Bladerunner 2049er Spoiler

If you have something to say about specific Bladerunner 2049 plot points, then this is the place.

If you haven’t yet seen the film and don’t want it spoiled, then proceed with extreme caution.

40 thoughts on “Bladerunner 2049er Spoiler

  1. I say first that I thought it was an ok film, no novel baggage this time.

    As previously mentioned I thought the baby plot was just dumb. You can grab dna from bones and later in the film they had Deckard so the most of the corporation shenanigans seemed a bit pointless. Also not breeding doesn’t make you more or less human so the Replicants thinking breeding makes you human was rather silly as well.

    The Replicant rebel army really comes out of nowhere in the last third of the film, yes there is is some foreshadowing when the street walker gatecrashes K’s apartment but for most of the film there are just not there.

    I just didn’t’ care about any of the characters except the hologram and the dog.

    • Oh and the women characters get a pretty shoddy deal in this film.

      ..and I can’t argue with people claiming the future portrayed in this film is very white…

  2. Counterpoint:

    “Baby plot:” I actually thought it was a pretty damn clever connection to Deckard and Rachel. It also kept me guessing, as K searched for clues, believing it was him. I didn’t get hung up on the science-y mumbo jumbo, because it wasn’t glaring Sci-Fi bullshit. Maybe they needed more than just a saliva swab from Decker (maybe there’s a cut scene of Love approaching him with a specimen cup and a dirty magazine?) Wallace also clearly wanted info on the baby’s whereabouts from Deckard, and I’m sure he wanted to get him as the bio-dad into the lab too.

    The Replicants’ view of a born being was a spiritual thing for them. Spirituality and logic rarely line up. Robin Wright also thought it was a big deal. They’re clearly emotional, self-aware beings, but are treated like subhuman slave labor. Both sides seem to feel that a Replicant baby would change everything.

    “The Replicant rebel army really comes out of nowhere in the last third of the film:” agreed.

    “I just didn’t care about any of the characters except the hologram and the dog:” K and Deckard are incredibly sympathetic. So is Love.

    Treatment of POC: Yes, the future in this movie is strangely predominantly white.

    Women: Wallace has the most power and control, but it’s Love, Robin Wright’s police chief, and the Replicant underground leader who run all of the action.

    Wallace does destroy two Replicant women who proves to be biologically useless to him – – but isn’t that more of an indictment of our culture than a strike against the film?

    • This will be backward in reference to my post below … but this is a thought on some of the things you guys talked about.

      One of the things I REALLY liked about this picture was that it was NOT 30 years in our future … it was 30 years in the Blade Runner Universe’s future.
      Did any of you notice, when the giant ballerina holograms were dancing down the street, near their base was a text and a banner that said something about being the Property of the CCCP. I took that as meaning that in THEIR universe the Soviet Union remained a player for quite some time. Also, the tech was not based on 30 years later from what WE have … it was based on the tech from the original Blade Runner universe. I thought that this was a pretty cool creative decision on someone’s part.
      BTW – the whole “very white future” could be explained with that. It’s just not OUR branch of the timeline. It’s theirs.

  3. OKay, I ‘ll start with what I liked about this film’s concept –
    Plot wise, I was intrigued with the fact that there were no flat-out “good guys” and even many of the “Bad” guys were acting altruistically.
    – K’s boss wanted to kill the child and all trace of it, not because she was an evil person but because she honestly felt that she was protecting the human’s of earth.
    – The blind guy, Tyrell v.2, whose name I can’t remember he thought that humanity was doomed unless it spread to other star systems and to do that he was going to need an army of tools that could reproduce, out in the field, by themselves. Sure he seemed to be driven a bit mad by the fact that he just couldn’t make the science work but again, he seemed to be driven by a need to save what he viewed as “humanity”. That he could “retire” a replicate with such disregard for it as an “person” … I can see as how he was there when the chemicals were mixed and poured into the Easy Bake oven (or what ever) he knows how these “things” were made. How could he have more sentiment for them then you would have for a clay pot you had made, especially if you had made 10’s of thousands of them.
    – K himself, I was rooting for him but I had to keep reminding myself that his job was to kill the child if he found it and to kill Deckard.
    – The rebel Replicants. We were pulling for them to escape and get to live but there in the end of the film the leader clearly states that they intend to get their kind to rise up and have a WAR with the humans. So that would make it seem that if THEY win, humanity looses.

    This lack of being spoon feed a “these people are right and these are the wrong people” … I liked that. I leaves you to ponder humanity and what it really is without forcing their answers on you. I also suspect that this lack of clear cut good guys and bad guys will make the film very un-reachable for the average American movie goer. 🙁

  4. The “Baby Plot”.
    I loved this. One of the things I remembered from the original was that Rachel was a special model and Deckard… well it never even occurred to me that he was a replicant until the internet came along and people started talking about that. So the idea that they did in fact manage to conceive doesn’t bother me in the least … although I can say that I did not see that coming!
    It never even bothered me in the least that Wallace couldn’t make the little bit of DNA they got from the hair and bones (I think they even said the DNA was brittle??? not sure) work to produce a birthing replicant. After all, this guy was supposed to be super smart and having tried for years he had failed enough times to go a bit mmmad. As for why he couldn’t just quite when he had Deckard. I think he was over come with his desire for the data. I’d make a “blinded by science” joke but , well he already was blind.
    Also … perhaps Deckard was just normal for his model. Maybe it was the female that had the special mojo needed to reproduce? Who knows. I’m just happy that none of that bothered me.

    • This rubbed me up the wrong way in original film because in the book Rachel is not special and is part of a plot to fuck up bounty hunters like Deckard.

  5. Oh … another thing –
    Holographic overlay sex with a seemingly sentient AI was one of the more uncomfortable and disorientatingly disturbing things I have seen in a while. I don’t even know where to start.
    How about “Too many Arms” for starters!

    • Yeh. The whole “what exactly makes one human” question ran through-out the movie.
      Wallaces’ complete inability to feel empathy for his creations would cause some to say HE wasn’t human.
      Then there was the avatar who exhibited emotion, empathy, a desire to meet her lovers needs and in the end, sacrificed her own safety for K’s. MANY of the characteristic one would say you have to have to be “human”. In some way she was the most human character.
      I love that this film didn’t present a hard question as easy.

  6. Some more stuff I’m left pondering ( days later and I am still thinking about this film)-
    – Was K’s avatar actually spying on him/ tracking him for Wallace?

    – Was the Replicant that Wallace gutted, supposed to be a failed attempt to make a “birthing capable” Replicant with the DNA they had gathered from Rachael’s remains? I can’t remember where that scene occurred in the time line but I think it was after they had retrieved the remains from the police.

    – What was the significance of using the theme from “Peter and the Wolf” to announce the avatar’s presence?

    – Was the implication that “human’s” couldn’t survive the radiation if they lived in Vegas?

  7. OK. I finally saw the film. My thoughts to all that is above.

    The “baby plot”. The main concepts behind the original book and the first movie seems to center on “what constitutes making something alive and not, therefore, OK to kill?”. It can’t be memories, because those can be implanted. Etc. It ran so deep that you didn’t even know if Deckard was “alive” or not. It’s one of the things I really liked about the movie at the time. The ability to procreate certainly adds another layer to the philosophy behind that. As I think someone else mentioned, there is not much in the way or right or wrong on this concept in the new movie. Lots of people have opinions and there is no telling who is right or wrong because (as in real life) there is not absolute on such things. Only opinion. I’m definitely digging that.

    The Hologram is a great addition because this keeps with the the entire concept of what makes something “alive”. She doesn’t even have a body that can physically interact with things, yet we (at least I anyway) felt she was more alive than Luv. So, what makes someone alive?

    I agree that keeping Deckard’s status still a mystery is fantastic. Totally keeping in line with the rest of the concepts.

    “Although you could argue that since Nexus 8’s were the ones with ‘normal’ aging, then Deckard has to be human” No, no, no. Rachel was “special” including the normal life span. And there are a lot of implications (happily continued in the new movie) that Rachel and Deckard might have been build as a pair or that Deckard was (at the very least) built after Rachel. So, Deckard could easily have a normal life span. If so, it could be why Wallace needs either the baby or at least Deckard and Rachel BOTH to move forward (hmmmm, sperm with serial numbers stamped in the sides? the mind boggles).

    The DNA thing. I could go either way on this. After seeing serial numbers at the molecular level and guys in fantastic cold rooms creating artificial eyes, I think I can let them get away with different DNA running different parts of the bodies. Also could be part of why he would need the child and not just the Deckard and what-he-could-copy-from-Rachel pair.

    Women characters in the film. I absolutely don’t understand what the problem is. Apart from Wallace, the most powerful characters in the film are women. Sure, there are women that are in positions of a lack of power (e.g., the prostitutes), but there are men in positions of lack of power as well. Certainly K starts out very much in a lack of power position.

    White-washing. Pretty much. The original film (although nearly every main character was white) did a better job of at least portraying an Asian-centric population in the near “future” of LA.

    Sub-human slave labor. Although I can see how it plays into the “what is actually alive” scenario. I think it overwhelmed the issue. I don’t remember that being a key part of the first movie and it seems like something wedged in to get yet another topic talked about.

    “I love that this film didn’t present a hard question as easy.” I think this is a continuation of the slave labor thing. It was the only part of the movie that seemed to spoon feed the audience. Well… if they were made to be SLAVES, then it must be wrong and they must be alive. A bit of overkill.

    Wallace’s disregard for replicants. I don’t picture Tyrell doing anything like that. But, I think they have created a madness in Wallace that didn’t exist in Tyrell. No idea there.

    “as someone who doesn’t have children I got angry at the notion that breeding make you human.” I think it’s less that you personally can/will/choose-to/etc. breed is less important than that your species can breed.

    “Was the implication that “human’s” couldn’t survive the radiation if they lived in Vegas?” I’m pretty sure when K was doing the scan of the area there was a message on the screen that say something like “radiation levels normal”. I think Deckard just figured out he could live in the area and it was so far removed from LA that others just chose not to live there. Best that I don’t think too much about these things.

    • I have to agree about the “Female Character” thing.
      This full was full of females who were “strong” in one way or another.
      The police lady was clearly in control and tough and believed herself to be doing a heroic thing. She was killed by another female character who was a strong and dangerous as any male character in the film. Then there was the “child”, who it turns out was some sort of super genius in her field … rich and clearly successful.
      Seems to me that all the male characters in this film were either crazed, criminals, menial workers or K (what ever he was).

      Interesting side tangent on this is the feeling I got, that just about the only people left on earth are the “wretched refuse” of humanity. Those who didn’t have the skills or money to get “off world”.
      If most of the “entertainment” seemed tailored towards males would that indicate that males and specifically white, straight males have ended up as surplus and holding little value and as such – have been left behind?


  8. I promised to add my two cents here. I have to admit, I skimmed through a few of your responses, so some of mine may contrast or reiterate. Sorry about that. I’ll go back and read more thoroughly in a bit.

    I really liked the little nods to the first movie: the symbolism of Mariette’s hat in reference to Pris, the random Pan Am building reappearing, Gaff and his origami, the extreme and constant weather. Those were clearly slipped in for the fans and those little Easter eggs are what make a movie more enticing to me.

    I could have done without so much appreciation of the female form. While some of it was expected, it seemed gratuitous at some point. The cinematography was pretty amazing and I have recommended people see it at the theater just for that reason. There are some scenes you just should see on the bigger screen. And the scene with the Nexus 8s on display was sufficiently creepy.

    As for the plot, it intrigued me on the triple front. The baby was symbolic for two of the factions. I interpreted it to be that what was expected to be soulless (the replicant) could create something with a soul. The spirit was important to both Wallace and the Resistance. He destroyed one of the Replicants because he endeavoured to make her be able to carry life. He was aiming to play God. The Resistance were seeking their value in society, no longer to be slaves. For K, it was kind of a Pinocchio syndrome. Is he a real boy? Are these real memories? I did not put together everything until the end. That’s what a good mystery does for me. It keeps me guessing.

    I saw white washing a lot in the comments. I think that was done purposefully. Not to say white people are superior, but to make the palette as neutral as possible so that the director could make the distinction between the Replicants (old model/new model) and their emotionless slavery and duty and not be compared to historical events. He could have easily chosen another race, but then he already had a base with Harrison Ford and Sean Young.

    I might have to see the movies back to back when I get a chance.

    Oh, and for me, the hotel scene answers a few questions that have been debated for years pretty definitively. I’m trying to find the loopholes that others are finding, but I’m having a hard time.

  9. I have to say I had mid-level expectations for this film. Much like “The Matrix” I couldn’t see a path forward for a film that basically answer’s its core message the first time around. The fact that Hampton Fancher wrote the screenplay (who also did most of the work on the original) gave me home. I have to say I really liked it. Having read a lot of reviews, many claimed it was slow and boring. I agree that the pacing could have been slightly faster, but much like the original, most of the action takes place in the mind of the viewer. There’s a deep mystery in what is going on in the mind of K. His outward quiet visage a mask to his inner discontent. He is resigned to his fate as a tool for the police. But, he gets lonely. He longs for a deeper connection with Joi, but feels the imposition of his and Joi’s artificial existence when she glitches or receives a phone call. At the beginning it is portrayed like K has settled for a love that is less than real and as the movie moves on you learn that Joi’s and K’s love for each other is genuine. The limits of their existence was forced on them by a cruel culture that sees them as product. That is brilliant story telling. The art direction and visual aspects of the film are top notch. I found myself wondering if it was a little too good. Some of the grittiness of the first Blade Runner is lost in the polish of a bigger budget, but I don’t know what the producers could have done differently without aping the first movie too closely. I didn’t noticed the supposed “white washing” other had complained about. The demographics seemed the same as the first film with a noticeable drop in the number of Asians. The farm at the beginning of the movie had buildings with Russian words on them. This seems to imply a Russian emergence over a Japanese one that occurred over the last 30 years. On the topic of female nudity and exploitation I found it consistent with the culture of the first movie. It is titillating and horrible at the same time, exploitation is a key narrative of the film and the violence and subjugation of the female replicates is a good representation of it. My take away is that the continued sexual exploitation of the female form (and thus women in general) shows the audience that the culture of 2049 hadn’t evolved and was corrupt. Perhaps the willingness to be so exploitative of women shows a lack of empathy. The lack of empathy is symptomatic of the cruel treatment of replicants. I really enjoyed Deckard saying that “He knows what is real.” This seems like a gut punch to Ripley making such a big deal about Deckard being a replicant when it is irrelevant to the story. My minor nitpicks are pacing could have been a little tighter. I would have liked a little more character development for the antagonists in the movie. I find all the 10/10 and 1/10 reviews on IMDB pretty hilarious. One of the more polarizing movies to come out in years. My score 8/10.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *