been helpful, I guess.
+Martin Larreategui Its very strange to hire Hampton Fancher alone without David Peoples, knowing full well Hampton's script writing in the first movie was trashed badly by everyone including the source novel's author ... This time the script is even worse, everyone talks like they are trying to sound cool or profound without any sense of realistic tone ... at least the first movie we had pretty varied but realistic accents like people talking normally in real life but with interesting characterisations ... and in the midst of that were really great interesting lines like the roof top speech, the conversation between Roy and Tyrell, between Deckard and Rachel, Deckard and Tyrell etc... With 2049, the viewer will be hard pressed to come up with any iconic and meaningful lines ... lines such as "have you seen a miracle" "the world is build with walls" or something like that (I can't even recall those lines properly) just sound so pretentious and hokey ....
I remember using my real face as an avatar on your first forum back in the day when my football-loving highschool was experimenting with laptops. "Paper is gone!" I like to remember myself as the first person to make myself a member of your forum but I can't remember the name so it's worth as much like the one I have now. I think what makes the film good is its lack of necessity but it's such an attractive idea- It draws in lots of people for their own reasons. Thank you, Mr.Ager.
I agree. He becomes human (or more importantly real) by finding purpose. Although this could have been working for the revolution, but in actual fact it was reuniting father and daughter. That is why he dies at the end, as has fulfilled his purpose.
+totaltotalmonkey i just think its more on the fact that he stops being a tool for other people and make a choice of his own. based on what he thought was the right thing.
He's not acting for the revolution at all... In fact the whole point is that he rejects being a tool for three different groups (rebels, Wallace Corp, police force) and chooses his own path. The scope of this movie is much more narrow than people think, it's about K becoming an actualized person. The broad-scope side plots are there to provide context to the world and story, but the movie isn't about them.
I liked the movie. But, I also like that you're honest about your opinion. You're a brilliant analyst. The world doesn't need more echo chambers. Keep it up brother.
Thanks for this review! I'm glad others see the flaws in it; let's me know I'm not crazy. I loved the original Blade Runner (final cut) and its subtle themes. I thought I'd love the sequel but I was wrong. I was quite interested and involved in the first half of the movie, immersed in the visuals and the world. When K starts starts to "run" the movie fell apart. It lost all thematic focus. It had too many elements that just felt thrown in: the Rebels, the human slave kids, the people who harpooned Ks car, nothing came out of any of them; they were dead-ends. The villain was a one-dimensional psychopath (yawn) who just stops showing up in the movie at some point. The writers failed to give any weight/meaning to K's humanity (or lackthere of) and failed to make me care about Deckard's child. I didn't care if the villains found the child and made more off-world slaves because the Blade Runner world is already a messed up oppressed place; the writers didn't build anything up to feel like it was important, they just spoonfed the audience information as the movie went forward. Also Deckard felt really out of place in this movie; like the character was forced into the narrative for Nostalgia's sake. Oh well, there's still the original.
@@justinboivin I'll grant you that after Batty's death, that last VoiceOver drives me mad, stating the frigging obvious when silence would be best. I love the rest of it though. So film-noir. (I guess you can see from my name, I like noir stuff. Oooooo. I have a sudden need to watch the tech-noir scene from Terminator. [singing...] _Intimacy, intimacy, ya ya ya ya._ )
Completely agree with this review. I walked out of the theater after seeing the movie with some friends and I was the only one pointing out issues like the early draft style dialogue. Especially from characters like the Police Chief. Go back and watch Bryant in the first film and it’s all no nonsense police talk about the case, none of this high minded BS about the line between humans and replicant society. Everyone in BR2049 sounded like the same character. My friend tried to convince me that Leto was pontificating in the same way Tyrell dies in the original. No way. Leto is going off into some corporate pseudo heavens gate cultist shit, and Tyrell was only ever speaking about the technology. In fact, I’ve always seen Tyrell as a sort of glorified vacuum cleaner salesman. He’s actually not that interested in the metaphysical implications of his work, just that it works better than anything else and that he can showcase it. “More human than human is our motto” - his focus is always the business, the brand. Leto’s is angels and what the hell ever. BR2049 is full of such parallel elements that aren’t nearly as good as the original. It’s clear that Hampton Fancher is an invaluable part of what makes Blade Runner work. He has wonderful notions and I truly appreciate him. But Peoples, Ridley, Harrison and Hauer (RIP🙏) combined to act as a refinery for those concepts and made it all work. 2049 didn’t have that refinement process, or the struggle behind the scenes that the original did. It’s too easy to make these films now. There’s no cost that helps eliminate the bullshit.
Ridley is not particularly interested in big concepts and philosophizing in his films, strangely enough. He does put sub textual elements in his films, like sex and birth and death in Alien, but he doesn't seem to have an interest in explaining himself. This is why both Alien and Blade Runner work so well. The themes are there, but Scott won't dwell on them, because that takes away from the dynamism of the movie itself. Fancher, it seems to me, conceived that story as a follow up to his original script, not the movie.
Interesting point of view! I personally love this movie, so naturally I do have some rebuttals: 0. You say that K having human memories and acting robotic makes no sense for his character. But that’s honestly just the way Ryan Gosling acts. Drive is a great example of this. 0. We don’t really know what memories Roy Batty had. 0. Replicants were not proven to be human in the first film, nor was it denied. That’s one of the biggest discussions of the original film. 0. The fact that Ryan Gosling is a Hollywood heartthrob shouldn’t make the fact that his character “isn’t special” any less significant. That’s a character thing, not a choice of actor. Obviously actors play a lot into what characters they play, but that doesn’t mean actors can’t be cast against type, which Gosling is in this role. 0. It is never explicitly stated that Luv is attracted to K. It’s most certainly implied, mainly because of the kiss, but not stated. So we can’t say for sure. 0. It’s very clearly stated, especially in the “You look like a good Joe” scene on the bridge, that Joi is only programmed to fake her love for people. 0. Why do you think that K is portrayed as a ladies man? Throughout the whole film he is constantly being verbally abused and mocked by everyone around him, he really has no stable lifestyle, and his “girlfriend” is only faking her love for him. So the “K isn’t special” plot elements makes complete sense. 0. Humans are definitely still enslaved people, it’s never implied by the writers that they never were. But keep in mind that replicants are still very much so the more hated and more endangered and enslaved people, so a revolution makes sense. 0. First, we do have verification that Rachel is a replicant and that she gave birth because of her bones and the old Tyrell files. Second, you use the example that replicants starting a revolution because of a birth makes no sense because human revolutions in the past were never started by births. But I disagree because, we simply don’t know if replicants are actually human or not. And, it was previously thought that replicants couldn’t give birth anyway, so this gives replicants a better chance of proving themselves worthy among humans and above the mockery from humans. So when Joshi says “This breaks the world”, and you say you think it doesn’t, I personally believe it does. 0. The fact that Ana has a weak immune system and makes memories shouldn’t make any difference. The film only states that she is a symbol of hope, not that she is a leader. In fact, it more implies that Freysa is the leader. 0. You can’t compare Roy Batty to the freedom movement because the movement is on the side of the protagonists. 0. You mention that K, a replicant, kills other replicants. Why is that a problem? If Deckard is a replicant, then what’s the difference? And Sapper at the beginning of the film mentions this hypocrisy. Also in the beginning title card it states that these new line of replicants were made to obey, and so obviously K would still obey orders, even if that meant killing his own kind. 0. The missing page not having a copy makes sense because this is clearly a place where no tech is even being used, so they wouldn’t have any digital backups. 0. When Joshi let’s K go, why wouldn’t she believe K? He has been made to obey, and she knows that. Up until this point she has every right to believe him. 0. Why would Deckard want to risk getting killed by attacking Wallace? Considering by the first film that Deckard is a lousy fighter anyway, it make sense. It also shows that he would rather just not answer questions, and he does exactly that. 0. Sure, maybe Deckard didn’t fall in love with Rachel on the spot in the first movie, but maybe he thought that she was good-looking and gained an attraction to her after the Voight-Kampf test. And considering that the basis of human attraction is physical beauty, that might have been what happened. 0. Tyrell’s plan was never to have Deckard search for replicants, it was his bosses plan. So Tyrell would have never known that Deckard would have even been hunting for her in the first place. Sure, if Deckard did kill Rachel, his plan would foiled, but Deckard didn’t, so it doesn’t matter. 0. Yes, K does risk being caught by taking Deckard to his daughter. But he says that people will think that Deckard died in the ocean, which they probably will because of the wreckage. And also, Deckard hid for so many years in Vegas and was never caught, so he could do it again. Everything else you said I pretty much agreed with or recognized was merely opinion. And even though I do love this film, it’s honestly kinda cool to see a more negative perspective on it. Great video Rob, keep it up! (Also I copied and pasted this from my phone so idk why the numbers are replaced by 0s lol)
Rois GlasSco These points have made me think a lot, so thank you for that! But I have a few more rebuttals to your rebuttals: 0. I commented on the human-replicant discussion because Rob literally says in his video “Replicants were already proved to be human in the first movie”. But they weren’t, and they have many biological differences to humans, like you just expressed. It was very clearly stated in the first movie that they carry human traits but at no point in the movie does anyone say “Replicants are humans”. And you already mentioned in this in your comment, so I don’t really see how this is a rebuttal to my original comment. 0. As someone who has seen this movie many many times, I fail to understand where you thought the leader of the replicant freedom movement stated that they want to free themselves from humans. Their whole goal is to end the stigma that has surrounded replicants for years, and for humans to finally see that replicants are a much more “human” people than previously thought. That’s why the natural birth of a child from a replicant, which was previously thought impossible, is so important to them. Also, the Deckard narrative isn’t a matter of “pre-destiny, to me at least. What Wallace implies is that Deckard may have been programmed by Tyrell to fall in love with Rachel. Wallace tells Deckard this not only to instill fear into Deckard, but fuel the question of Deckard’s humanity even more. So not only does it makes sense for the narrative, but it also the fuels the fire of the discussion. 0. That’s a good point that we have no evidence that Ana actually has a disease, but we are told that she has a weak immune system and that that is another reason as to why she’s being held in that room. And she definitely seems intelligent, but if she does have a disease, it doesn’t really matter. Because as I stated before, the film never really tells us that she is a leader, but that she and her wooden horse memory act as symbols of hope. And also, if she truly does have this disease but she knew the truth, she probably still couldn’t go out into the world anyway, unless she wanted to go out in the real world in a glass box all the time. 0. While you can compare Roy Batty’s fighters to the freedom movement in some ways, I wouldn’t say that Roy’s was any more convincing that the freedom movement’s. What makes the freedom movement’s side more convincing to me is that not only do they have a good reason to be a movement in the first place, but they also have a lot more members. They’re almost like an army. Roy only had a few people, and he was also incredibly cocky. He may have been smart, but he also might have been too blind to see that he was too sure of himself to carry his mission out. Sure, maybe he could have gained a few more members on his side, but he died anyway so we’ll never know. 0. It is relevant whether Joshi believes K or not because that is the question that Rob brings up when he asks why she would let K go. Yes, she is abusive and manipulative, but how does that matter? He is still obedient, and up until that very point in the film, K has done nothing to prove to Joshi that he is not good at his job. At this point, even though he is being tracked and monitored and abused constantly, he still has a job, he is still obedient, and Joshi clearly likes him enough to keep him on. Joshi probably has a soft spot for K anyway. She seems as if she has short temper, but if she really did, and if she really hated K, she would have fired him for the smallest thing on the spot. She even had the interest of asking him what memory he has in his apartment. So that liking for K might have made her let him leave. Maybe blade runners being monitored is just protocol in 2049. 0. We don’t know what happened before the first Blade Runner. If Deckard is indeed a replicant, it’s very possible that he could have been programmed to fall in love with Rachel and that he did crush on her on the spot, and when Deckard’s boss tells her he needs to find Rachel and kill her, he has conflicting thoughts. Which he does in the first Blade Runner. Also I really doubt that Deckard was drawn to Zhora. Think about it this way: let’s say Deckard is a replicant, and that he did fall in love with Rachel on the spot. Both Zhora and Rachel are replicants so, wouldn’t he have fallen in love with both? No, because as 2049 suggests, Deckard was designed to fall in love with Rachel in the hopes of creating a replicant child. Rachel was an experimental replicant, not Zhora. And also, Deckard kills Zhora right after, and refuses to kill Rachel and instead protect her. If Deckard was really drawn to Zhora, he wouldn’t have killed her. Rachel was another replicant that Deckard was meant to hunt and he did not kill her. Because maybe he was just programmed to love her before the events of the first film began to take place. No film is perfect, and if you are adapting something from previous material or expanding upon that material, you’re most certainly going to find hiccups, and this film has them. But even if I did agree with a lot of the points that you and Rob expressed, I would still think that this film was aesthetically interesting, fantastically acted, beautifully scored, and thematically engaging. Thank you for the reply!
Rois GlasSco I never really assumed that the replicant freedom fighters hated humans, they just wanted independence and respect. And I also never thought that reproductive independence was one of the first film’s themes. But hey, maybe I’m missing something that you saw. Both films are filled with ideas. I also never got the impression that the brothel was Freysa’s breeding experiment. I always thought that those rebels masked as prostitutes just happened to be standing in front of that brothel waiting for leader’s instructions. I don’t consider that a dropped idea mainly because it doesn’t effect the plot in any way. If it was their intention, it’s more of, like you said, an interesting idea that one can notice on multiple watches. I actually would like to rewatch the film again and see if I can find that. I thought that Joi saying that K was a “child of woman born” was very interesting, but I don’t think it was important enough to give it more screen time than it got. It’s just an expositional piece of dialogue to me. And who knows, maybe they will give it more screen time since they are planning to make two films. Deckard does go through an amazing arc in the first film, but I never got the impression that he was hateful from the beginning. I’ve always had the impression that he had some attachment to Rachel. I definitely agree that Deckard was a a-hole throughout the first Blade Runner, but if he didn’t have a soft spot, I’m not sure he would have fallen in love with Rachel. And if Wallace did give Deckard the story that you suggested to scare him, I still think it would have scared him just as much as Wallace’s original story did. Because Wallace’s original story still implies that everything Deckard did was meaningless, that maybe he is a replicant, and that he is just some experiment. It still implies none of it was real. It doesn’t really reprogram the first film’s tension either as we don’t know for sure if Wallace’s story is true, which I personally think it isn’t. I think the time they spend on the horse is completely necessary, for a number of reasons. For one, it implies that maybe K is a human, which it makes it very powerful for me later when we find out he isn’t. Two, it’s actually Ana’s memory that she implanted, and it’s implied that the freedom movement implanted this in all replicants to inspire hope. And three, it contains Vegas radiation which allows K to find Deckard. I think one of the reasons they didn’t have as much many extras this time around is because as we learn at the beginning of the film, there was a giant collapse of ecosystems that created worldwide famine, so we are left to assume that this also created widespread death. And they still have big amounts of extras in the city scenes anyway. The choice to go the wastelands was not an out of the blue choice, K was going there to find the files on the child. This in turn made him realize that this is the place from his memory, and so he looks around to see if the horse is still there. And why wouldn’t he stare at that horse for a long time? He’s just found out that his memory is real and that he could be a human. That’s a giant discovery to make that would take a great amount of time to process. And it doesn’t really change the aesthetic of the film for me. Previously we had seen K go to Sapper’s farm which was in a bare land with rusted buildings, and then we had seen the dirty inside of K’s apartment building. I think it fits. They also don’t spend as much time on the furnace and the page as you think, it’s probably .01% of the film. And I also really love that they expand the world of Blade Runner by going to different places in this film rather than just staying in LA the whole time. Which is not a complaint about the first film at all. The metaphors weren’t inconsistent for me, but that’s a matter of opinion so there’s really no need to get into that. Personally, I love this film and I think it’s better than the first. I don’t think it bastardized the first film at all and instead it expanded the ideas and the universe that it presented. Sure, this film has a different style and narrative and it does change things, but I’m glad that they didn’t try to make a remake of the first film while at the same time keeping the same tone. And considering that Ridley and Hampton worked out this film, and also that Denis Villeneuve is a massive Blade Runner fan anyway, they would in no way try to do a film so important to them injustice.
Rois GlasSco I can agree that he needs a writing partner, I don’t think the script to the original, or this one for that matter, is perfect. And yeah Michael Green is a pretty terrible writer, I’m pretty sure that the only reason they chose him is because he’s written sci-fi before. But for the most part, despite some general cheesiness, I think the script is great. I can totally see a breeding experiment happening. If so, that’s a cool hint. But I can definitely see the theme of childhood. There are definitely no children to be found in the original Blade Runner. It doesn’t mean they aren’t there, but if you can’t see them anywhere, that’s gotta be intentional on Ridley’s, or Hampton’s, part. And it’s represented in the scene with Rachel’s memories in the apartment, the spiders, Tyrell’s nephews. But I never thought Kowalski was obsessed with his mother. He was asked a question about it in the Voight-Kampf test, but that’s it. It’s never mentioned again, at least from what I can remember, and I rewatched it pretty recently too. And if the theme of rebelling against a tyrannical father is there, which it most certainly is, then it’s more represented in rebelling against Wallace, not K getting swamped by the kids. Sure there is a father metaphor there, but I see that theme more with Wallace then in that one scene with K in the wastelands. And if Kowalski did mention wanting children and Roy did hear the voice of his mother in the original script, then they might have removed it because they feel it didn’t fit. However it is well known that Denis and Ridley took unused sections of the original film’s script was used it for this film, so it’s possible that they utilized that theme for the original film in this one. In that case, I feel it fits more with this film than it does with the original because it goes along with the events of the narrative and the themes.
Rois GlasSco Oh I love the theme. It just adds more legitimacy and discussion to this universe. I personally love the way it’s used in this film. I think that they spend a good amount of time on it too. And I never thought Deckard seemed forced into the story. He’s literally the whole reason the story exists: the child, the blackout, the scrambled records, etc.. And yeah Rachel and Deckard having a child was in the original script. There was some other stuff too like the opening scene in this film was in the original script, Deckard investigating in other places (I think it was Vegas but I’m not entirely sure), and some aspects of the ending too, I believe. I’m not sure if it’s intellectual honesty as much as it is honesty lol, he’s just a bad writer. The only film where I feel his writing was consistent, focused and fit the story and themes was this one. His other films he wrote (Green Lantern, Alien: Covenant) are straight up dumb Hollywood cash-grab garbage. And 12 Monkeys is incredible, one of my favorites.
You know what's funny? When this movie came out it was praised like crazy, lauded, worshiped, beloved by everyone, hailed as one of the greatest sequels of all time, going so far as to call it better than the original. But as soon as it left theaters, POOF! It's gone. No one talks about it anymore, people are no longer writing articles about it, barely any videos about the movie and not only was it a box office failure, it even bombed in the home video market and streaming. But the original (the one the sequel "surpased") is still hailed as one of the best, most important and most influential sci-fi movies of all time. It wasn't exactly a box office success, but it sold like crazy on the home video market and streaming services. In fact, when Rutger Hauer sadly passed away, people went back to the original and STILL praised it as the sci-fi masterpiece that it is....but the sequel, the one everyone called better than the original, remains forgotten. Blade Runner remains as an important piece of pop culture and cinema history, while 2049 as nothing more than a passing fad. It came and went. If anything these movies are proof of one simple, undeniable fact: Big budget, spectacle movies are enjoyed today. But great movies are loved *FOREVER.*
Wait wait, that first point you make and several of the following points are just incorrect. K doesn't play any part in the replicant revolution, and the movie isn't setup for us to necessarily empathize with that cheesy revolution. The whole point is that he rejects the wishes of the police force, Wallace Corp, and the rebels. It's self actualization, he decides not to try and impact the whole world but rather to make a difference on a small scale for something that matters to him. K sympathizes with the daughter because he shares some of her memories (and by extension her feelings.) I doubt K gives a fuck about the revolution. The knowledge of the birth "breaks the world" because it will cause humans to freak out and start a genocide against replicants, not the other way around... If anything I think the replicants are preparing a revolution partly in anticipation of humans going after them. Disagree with the point about him being a ladies man. Also I don't correlate his behavior with having less humanity than the replicants of the first movie, he's just a depressed/repressed character with a shitty life so he seems flat. To contribute to the flatness of his personality, his only joy is in buying upgrades for his holographic girlfriend which he needs his bonus money to pay for. So he's incentivized to stay as flat as possible. This is also his motivation to do his job of retiring replicants so well at the start, even though he doesn't enjoy it and feels trapped.
When I saw it in the cinema I was quite overwhelmed by the sheer audio-visual spectacle. Having seen it again a few times at home, for me the main issues are that it suffers from things that many modern sci-fi movies suffer from: Gimmicks that seem to be just there to make it stylish but don't seem to make much sense in terms of believable world-building. The whole Wallace character was sort of a gimmick to me. A character spouting pseudo-poetic lines, apparently just because the original had some poetic moments in it. But the whole character just wasn't believable to me, while I could totally get into the Batty and Tyrell characters. Why did the wealthiest man on earth seem to suffer from cataract or something? Weren't they not already able to produce eyes in the original somewhere in a little lab on the street? It doesn't seem to make sense other than giving him that look. The visual design and set design seemed mostly gimmicky to me. The Vegas scenes didn't look believable to me at all, and the heavy handed coloring played a part in that. In the original BR, the collapsing dense city looked believable, in 2049 they looked like movie sets. Striking, yes, but artificial and hollow somehow, lacking detail to make it feel alive. The Wallace set with Rachel, I don't know why anyone would seriously design a place like that in the real world: A big dark hall with water seemingly just meant to bounce orange light to the walls to make it look BR-like. It seems to be just meant to look stylish without putting much other thought into it. Then in the end they had snow. Pristine white snow. Would it look like that in a world collapsing under air pollution? Probably not, so that looked strangely out of place. The sea water in the fighting sequence looks weirdly crystal-clear for a sea in a heavily polluted world. All these little things add up to what I think is kind of sloppy world-building in the end. The music was striking but although it had many nods to Vangelis, it was also very cold, lacking the warm bluesy nostalgic touches that made the score work so well in the original. I enjoy many elements of the movie though, the Joi character being the most clever touch imho. Despite the problems it still is a striking audio-visual spectacle. But it just doesn't have enough substance and attention to detail to warrant that running time (and I do love movies that take their time to take it in).
@@Omnicient. It's not only that. The 1982 BR had a REALLY characteristic atmosphere. Villeneuve just added his own atmosphere instead of respecting the original one. To me, BR2049 feels more like a "Gatacca" sequel than a BR one...
it makes no sense that wallace would benefit from replicants being able to reproduce. if that happened, he would lose his monopoly on the production of replicants.
I've been obsessed with this movie for the past weeks, I run it every day on my laptop as a background sound. And I keep seeing things regarding the main character, some hidden messages. Also about the female AI. I think it's worth to make a study about it as the original Blade Runner.
22:03 Rob, the worst “story fail” appears to be the result of misinterpretation. You seem to assume that Wallace speculating that Deckard may have fallen in love upon first seeing Rachel, is akin to the film stating it as fact. I don’t accept the premise. I think the point of the scene is that Wallace is mentally toying with Deckard by suggesting that Rachel’s love for him was “designed” and not real. (like a more difficult Void Kamph test that Deckard is taking) It isn’t addressing whether they fell in love at first sight. (BTW Deckard doesn’t try to kill Wallace because he’s never met him, and is unarmed.) On you referencing the original BR, in summarizing all the evidence I don’t think Deckard was being “hostile” to Rachel in much of the first film. You could say that he was conflicted about his feelings for Rachel, but there are several details that contradict your assertion. Deckard only appears “hostile” after Tyrell confirms identifies her as a replicant. When Deckard is in an elevator he does draw his gun on an assailant, but holsters it upon realizing that it is Rachel... (if you drew a gun on a stalker who you feel hostile towards, would you then holster it? Why didn’t Deckard verbally threaten to shoot her or tell her to get lost?) Deckard is just playing hard to get. Here he has a weeping replicant in his apartment who isn’t a threat to him, yet instead of “retiring” her, he feels bad. Hence lying to her about the “practical joke.” Comforting a woman crying because YOU told her she isn’t human is outside the range of behaviors from someone who is “hostile” to her. At this point in the story, Deckard does have some affection for her. In the club scene, before Deckard finds Zhora, he calls her and asks her on a date to Taffy Lewis’ bar... is he luring her into a trap according to you? You show ONE frame where Deckard is merely being annoyed by a dense crowd of “little people” as proof of a “hunter’s stare” towards Rachel. Right Before that scene, Deckard, troubled by having to retire Zhora, acts upset by Bryant’s “one-man slaughterhouse” appraisal of his actions. Bryant then says, “ four more (replicants) to go” to which Deckard says “there’s THREE more to go”... How can you read this exchange in any way other than Deckard is trying to protecting and cover for Rachel? Right after that “hunter’s stare” frame is a shot of Deckard looking worried. Leon then rotates him to reveal Deckard looking worried, rather than primed for a hunt. It’s like you are griping on Wallace for not having the ability of watching the events of the first movie! All he has is a recording of Rachel’s void kamph test. The only instance of such a look from Deckard is when he enters Zhora’s locker room at Lewis’s bar with the “committee of moral abuses” cover story. There is NEVER a scene in which Deckard wants to retire Rachel, knowing it is her. The writer of 2049 hasn’t committed the “altering of history” that you accuse him of. I am currently processing the accusation that Tyrell secretly designing Rachel to breed is “atrocious scriptwriting”... I’m not sold on that as there is no proof that the dangerous Replicants escaping that Deckard needed to retire was “part of Tyrell’s plan.” Why do you think that Tyrell specifically wanted Deckard to be the father? (Again, more speculation from Wallace, as it seems that even he isn’t sure.) I don’t think who the father was mattered to him, but merely that Rachel would have a child.
When Deckard calls Rachel he's in a strip bar, he wants sex. He also hasn't been ordered to kill her at that point. When he calls her he doesn't ask "How are you coping? ... Can I do anything for you? ... Do you want me to talk to Tyrell?" etc etc. He just asks her to come for a drink in strip bar. And the film does have a general theme of replicants as sex slaves. He almost gets himself killed geting horny over Zhora. You say his guilt at killing Zhora means he won't kill Rachel, but he does kill Pris. Plus he left his job probably because of guilt, so it's not like he's learning his lesson along the way. The writer has altered the history. Deckard did not fall in love with Rachel the moment he met her. Neither the book nor script nor any crew interviews have conveyed that, and it doesn't show in the details of the original scene. He finds her sexually attractive as any man would, but that's it. Seems to me you're trying to make excuses for the writer. The script is terrible on lots of levels, very badly conceived, so I see no reason to make a variety of assumptions altering the first film's story to accommodate the new story.
Don't bother trying to have a actually discussion with this guy. He seems to want to not like the film to the point of being out right incorrect on his criticism and he will always have a response for what you say is incorrect, because he feels stupid inside and can't admit that he's incorrect. Just move on because there's no winning with people like this who don't have an open mind.
@@robag555 You didn't address his criticism... You just seem butt hurt that people actually understand the film when you just can't. What are you even talking about? You are just nitpicking the script at this point. Ridley Scott himself was a producer on the film and loves it. Did you just want a beat for beat remake? What's the point of that? Of course plot points are going to change, it's called having your own vision.
Rob Ager the 1st paragraph is an accurate summary of the “replicant prostitutes” motif in the first film. “(Deckard’s) guilt at killing Zhora means he won’t kill Rachel” Well his apparent guilt after killing Zhora is not the smoking gun for me. It’s the details in Deck’s exchange with Bryant and Gaff I brought up. Especially him emphasizing “there’s three (replicants)” as telling me that he does not want to retire the “fourth”, Rachel. Wallace remarks about how “instant (Deckard’s) connection” was when he first met Rachel. He then speculates that maybe there was “love” or “mathematical precision” that led to their relationships. Wallace does say the word “love” but to claim that Wallace describes “falling in love on the spot” sounds like a leap in logic. Does an “instant connection” necessarily mean “love on the spot?” Why wouldn’t a “connection” refer to a sexual desire which you agree Deckard felt towards Rachel at some point? I apologize for any miscommunication: I do not believe that Deckard “loved” Rachel when he first met her, but at the very least felt a physical attraction the second he saw her walking towards him. I agree that someone who reduces Deckard and Rachel’s story to “love at first sight” would be erroneous and guilty of oversimplifying. But it’s not clear the details of Deckard meeting Wallace in 2049 that he is meant to be factually describing how Deckard initially felt about Rachel. It’s just an interrogation. Like when police conduct interrogations and ask questions to a suspect or victim. They ask questions or assert circumstances that (right or wrong, ethical or unethical) serve as educated guesses. Deckard even rebuts Wallace’s account by saying “I know what’s real.” Deckard kills Pris because she attacks and tries to strangle him. It’s not even clear if Deckard ID Pris as the 3rd Replicant to retire when he shoots her as she is obscured by makeup. “making excuses for the writer.” I’m not excusing the writer from anything because it isn’t clear to me that he has done the poor writing you accuse him of, at least on this point. In fact I would like to see the Replicant and Blade RunnerS plot outlines that you described in that earlier video made into actual movies. (Possibly even short films) If you can find me an interview with Michael Green, Ridley Scott, Denis Villenueve, Ryan Gosling or Hampton Fancher describing Wallace’s account of Deckard’s connection for Rachel as being how you have described it then I’ll concede the point.
I didn't hate the theatrical cut with the voice over either, but then again I was much younger, maybe it would be different today. The memories of watching Blade Runner with the voice over still lingers because the movie was mesmerizing to me. I never had problems with the pacing or the lackluster narration. I hope Ridley Scott releases a Final-Final-Final cut of Blader Runner, just call it fffffffff-cut or something.
Enjoyed this movie. Personal opinion. Grew up with first Blade Runner. Love sci-fi. Grew up with original Star Trek series. I accept different sci-fi from B movies to big budget etc. One of my favorites from 90s "Cube". To each his own
I'm new to Robs' videos and fascinated by this one, and especially the overly emotional tantrums being thrown by some of those who disagree with his views. It seems akin to Rob calling their partner ugly instead of his views on a movie they had nothing to do with except watch it. Personally I thought the original was over-rated & clearly over blown as it had to be being based on a very mediocre short story, however it was propped up by great acting, by some , brilliant visuals & of course a stunning soundtrack. Even then however you only have to look at the different "cuts" that make it a very different film indeed. This sequel I found initially shallow, empty, wooden, unbelievable and ultimately boring, however many people felt it was "superb" & "A masterpiece" etc, so I watched it again.....and even a third time, trying to find what they had...and I failed each time, in fact each time I came away more saddened that people, apparently genuinely, bought into this film heart & soul, so much so they scream, wail & gnash their teeth if anyone doesn't buy into their cult-ish view. I would love to know their top 5 films of all time...is Prometheus in there I wonder?
2049 is a JOKE. like K/JOE. prometheus is just blade runner 82 in alien uni. please watch it being ripped to shit like it is by ian of off the shelf reviews.
Half of the thing that the original movie makes it work for me is Vangelis great score(who is one of the greatest film composers I might add)the new one sounds like a generic movie score trying to simulate the epic proportions of the future,but failing cause it has no soul,just copy Tears in the Rain and slap it on the new movie,call it a day!Bring in those Hans Zimmer "farts",I don't hear them enough in all the new movies already,for fuck sake!
Excellent points, rooted in logic as usual. Admittedly I feel a little dumb for not catching this stuff myself. I should probably go yell at someone on the internet for revenge
I mean there are some really glaring inaccuracies in this video. I'm not sure what Rob really expects. It's a movie, first, not the new testament. Secondly, there are a few very basic points that Rob glosses over, i.e. There was a blackout. The ledger at the orphanage was analog. Secondly, K doesn't get to choose his career. I don't know how on earth you could have missed this. Replicants are assigned roles. He has to work that job, this is why we see Luv talking to potential Wallace clients trying to upsell them 'pleasure models'. Replicants are commodified products abused by corporate or governmental powers. They have no real ability to leave their designated professions. They of course begin to think off script because the movie is stating that consciousness cannot be controlled completely no matter the technological methods. This is why the impending revolution is so important in the film in forwarding the plot. I mean I get that Rob has a hard on for the original, it's obvious by his subject matter that he's a nostalgic guy (constantly critiquing contemporary films, and focusing on films that are 30+ years old). I get that, but aside from Leto's performance this film is a masterpiece and will be looked upon as such in the future. The score, the philosophy, the predictions of the future and the visuals will not age.
Even paper only ledgers would typically be done with a backup and like i said why not destroy the whole ledger instead of just one page, making it obvious which name was removed? Yes K doesn't choose his career, but persuading ppl to hunt their own requires a lot more than "hey this is your role". he even seems to enjoy it, challenging the big guy at the start to a fight and having zero sympathy for his own kind. no logic is given for his attitude. As for your nostalgia theory on my attitude to the film... nope, I posted a video praising my fave modern movies last month (check it out here on this channel). And I'm currently working on some videos about Hereditary a 2018 film I adore. I've done detailed praising reviews of several post 2000 films and lots from the 90's as well. The nostalgia theory is a cheap attempt to gloss over the many valid criticisms of 2049 in this vid. It's not a masterpiece on any level. Most film fans I talk to either hate it or consider it an ok watch once affair. The few I find who love it just talk about visuals and atmos, but that stuff is mostly done by the numbers according to modern "art house" formula.
Leto wasn't even bad and this film was the masterpiece of 2017. As I said on a previous comment, people saying this film is "bad" takes away from actual and truly bad films. It reminds me of pretentious folk who try to dislike something for the sake of having a different opinion on things that most people like. "The majority of people like and praise this movie, I don't like it for mostly irrelevant reasons and heres why!" "The majority of people don't like this movie, but I find it ground breaking and revolutionary even if they dont "get it". I aM sO sMaRt!"
@@robag555 I appreciate you even addressing my comment. Obviously I love your videos otherwise I wouldn't be here. Most of my favourite films are old (your 2001 and Eyes Wide Shut analyses are life changing). I don't wanna be pedantic about these points but I think both are important and I guess I wasn't clear enough. According to cannon, there was a major blackout that wiped all digital records. I don't know any current inventory systems that have more than one analog backup in case of digital corruption. From accounting to banking to manufacturing and even architecture (my field). People simply use digital file storage now and the same is said for the film. The security desk dude at Wallace who takes K to the archives says: Bald dude "Everyone remembers where they were at the blackout. You?" K: "That was a little before my time." Bald dude: "Hmm. I was home with my folks. Ten days of darkness. every machine stopped cold. When the lights came back we were wiped clean. Photos, files, every bit of data: gone. Bank records, too. Didn't mind that. It's funny its only paper that lasted." So if the bank records are gone what makes you think orphanage ledgers would be intact. The film is not sloppy in this regard. It's obvious that the blackout occurred sometime around Ana Stelline's (Deckard's Daughter) birth. It probably had everything to do with her birth, actually. When she was placed into the orphanage, the records were wiped and the paper ledgers removed around 2022. Also, it's not one page that was removed, but the orphanage owner/pedo dude said "it's gone, the entire year" which is even more clever of a move than you supposed. Secondly, and I want to get this right. K does not enjoy killing replicants. He does not enjoy his job at all. He mentions this many times throughout the film. K says he doesn't eat until "the hard part of the day" is over to Sapper before reluctantly killing him, implying it makes him sick. He also tells Sapper it must have been brutal fighting on Galantha (an off world colony) demonstrating empathy knowing he has to kill a replicant who quite evidently suffered throughout most of their life. If he did enjoy killing replicants he would have continued to subjugate them by shooting Ana Stelline in the head the moment he realized she was Deckard's daughter. That's why he's referred to as 'Constant K' during the baseline test, alluding to the fact that there isn't much of a shelf life for most Blade Runners. It's not so much that K is cool and calm but more so to do with the fact that other BRs probably end up snapping after a short time on the job which puts the public at risk due to their physical strength and enhanced mental abilities (speed reading, etc). We know that K was born post blackout so he is at most 25 years old and we can assume even younger, maybe 10 years old due to his statement "That was a little before my time" as stated above. He also comments on the fact that he has no choice in killing his own kind when he matter-of-factly says "I wasn't aware that was an option, madam" when Joshi (Robin Wright) tells him he has to kill the first biologically born replicant, which K expresses empathy for. He even swallows hard when told by Joshi to "erase" everything showing he's subduing his emotion. 'Constant' refers to K consistently not developing PTSD after collecting bounties. It's why when his baseline test is off kilter after he discovers Deckard's child he will be retired by the LAPD in less than 24 hours. He has no choice. If he doesn't do his job he is defective and therefore eliminated by the state. TLDR: I love you but both of your points are sloppy and demonstrably wrong here.
@@RMBII91 Yeah there's definitely an element of this going on. Which is unfortunate because I usually come to Rob's channel to hear him cut through the crap. I just don't think he was actually paying much attention to the subtleties of the plot (as stated below) which is a shame because he's gone into SO much detail in other films before. You can't agree with everyone about everything though so I think I'm just going to chalk this up to Rob being rubbed the wrong way by this film. Stating as he did that it's one of the worst sequels of all time however is a massive stretch and pretty unfair in my estimation.
@@BloomGlare Never seen any of his videos until this one when it popped in my recommendations earlier, I just couldn't take it very seriously. I'm all for people having different opinions but saying it's one of the worst sequels ever is a complete exaggeration and calling it a bad film is just dumb. I can think of 20 truly terrible sequels and then 20 bad films and then some. Even if he is a fan of Blade Runner apparently, that happens to be my favorite movie and my opinion is not clouded because of that. Blade Runner 2049 is a fantastic movie and really one of the most thought provoking and beautiful sequels to come, especially 25 years after an original film. I got MoviePass just to be able to see this film repeatedly without spending $10 a ticket. Gonna have to say this video probably turned me off from watching any further of his videos, I can't take someone seriously saying this this is in anyway a bad film.
I take a lot of inspiration from your content. Your approach is extensive but also in-depth, and most importantly sophisticated. You make me think about things that I'd otherwise just take a glance at, very inspirational.
Great review as always! Really love your channel(s). Most of the time I agree with the critique. And BR 2049 was a big fail in my book. One plot point that I didn't see brought up (maybe I missed it) -- in the original Blade Runner it was never really cleared up if Deckard is a Replicant (also depending on which cut of the movie you watch and I watched all of them) but in 2049 it is really obvious that he is one. Or how can it otherwise be explained that he can stand his ground in the fist fight with K? He's 30 yrs older and Replicants have superior strength as has been shown in all the other fight scenes in this movie and the original. So Deckard just has to be a Replicant too. Otherwise K would take his head off with one blow of his fist. But that raises a question -- why did Deckard never notice he was stronger than normal men and why did he not have this strength in the original movie? This is especially made obvious by the first fight of K in the movie where he beats Sapper Morton who is a replicant himself and probably at least 20 pounds heavier than K. So if K can beat Sapper rather easily why does this fight with Deckard drag on forever?
There could never have been a satisfying Blade Runner franchise - Franchises require characters simple enough that you can easily insert them into one of the standard plots and repeat ad nauseam. The opposite of the original Blade Runner.
They should have gone the extra mile with the "not special" thing with special k. Make him average, take away the bathroom eyes he gets from the women. He could realise this later on and comment on it with Joi. "I'm a generic, mass produced product. My "birth" and even my memories are fake. Everybody hates me and in the grand scheme of things I'm not special...But at least I'm special to you." It would be heart wrenching since this guy is spilling his guts to another product that just wants to extract as much money from him as possible (she could be a subscription based product). Oh and as a silly joke, mabey have his colleagues jokingly call him "Special K" like in the video. Its a nice bit of word play from Rob and it would remind us that K is just a product. Just like the cereal he's named after
Rob, I agree with you that 2049 is not a visual masterpiece ... especially when compared to the original Blade Runner. I scratch my head a lot when watching the overhyped orange tone scenes, kept asking myself what it was that people find so amazing about an empty foggy orange tone scene, it looks like a big empty studio filled with fog machine and then slapped on with an orange filter, it looks so flat... and the dark lounge is just a dark lounge with lots of light shows, nothing unique or unusual for me ... the dark water fight at the end is so featureless you can't even make out where they are, why not show parts of the sky or the sea wall which are grandeurs they really should have included ... but no, its just almost total darkness ... I do think that the taste of today's audience have shifted a lot ... they are impressed by very opposite things from the previous generations ... and its not just nostalgia, I still do love a lot of the aesthetics and quality of many other of today's movies, just not 2049 ...
Much as I feel. The film looks flat and lifeless and the scenes that could have been exciting, like a spinner flying over the city, were plunged in darkness. I also had no idea what the sea wall was supposed to look like. It was too damn dark!
I agree with most points here. Though I actually really enjoyed the film on first viewing in the theater, I did not enjoy it at all on the second viewing. So much of the film relies on mystery and build up to a very inevitable conclusion that doesn’t really offer up anything surprising or particularly interesting.
It'd be nice if you do a video where you talk a bit more about the "blank canvas art movies" concept, what other films fall into this category according to you and such.
This movie was not boring but it was pointless as shit and kept marketing Detroit Becomes Human as it's next sequel. There's nothing new except except eye candy cinematography. Where are my human black market robot organ harvesters? Virtual hijackers? I really wanted joi and K to go beyond the stars and have their adventure but they had to shove Harrison Ford in for marketing purposes.
What gets me about 2049 is how they threw out the whole ambiguity about whether or not replicants should be considered human or machines by just going "Nah! They're human! They're an oppressed minority!" They also threw out the moral ambiguity of being a blade runner by going "They're fugitive slavers and K is an uncle tom". The original asked the question of what does it mean to be human and it leaves it up to the audience to decide for themselves. The sequel decided to answer that question with "nothing is more human than dying for a cause" and "you haven't seen a miracle" which doesn't mean anything. And then they retconned Deckard and Rachel's relationship so that they fell in love the minute they saw each other even though that's something they just made up for this movie. And Tyrell using them for an experiment which also doesn't go with what we know from the original. Just another sloppy retcon to justify shoehorning Harrison Ford into the movie because that's the only reason the movie was even made to begin with. And then they gave Griff and pointless cameo where he talks as if he and Deckard were old buddies even though they only met during the events of the original and Griff was hostile towards Deckard for most of the movie. But seriously all these characters are incredibly bland, the performances are terrible (particularly Jared Leto who was just embarrassingly bad), and I just found it to be pretentious. A Jesus baby, a character with a god complex who talks about angels, talk about miracles, etc. Hollow religious symbolism is what lazy people do.
Also - here’s a reason why Rachael having a daughter gives cause for revolution: if they can reproduce themselves without human intervention, then they have some hope of autonomy from human corporations manufacturing them.
Imo "k's" attractive traits are... He's selfless (in the end), but it comes off as careless. He's professional. He doesn't want to know the person he interacts with. And I presume in the world they live in, most ppl are quite eager to connect because they are So extremely disconnected (like the bald guy explaining his youth to a replicant, something most ppl hate, perhaps he's very reclusive) it comes off as most of the poor are violent and the few with jobs are extremely submissive. Poor hate replicants, middle class use replicants for comfort, rich use replicants for labor. Regarding "joy" she likes "k" cause he's polar opposite than her "maker" idk just throwing out my thoughts
The theatrical cut (voice over cut) is the version that doesn't tell the viewer whether or not Deckard is either a replicant or human. The other versions tell the audience that Deckard is a replicant. In my opinion that ruins it. Its far more interesting not knowing whether Deckard is a replicant or human. Thats why the theatrical cut is my favourite version.
I discovered Rob Ager not so long ago, and have been really impressed by the depth of his analysis and the refreshingly rational approach he takes. This video is a disappointment and not up to his usual high standard of fairness. I like BR 2049, yes, but I was interested to hear what Rob had to say and was not averse to accepting any well-argued criticism. Well, although Rob does offer some strongly-argued points, the low-brow tactics of using mocking terms like 'Special K' repeatedly, and lines like 'shovelled into the script', 'eye-candy garbage' and 'formula bullshit' are beneath him, and show him venting in a mean-spirited, belligerent way that does nothing to advance his arguments or endear him to listeners who have come expect sober conversation from him. Come on, Rob, you are better than this in every other video I have seen, which always looks at the film and analyses what is there, without the low-rent embellishments. For me, the movie is not about 'human' versus 'replicant' - it is about the almost-hopeless yearning for 'authenticity' - and by this I mean the kind of existential and psychic authenticity that the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan wrote about. In Lacan's theories, the search is unceasing and never truly reaches its goal, because the very nature of the human is one of mirrors, illusion, desire and lack. The reason for this is because we live in symbolic worlds that are inessential and grounded in nothing but their own sign systems - there is no essence, no 'nature' to be found within them. So, K is not looking to be 'human' like his slave masters, and the replicant revolutionaries are also not interested in becoming human, because their masters are soulless capitalists who have destroyed their environment (nature) just as they have corrupted their society and their own sanctity of being (commodification of sex, domination of the feminine). What they seek is their own authentic sense of themselves. They accept that they may be no better than their human masters (they tell K that sacrificing themselves for the replicant cause is the most human thing, and in this they believe they are least equal to humanity) but the 'miracle' of birth is a symbol of their autonomy, their authenticity in the cosmic order of things. That is what they seek, but ultimately their search will be as fruitless as humanity's failed search. The replicant baby is a figurehead that could rally more to their cause, because it seems to say that replicants possess 'nature' beyond their manufacturer's control. The apparent debate about the 'soul' that Rob disparages only occurs in one short exchange between K and his police chief, and that is only a single line from the chief who is speaking from her individual, flawed perspective - it is not endorsed by any directorial or narrative theme and is only one part of a larger world in which there is no final meaning nor spiritual privilege granted to any character or class, whether human, replicant, worker or executive. Wallace, the industrialist, is totally blind, signifying (clunkily, I will admit) his moral and spiritual bankruptcy. In this post (capitalist) apocalypse, the only hints of innocence are forced to live inside sealed bell-jars, like Deckard's daughter and the plants he grows in his apartment. Bees spring from nowhere (in Greek and medieval thought, bees were thought spring from dead corpses - autogenesis) as if to say there is some hope, but it can barely survive in the hellscape that we live in. This is also an allegory for our Western world, that is similarly 'administered' (Adorno) and dominated by capitalist distortions of reality.
The big question for the film was why were the replicants desiring a soul and why did they value being 'woman born' not whether they were questioning being human. Being 'woman born' was to have a soul and to be loved. Why is this? The term woman born is a curious way of saying being born and is a reference to Shakespeare. Plenty to dive into. As for the complaint that the movie doesn't 'give us the answer' an answer could be written down within a few sentences and render a movie a waste of time no art just a few lines. Art is supposed to be read and contemplated with people finding their own answers. This allows for greater depth, the movie certainly does get this discussion underway and goes a long way to answering questions. The movie's sensitivity to the importance of women is a timely reminder for society where we are seeing womanhood being extinguished. As for the awareness of memories as being fake you have to remember that they are who they are because of their memories, to attempt to forget their memories would be to fundamentally change who they are. It wouldn't be just quirks of themselves that would change it would be their whole being. Their very desire to shirk the fake memories has been shaped by their memories. Even if they forget those memories would they cease to react how they previously did? If he is not special then why are these women attracted to him? Having a soul and being woman born in this movie means to be loved, specially loved by a mother. Having women being attracted to you, as the replicant Love is to K, doesn't quite match this fundamental need. She of course is made to 'love' and you would have to question whether her slight interest, perhaps lust for Officer K, is for her to understand his mission for the benefit of the company she works for and was created to serve. Also you have to ask whether it is simply that she was programmed to love and shows affection to men she encounters because of this programming. She certainly loses this affection by the end of the movie when she is trying to kill officer K. It's confusing to me that the difference between flirting and having the love of a mother is not understood as being vastly different in terms of the importance to our sense of being 'special'. Perhaps a sign that in modern times we have lost the sense of importance of the most central relationship we will ever have. It may be that only when we have decayed to the extent that this relationship has been severed from our experience, such as the experience of replicants, will we see it for the important aspect that it is. Without it we are no doubt much more empty. At the end of the day there is no greater love than that which a mother has for her child. Seems to highlight how the movie has understood where we are heading as a society that those reading into the film fail to understand motherly love as being on the same level as light flirting. Previous films which ask questions of what the future holds when we encounter new ways of existence have not asked the questions asked in this film. The fact that every human that has ever lived was created by a woman and the likely scenario that humans will one day be created outside of a woman's body does raise questions of how we will change and what we gain from our current method of creation. Our internal experience has been shaped by our creation and upbringing for hundreds of thousands of years and surely won't be adapting as quickly as the physical world will/has. It also asks questions of how men and women will relate to each other as there will be a lesser need in society for men and women to have romantic relationships. Why not fill that need with a Joy? Will this be able to fill the gap which will remain? It seems to me that Joy had a greater pull towards K than K to Joy. Other movies which you have looked at seem to be quite different to this film as the content is quite different as it is less mechanical. Usually the movies you look deeply have greater visual aspects to read into. Many futuristic terminator type movies have a very physical nature where the question of the nature of intelligence and its reliability is queried while this movie is internal and asks how our internal experience will be changed by novel ways of creation and subsequent alterations to the human experience.
I grew up absolutely loving the original Blade Runner, the theatrical cut. (because that version was the first version i saw and because it doesn't say for sure whether Deckard is either human or a replicant). I absolutely hated Blade Runner 2049. It made me feel nothing. I saw it as worthless, pointless and soulless. I really enjoyed the book Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep though. It suggests that the Replicants are starting to show more signs of humanity than Deckard does. And Deckard, who is human, starts to question his own humanity due to all the hunting and killing he's doing.
I have wondered before if introducing someone to the movie, particularly someone not used to slow meditative mood pieces, would be best with the original. I think it would. I don’t regret having seen that one first.
When I was in my late teens and early 20s I would have issues sleeping. I found classic Disney live action films to be extremely calming. I wonder if that's the appeal of the pink and blue "blank slate" films. Christmas light color pallets, slow moving, not too much dialogue from the protagonist... could very well be a cold and contrived marketing strategy.
my eyes rolled waaay back into my head and i almost felt like walking out of the theater at the revelation of a replicant revolution scene with the female replicant talking to k. that felt so utterly boring and cliched. while i don't hate 2049, it's certainly no where close to the original. it's largely a missed opportunity.
The comparison of Ryan Gosling to Cameron Frye is perfect. Also "...that stupid villain, whatever the...they got in the movie" sums up my feeling regarding every scene said villain was in. Ponderous pacing does not equate to hidden deep meaning.
Imagine attacking and possibly insulting someone you dont know over a fucking movie, I mean for example I love the piece of shit movie "Guyver - Dark Hero" - so recently a friend re-watched it and he emphasized that he confirmed his vague recollection of the film, being boring, stupid, etc. I said "Yeah, of course it is, but I love it." He respected that.
I fully agree with Rob's assessment. It's the only review I can find that really corresponds with how I felt. But more than even the specific plot points, I hate the tone of the film; the plodding monotony, pretentiousness, dreariness, and humorlessness of it. All of Villeneuve's movies have these issues with lack of emotional texture, unlikeable non-empathetic characters (ironically given the subject matter), superficiality and faux intellectualism, and plot incoherence. I honestly think he's the most overrated director working today, if not ever.
Deckard discovered in the original Bladerunner that some of the NPCs (Replicants) don't know that's what they are (like Rachel), and that led him to wonder if he might be one himself. I believe the sequel presents a world far advanced down the same road of dehumanization of the slave class -- white men to give it a real world counterpart. K already knows he is a slave - he is a programmed NPC, working for the system that's deliberately dehumanizing him. Rather than a Voight-Kampf test they use the Baseline test to check how enthusiastically the replicants repeat the propaganda, to see if they're starting to become human or not (free thinkers). I believe the whole idea of a soul and of him possibly being The One (the Special One) refers to the fact that individualists see themselves as unique and special, and not just another anonymous face in the crowd, as NPCs see themselves. So when one of the compliant slaves start to develop hints of independent thinking they become rogues, just like in Logan's Run and other similar movies. K essentially hunted Runners, which are other NPC's (Replicants as they're called in the BR franchise) who suddenly understand that they are not what they've been taught all their lives they are. This is analogous to white men becoming Red Pilled and realizing all the Leftist talking points are false, and that they've been taught to hate themselves and their entire race and gender. If you look at it like this I think the movie makes a lot of sense. It is a bit pathetic that in the end all he did was one good deed (uniting Deckard and his daughter - which ties in perfectly with the theme of destruction of the family) by being a disposable male - this being the extent of what he could accomplish in the repressive state because there's no escaping it really, it's a total surveillance state. So I see it as a bleak picture of the world we live in today, and unlike Deckard, who's generation were still individualists, K is a member of a later generation (Millennial?) who have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they believe they are less than human, where-as the Nexus 6 generation like Rachel believed they were human. Interesting that she could give birth and none of them can in the later generation - is the only difference her belief that she was really human? Or perhaps that she was "raised" by Tyrell, who loved her and treated her as an actual human? This same theme is treated in Frankenstein as well - in a sense the creature is a synthetically created human with some extra powers (just like a Replicant) who is abandoned by his 'father' (a single parent household with a neglectful father) after birth rather than being nurtured and taught. This is what made him angry and vengeful. Incidentally the good Doctor's next crime was to deny the creature (his son) love when it asked him to make it a mate. Child abuse themes galore. I also believe one of the main themes of the movie is that the only thing making them different from 'real humans' is the brainwashing. But if that brainwashing is complete and begins early enough in life, then most will never be able to escape it, and if they do the state will hound them down and kill them (there's no end of other obedient NPCs who haven't achieved any level of self-awareness yet).
@@totaltotalmonkey Sort of, except that she isn't real. The replicants, though they are artificially produced, are completely human. Joi is only one letter different from Joe (also think about what it's an abbreviation for... ), and I think she represents the video games and VR girlfriends guys often devote themselves to in today's world where fraternizing with females is so dangerous and single parent households are so common. Apparently for Replicants they've done away with parents altogether (same strategy as in Logan's Run again), breaking the chain of human interaction completely and making the Replicants completely subject to state programming from the moment of their "birth" - no human warmth or love to break the conditioning. Also of course she is a representation of his own fears that he might not be a "real human". His fears are that he's little more than a program like her and can be just as easily erased. So she serves much the same purpose as the biological 'toys' that Sebastian made in the original BR - facsimiles of humans that are completely empty inside and represent the soullessness the Replicants are perceived to have - their slave status. These video games and cell phones and the internet - which are referenced in the movie in various ways though obliquely, are the modern Bread and Circuses, that we are allowed to endlessly entertain ourselves so we don't pay attention to the things that are really being done to us by government and big business. Note they are designed to be addictive by nature. Much like a VR gilrlfreind who says gentle loving things to you all the time, like a real woman who loves you would, or like the mother you never had might have done. In this way perhaps they get you to bond with the virtual girl instead, who of course is programmed by the business/State and also is a conduit for their surveillance (Love was able to determine when he deleted the household unit and got very desperate to track him right then and there - that's how she knew he was beginning his escape).
Wow dude. This is like listening to one of my friends pick what he considers insightful flaws with the original bladerunner. In a world full of studio written, cash cow driven, PC bs, crappy CGI infested, generic overblown hollywood flatulence, I found 2049 to be refreshingly original while still an amazing sequel. Its subdued pace could be seen as boring for some but all things considered, I feel this film did an amazing job. Not bad for a 30 year sequel and about ten thousand times better than I expected it to be given the state of studio films these days. Wait a year or two - then watch it again.
If you think BR2049 is all the things you say I suggest you get away from watching cliched driven, all hype style over substance films coming out of dummywood and watch say more non English speaking films that actually tell stories (Ceylan/Zygntisev/Pawkowski/Garrone) then youll learn how to critically think and see this film for the pile of dung that it is.
@@MrMarcusirish Oh hey there Marc. Thanks for the feedback and the recommended directors. I was not aware I was about to go into a pretentious hipster argument about who has seen them most foreign language films. Are you really sure you want to go there? I am aware that there are film makers from Italy, France, Sweden, Asia, Former Soviet Union states, Iran etc and can name films and directors from each country and we can jerk off together on webcam if you like ? I see you are a big fan of Avril Lavigne and her videos?? Thats nice. Can you recommend a Czech or Lithuanian or German version of her for us also while you are lecturing us on high art? I see you are a Manchester United Fan also? How original. Not many people choose them.... Which part of Manchester are you from exactly?? Thanks for the advice on critical thinking. Vielen dank, merci, grazi, spasibo etc. Lol
On the subject of mysterious AI relationships I think Her would be a great subject for you. An all-time favorite of mine with incredible depth and a unique take on the well worn subject.
Ryan Gosling looks like the miserable Cameron from "Ferris Buellers Day Off", Oh man that made me laugh.🤣 By the way, I thought the replicant karate babe was the only interesting character in the film.
I agree with you fully though that it is rather silly that a replicant giving birth somehow should inspire revolution, especially when only the Nexus 7, Rachel, could give birth, and Tyrell took the secret with him to his grave.
It's not silly, the replicants are slaves not because humans deem them to be, but because only humans can create them. This makes humans the master, and replicants the slaves. However if the replicants can be programmed to reproduce this breaks all the barriers between human and replicants, and K self sacrificing himself is not the way he achieves human self. From the first he is in Stark contrast to Roy batty, who had stronger emotions and wanted to live more,the old replicants were flawed because they had more emotional side to them(more human than human) . And you can't produce replicants like Rachael because it wouldn't result in slaves, so the new Nexus line is devoid of emotions, is instilled with fake memories, and is made to know that they have fake memories so that they know their place. K begins to disobey orders only after he starts to think he is special, he finds his own individual self atlast and makes his own decision in sacrificing himself, that should be the point looked at and not the sacrifice (Roy batty had his individual self in the first movie, but here the new replicants are devoid of that as it had caused trouble previously). And if you think that only one replicant was capable, and both the Creator and the replicant are dead, then think about the movie "children of men", a similar situation is seen in the end. When you think that there is zero possibility for producing child for so long, even one child being produced is enough to create a revolution its not in the act of producing children that causes the revolution but rather the change in belief that causes the revolution
You mentioned Cloud Atlas in a recent video, Rob. I'm sure I didn't imagine it. How about a video on that? It would make a nice opposite video to this one, in that it had a lot of crap thrown at it contrary to your thoughts on it.
The over arching theme of souls reincarnating throughout time aside, did you actually think the movie was any good? I must admit, I didn't. At times I thought it was ok, but then when Hugo Weaving and the other white actors turned up looking like Ming from Flash Gordon, I couldn't take the film seriously.
I mostly agree with your analysis Rob, thanks for making the video. I think that 2049 had some good points, in particular I did enjoy the craft of the prop artists and costumes, etc. But I agree that the plot didn't make much sense, and was a missed opportunity for a more interesting movie. One aspect in particular I don't think you mentioned was the weirdo new poetry test that kind of replaced the Voight-Kampff test. I wished 2049 had some explanation for what they were actually testing K for - it was just glossed over with wierdo noises and sciencey computers. In the original movie it was clear what they were testing for and Rachel's responses were therefore salient.
Any chance you could do an analysis of any of george a romero's films? One day I might watch this movie, fpr now it's not on my radar, thanks for the review, have you done dark city by Alex proyas?
When Deckard is told how many are left he seems upset that there is one extra. To me, it seemed like he had a suspicion that Rachel would be included. I did not see a hunter's look in his eyes. The comment about "I made a bad joke" reveals that he does not want to see her cry. If he did not give a shit why would he care if she cried?
On "Special K" being emotionless and boring. Personally I think that's one of the main points - a major theme. I know, it violates the commandment of narrative form, that the protagonist must be active rather than passive, but the whole idea is that he's been totally dehumanized, robbed of any sense of personal purpose or free will. This has been done through many means, all of which parallel the way it's done IRL by abusers and manipulators, both individually and collectively (as in through schools and mass media). He is constantly reminded that he wasn't born, but was created by humans in a lab, and has been systematically deprived of love, warmth and human contact including the primary template for all of that which is mother love in early childhood. This is purportedly the reason behind the government's push for extended day care, and why they seem to keep wanting it to begin earlier in life. If you take the child away from the mother before bonding has occurred, you do irreparable damage and hamper their ability to make meaningful connections later in life, which makes them dependent, despondent, and depressive. Thus making them much easier to control. Plus he's been conditioned to depend on artificial rather than real companionship, represented by Joi. Essentially he's the perfect poster boy for dehumanization. While that would be a death knell for a standard Narrative film structure, that's not what Deneuve has made - it's a much more Poetic film, with somewhat of a narrative floating on the surface.
I'm not against silent, inactive protagonists. The coen bros movie The Man Who Wasn't There is a favourite of mine. I consider it 10 times more poetic than 2049, which has a lot of terrible dialogue.
The 'Villain' in BR2049 was so FUCKING pointless. They literally shoehorned him in just to get that Jared actor in to get bums in seats. Absolutely crap character, crap role, crap acting.
agree on the aesthetic take. IT is a gorgeous movie. The production design is spot on. It expands on the Blade Runner universe without cheapening it the way a lot of the Star Wars movies did. But it doesn't have a center. It's like a fake art house movie made for middle bro people to feel good about themselves. A real art house film poses difficult questions. Pushes sex or death or excrement in your face in a way that makes you uncomfortable. The revolutionary part also bothered me. It had the same kind of vibe as those elaborate theiving gangs in hollywood movies. At some point the cost of all the gadgets and specialists needed to pull off the heist will have eaten up so much there is no profit left. And that is the first rule of illegal economy, great risk has to bring great rewards. Thats why drugs cost a lot. The revolutionaries were just cardboard cutouts. As you point out, the messiah figure offered no practical benefits by existing. She couldn't Joan of Arc with them at the front lines. There was not reveal of a brilliant strategic mind. Other movies which invoke revolt, like V for Vendetta, do a very good job of making their case against their oppressors. Overall the movie was enjoyable to watch, but there wasn't any scene that stick in my memory. No 'I want more life'. And you know what, a lot of this I would extend to Dune as well. Beautiful movie. Great sets, great costumes. But I can't remember any pivotal lines being delivered. I think Altered Carbon did a better job at this type of story than 2049.
I think you're forgetting that in the original Bladerunner, only the unhealthy (JF Sebastian) and poor humans couldn't go live in this wonderful offworld place. They never show offworld, but Earth is of course screwed and people can barely survive. In 2049, they can't even eat noodles on the street like Deckard does in the original and instead eat grub worms, no doubt ground up into something more palatable. But yes, I think them teaming up with replicants would have been interesting. Oh, in the original book offworld sucked.
For me, a big test is, do I want to see this again. Answer: No. I often revisit at least some scenes of the original, though. There are many classic, meaningful scenes due to the relationships depicted and the Hero's Dilemma, which is big. Plus the acting, cinematography and of course, writing.
Cinematically Blade Runner 2049 is a visual masterpiece. I really don't remember much about the plot because as a huge fan of cinematography I was watching the camera work and lighting very carefully.
I didn't find this video as fun as some of your others. I share many opinions on 2049 that you do, but i feel that it's more enjoyable when you talk about movies you like rob!
Hi, Rob. Not trying to change your mind - I also found the film exasperating - but one part of it which I *did* think worked, on a subtextual level, was the use of holograms in the desert scene. So, my take, which I offer to you as grist for your mill: Las Vegas (assuming it is LV), it has pyramids (like LA), and giant sexualised images of women (like LA), only its effigies are statues rather than holograms, a throwback to a more analogue age, maybe? LV is all about nostalgia. In LA, the mediated images are not ones that we recognise, they do not fetishise the past as we do today, possibly because all of our music and movies they could get nostalgic about were lost in The Blackout. But here, in Las Vegas, the past is ever-present. Sinatra croons from a domed holographic juke-box, while life-size holograms of Elvis and Marilyn and Liberace play interminably on repeat, trapped like gifs; all showing that here, at least, 20th century culture survived The Blackout. It's not insignificant that the song Elvis is performing is Suspicious Minds, with its repeated refrain "We're caught in a trap, I can't walk out, Because I love you too much, baby". Just a thought. Take it or leave it.
