BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Ryan Gosling & Harrison Ford

[Drz]

Ryan Gosling is such a nice jacket salesman, I really liked the shearling jacket he wore in the trailer.

[MikeP]

Blade Runner is my all time favorite movie so...

Yeah, I'm going to see how the review and general buzz is. Its not like it will change the original in any way (even though the original has several versions... the final being the best though).

Regarding Deckard being a replicant... he's not. I don't care what Ridley Scott says. Harrison Ford says he played him as a human, the screenwriter said he was human. RS only "confirmed" it decades after the movie, and it was more of a "sure, why not?". Deckard being a replicant adds nothing to the original narrative, and in fact it would go against the themes of the movie.

[Dr Quinch]

Regarding Deckard being a replicant... he's not. I don't care what Ridley Scott says. Harrison Ford says he played him as a human, the screenwriter said he was human. RS only "confirmed" it decades after the movie, and it was more of a "sure, why not?". Deckard being a replicant adds nothing to the original narrative, and in fact it would go against the themes of the movie.

That doesn't explain the origami unicorn though?

[MikeP]

That doesn't explain the origami unicorn though?

Possibly, but the Origami Unicorn is so vague it can mean anything. But I do concede it is the strongest evidence for Deckard being a replicant.

My objection is more thematic. To me, if he is a replicant, it negates his character arc. It just makes no sense to me.

[TomServofan]

Blade Runner is my all time favorite movie so...

Yeah, I'm going to see how the review and general buzz is. Its not like it will change the original in any way (even though the original has several versions... the final being the best though).

Regarding Deckard being a replicant... he's not. I don't care what Ridley Scott says. Harrison Ford says he played him as a human, the screenwriter said he was human. RS only "confirmed" it decades after the movie, and it was more of a "sure, why not?". Deckard being a replicant adds nothing to the original narrative, and in fact it would go against the themes of the movie.

It's my favorite movie for 25 years since i rented it when i was 10 and even saw the 92 re-issue when i was 11 in theaters of the DC and had versions of the soundtrack on CD for years and my first DVD purchase in 1999 and my first blu-ray purchase with all versions in 2008. This sequel could be interesting and does have a talented filmmaker no doubt.

[chamber-music]

Ridley Scott flat out confirmed it.

Ridley, Harrison and Frampton are still arguing about this.

While they were making the sequel they went out for dinner and had a passionate argument about it according to the director Denis. Harrison and Frampton still believe deckard is human.

Denis said he will keep it ambiguous so it seems like it will remain open to opinion.

[ChaoticScholar]

That doesn't explain the origami unicorn though?

I saw it as Gaff giving them a pass

[Dr Quinch]

I saw it as Gaff giving them a pass

As did I but it also obviously relates to the dream sequence earlier in the film, which would suggest that Ridley Scott always had the replicant angle in mind even if he ultimately chose to leave it slightly ambiguous.

[Da Boat]

I'm no Gosling fan but the music alone makes me giddy as Hell.

[Indian Ink]

In the first released cut I'd read the tinfoil unicorn as a reference to the medieval stories as to how you catch them. Which requires a young beautiful virgin. Gaff, I'd thought, was teasing that Deckard was being the unicorn and Rachael the virgin.

I'd prefer to keep it this way. If Deckard is a replicant then Roy Batty loses his dying moment of grace when he saves and spares Deckard's human life. He turns from being a murderer to seeing that all life is precious, even that of his enemy, and the dove is released upon his death to fly heavenwards as his redeemed soul. If Deckard is a replicant then Roy Batty has merely saved one of his own. Deckard also loses later if he's not human, because he's not crossing the transgressive tribal lines to love someone he knows is a replicant. He ceases to be a human risking everything for love and pretty much becomes just another replicant on the run.

[Bl00dwerK]

I plan to see it.

[GigiFusc]

Been head scratching over this for a while now. I just don't understand the need for this sequel that no-one asked for. Ultimately, the reason for its existence is to cash in on an old IP that is valued so highly by its huge cult following that millions across the world will go to see it for no other reason other than it's title.

This film can never live up to the hype of its prequel. It's pretty much impossible. Even if they make a decent film (which I doubt they can) it simply cannot fulfill the imaginations of the fanbase who all have their own version of what they want from it. In that way, it's similar to Star Wars - any new movies just cannot stand next to the success of the originals.

I'll go to see it as I'm one of those millions. I'll try my best to keep an open mind but already, I can see this being pretty shite.

[chamber-music]

I don't think people were clamouring for a direct sequel but another film in that universe isn't an unwelcome idea.

[GigiFusc]

I don't think people were clamouring for a direct sequel but another film in that universe isn't an unwelcome idea.

yeh, i'd agree with that.

[Mia]

There are a few mini pre-quel films up on Youtube about the film.

This one:



Which takes place roughly 3 years after the main film. And demonstrates why the Replicant program was shut down. Yes the clip clearly falls into the well worn allegories/tropes about rebellious slaves and fear of immigrants. But it's still interesting to watch.