Comments by "Ronin Dave" (@RoninDave) on "Blade Runner 2049 - The iPhone of Movie Sequels" video.

but Roy is memorable. He's an antagonist who really is the protagonist the whole time albeit an anti-hero type. His quest for more life makes him very human and relatable. Meeting his creator then killing him in an act of disappointment was like a Greek Myth meets Nietzsche. The final scene is his triumph. He beats his adversary but at the last moment saves him in an act of mercy when he finally accepts his inevitable fate. Roy's struggle is basically humanity's struggle with our awareness of our mortality. Roy's story comes full circle - a fight against inescapable death and a final acceptance of it on his own terms. This is missing in K's story. His death is an accident not an unavoidable one like Roy's. His is a story that would be more fitting in a type of Spielburg's/Kubrick's A.I. story about the sentience and purpose of artificial lifeforms.
16
@MidnightatMidian the question of deckard being a replicant or not was not meant to be a literal but a metaphysical one of what is it to be truly human. Deckard is just like all the other humans in the film - cold and detached and it's only in coming in contact with the replicants and their very human wanting to live does he change.
7
@patmos09 didn't say that about Bladerunner certainly not the original but I was addressing your argument where you are going on about the replicants having feelings and such which was already established in the original so no new ground there. What you are describing is a different film that doesn't really fit Bladerunner the original which didn't need a sequel. The original deals with the themes of humanity and mortality. The question of Deckard for example being human or not was not a literal one but there to make the audience question what it means to be human. Overall the brilliance of the film is that the antagonists really are the protagonists as their quest for longer life is a very human and understandable goal one that has been echoed in many stories since the time of Gilgamesh and the Sumerians. The humans are the unfeeling and uncaring creator gods who made the replicants for single purposes then have them expire with a short life span. The confrontation scene of Roy and his maker Tyrell is such a powerful scene drenched in metaphysical trappings of man meeting his creator then killing that creator in act of agonizing disappointment when robbed of his last chance for some semblance of happiness. And there's the theme of mortality, the irony that even the human creators will also die is inescapable - [no one] lives forever, but then again, who does? Roy Batty after going to great lengths to stay alive finally accepts death and in a final act of humanity shows empathy for his foe. Batty/Hauer's death brings everything together. He is like a futuristic Gilgamesh, a bad character at first who failed in his quest for immortality and finally accepts his inevitable fate with a very human show of mercy. This is what makes Bladerunner transcend what could have been a surface-level sci-fi action story of killer androids and a bitter alcoholic film noir detective tracking them down to exterminate them. With 2049 there's really nowhere to go as the original said what it needed to say and we didn't need more. However in our time of mining the past for creativity, it couldn't be left alone if there was something to make money on so now we have a potential war between replicants and humans which wasn't there before and the chance replicants can have offspring -- um, ok? They did a good job capturing the visual and slow pacing of the original but that's just it, like a JJ Abrams film, it relies too much on the original to be its own original thing and hopes audiences will think it's on the same level like the original. And because many movies today are shallow, it appeals to those wanting something more but it's a cinematic Emperor's New Clothes and unlike the original will be forgotten.
5
@BenignViewer that's a meaningless stretch comparing an inevitable death but at an uncertain time to fast approaching death of limited life span. One of the main reasons a sequel never should have been made is that Bladerunner should never be taken so literally. Bladerunner is more of an existential film, a holdover from 70s style film-making. We're not meant to dig too deeply into it like caring about the ramifications of a hybrid child or peace between humans and replicants. It's a metaphor for mortality. Getting bogged down in details misses the overall point.
3
I think everything that needed to be said was done in Bladerunner. Roy Batty's death scene sealed it. There is no point revisiting that story universe.
3
@BenignViewer unlike Batty who knew he was going to die, K's occurred in the fight which could have had a different result. Batty was fighting against time from the beginning
2
I see the original as more of an allegory of humanity and mortality. The replicants are the humans fighting for more life against their indifferent and cruel creator gods. In the end though Roy Batty shows mercy and a final acceptance of his death which he meets on his own terms. We don't need a sequel to this kind of story.
2
What made Bladerunner work in my opinion was that like good Sci-Fi it was more about themes of humanity rather than the gadgets or its inner world building. Bladerunner dealt with the question of what it means to be human and the question of Decker being a replicant or not is part of this theme. I like the idea of the human acting more robotic than the inhuman replicants he is hunting. The other main theme was dealing with mortality. Roy and his group wanted a longer life span which is a very human trait. You end up sympathizing with the antagonists to the point where Roy Batty really becomes the protagonist at the end. Blade 2049 seems to suffer from a lack of a point in this regard. Its story is too internally focused in its world which is fine for fans but leaves everyone else excluded. A hybrid child (now adult) might cause a war between humans and replicants? Uh, ok...? It's visually stunning but comes off as a hollow imitation of the original because it has nothing really to say in the end.
1
@plbenton huh? My point is there didn't need to be a sequel
1
@BenignViewer you're missing the point entirely
1
changing the life span of the replicants kind of tosses the whole point of the original film in the dumpster. If anything the shorter life span and the conversation with their creator in the first film can be seen as a metaphor of humans begging for immortality from God something that goes all the way back to Gilgamesh. In this film what does re-engineering replicant life spans accomplish except to make it nearly another story entirely?
1
yeah but hasn't the idea of sentient robots, clones, AI etc... already been done?
1
I think admirers of the film being so jaded with modern films wanted to see something deep in this Emperor's New Clothes film.
1