It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Now that we're talking about story logic, for a minute please "indulge me." Can someone tell me why were replicants made so complicated to identify in the first film? I understand them resembling humans as much as possible, but couldn't their design have contemplated an easier way of telling them apart from humans? I remember asking about this once in a forum; can't remember what they said though.
Short of making them look not-human ("More human THAN human" is the sell phrase) I'm not sure what could be done about that.
Well, I'd give quite a bit of leeway on this point because I expect people to be somewhat different after doubling in age. I was just saying that in this film, Ford turned in a great acting performance, not necessarily that he seemed just like Deckard in the original.
Yeah, you're probably right. I looked into this a bit more, and I guess there's a continuity error in one scene of the original where she does have a green eye, but they're otherwise brown. This line may not only have been what you say, but also a cute reference to that.
I loved that scene in "SPECTRE" actually. A new, re-invented, more horrific take on how S.P.E.C.T.R.E. originally killed its members. We couldn't do piranhas anymore, could we?
|Re identifying replicants, Tyrell wanted to create a replicant who was so close to human that they did not know themselves. (why he did this, who knows but sometimes power brings "the God complex") , so to do this, you need to have no distinctions that the subject can identify. QED Racheal thought she was human (why should she not?) as she had no proof she wasnt (back to our religious thread re requiring proof of a postive or a negative). Based on that scenario, how do any of us prove we are human? what proof is expected? what exactly is "human"? any of us could be a replicant? this whole thing could be inside a computer (Matrix scenario),
so perhaps Tyrell thought he was God and Rachael was his Eve (he did say she was special with no termination date,) and Batty and his team were just below that (they obviously knew the were replicants), its all great stuff, science fiction brings deep philosophy to the movie screen, ...love it.
PS with cloning and embryo manipulation etc etc, humans are getting closer to being God, so the original was way ahead of its time.
PPS to those who prefer the follow up, (obviously they have every right to that view) but surely the original deserves more resepct in that it actually was new? It created a whole new world and a whole look that influenced so many others. Dont we need to give it credit for that? If we end up not giving movies credit for being new and creative, then we reward ourselves with a whole future just full of sequals.
I don't think Ridley Scott's future vision has ever been equalled. It was a serious and dangerous future, but also exciting and all too real.
I like the new film, but it's only emulating Scott's original vision. Yes it's beautifully shot and the set design is incredible. But it's not an original vision.
I'm actually a little pissed at the critics fawning all over this film when the original was virtually ignored on it's release.
Blade Runner 2049 is not a five star film, I don't care what anyone says. It's an excellent film but also has flaws. It's a wonderful sequel to the original. But it merely follows in the footsteps of greatness and innovative cinema.
Well said
This is coming from someone who had just recently seen the original Blade Runner next to 2049.
For example, K's arch is a lot more fulfilling and tragic than that of Rachel and/or Roy. The idea of what it means to be a human is much better implied (Rain scenes, snow scenes, K going against the grain, Stelline being human yet trapped in a world of only artificial experiences). I think it does better justice to DADOES too.
That's not too say BR is a bad film. It's a masterpiece in it's own right, but I think the original Ghost in the Shell was a better film.
What really made the original a classic was it's mood. It's visuals. Villeneuve amped up the visuals (I mean come on the sync between the prostitute and Joi was incredible) AND the story. Executed perfectly.
The ending of 2049 can't even begin to compare with Roy Batty's final moments. Even with the same piece of music playing.
I elaborated.
I disagree.
The tragedy which is Roy is that he finally became free from being a slave, and went out to confront his mortality in front of his creator, the same way a child would in the same scenario. And in the end when Roy was chasing Deckard, he saves him, and faces his death before he dies, stating that, essentially, life sucks... his memories can't be saved. But he's wrong. Deckard cries and in that moment sealed that Roy would be remembered. In that moment Deckard realised a replicant can feel human without being human.
In 2049 we follow K in a similar way. He starts off as a cog in the wheel, but you can see his longings to being a human through his interactions with Joi. His line to Joshi about "souls", you can see it bothers him when she says he doesn't have one. And the fact that he keeps thinking about the line:
"You newer models are happy scraping the SHIT because you've never seen a miracle"
Villeneuve shows us this, whereas Ridley Scott tells us this. And his display of it is a lot better imo. Especially when he finds out the connection to the bones, the memory confirming they aren't fabricated. He goes out in the snow and feels the snow in his hands. He FEELS like he knows what it's like to be a human.
And of course, spoiler, he learns he is not human born and he is crushed. But he learns later, after saving Deckard, that it doesn't matter. He finally became free of being "a cog in the wheel" and saved Deckard becoming "more human than human". Now when he's in the snow dying, unlike Roy, he dies knowing his memories and his actions will live on forever, and feels the snow in his hands for one last time. In this moment he knows whether he's human or not doesn't matter because he feels alive. Ironic, considering the Stelline is more real but has never had the real human experiences K had.
That's why I feel K's arch is better than Roy's; it feels a lot deeper to me. But that's my opinion.
That's the feeling I got as well.
I don't think either of them planned on her being in that glass room. Rachel died in childbirth and Deckard went away to protect them. I don't think Deckard even knew the gender of his child.
See? Knew it'd be something obvious - though Deckard did know, because K is operating under the impression the entire film that the boy escaped and the girl died from a genetic disorder, which Deckard tells K about later on when he mentions how he taught them how to cover their tracks.
It's a bad habit but I cant help feeling how they could have made it a better film and IMHO, it keeps coming back to the story. It really does plod along.
So imagine if there was a twist at the end and it turns out the whole thing was a bluff re her death and Rachael appears at the end? your mouth would drop, surely? It needed something like that...something draw dropping.
Well, beyond the film's analysis of what it means to be human, the fact is, in the world of the film, a replicant is someone who was made by Tyrell and a human is someone who wasn't. My point was that replicants could've been made that had something different inside them --technological, biological or otherwise-- that allowed blade runners to more easily identify them, something that other people and/or the replicants themselves couldn't identify, and something that didn't have any noticeable bearing on the behavior of these replicants. If the whole replicant technology was relevant enough in the world of the film to merit the existence of blade runners, I don't see why Tyrell couldn't have been pressured by the government to include such a feature in his replicants. I'm just arguing from a logic standpoint. For example --once again, just speculating here, so this could be way off base-- something that could've helped to distinguish replicants from humans could've been the emission of an odor that humans couldn't detect without the help of some machine. That, or nanotechnology. It just seems to me the idea behind the Voight-Kampff test performed by blade runners was not by design, but an accidental discovery.
It's the eyes. It's one of the main themes of both movies actually.
In the first movie they used different lighting techniques on the replicants eyes to make them look different from the humans (more shiny) in BR2049 you see at the very beginning, when K fights Batista, that his eye has a serial number (and not just on the eyes as seen when they examine Rachels bones)
I think that might even be the reason why Freysa is missing here eye, as it is never explained really. maybe she wanted to get rid of that mark