I think it sucked. I hated it.
What are your reasons because I am sure I am not alone.
Jared Leto chewed the scenery too much, and the story was just the cliched “find the one who must fulfill the prophecy” crap we’ve seen in The Matrix and Star Wars prequels.
shareIt didnt suck this is Villeneuves best film it topped the Original
shareI really liked it, it was my favorite movie of 2017. Was it better than the original? I don't know, better in some ways, not as good in other ways.
shareIt didn't suck at all. It just didn't measure up.
Part of the problem is Ridley Scott and the studio's belief that Denis Villanueve is a High-End J.J. Abrams, thus his involvement with revamping this and another movie from the 80s that failed to become a realized franchise.
It didn't suck but it wasn't great either. It was a somewhat lazy cash-in on the Blade Runner name that had moments of being amusing but never really escaped the level of mediocrity. I didn't hate it but saying that isn't exactly a compliment either.
shareScript
shareI really liked it with some exceptions.
K having the Joi girlfriend felt out of place. Maybe it’s a good gimmick for leading first time viewers to buy K’s dream he is the child because it gives him so much humanity. But it makes little sense a replicant would indulge in an electronic inflate-a-date.
Wallace should have been able to sequence Rachel’s DNA and create a breeder. Especially if Deckard is human. Female reproduction is where the complexity is.
The larger problem with Replicant breeding is that it’s pointless. Organic reproduction is slow and imperfect. Replicants should be able to create replicants. Wallace should have no production bottlenecks or limits on expanding to other worlds with Replicants.
I’m also of the mind that the new Westworld has a more interesting take on synthetic beings and intelligence, beyond BR’s genetic engineered clone concept. Westworld goes a lot deeper into consciousness and self awareness than BR really did.
The new Westworld's concept of self-awareness is pretty much the same as both Bladerunner films, it's just using different mechanics (Westworld's is fully synthetic while BR's is bio-engineered), and the Replicants had a quicker pathway to self-realization whereas WW's is based on some blueprint created by Dr Ford that has yet still to be revealed in its entirely (don't expect much with Jar Jar Abrams at the helm). I personally didn't like Season 3 of WW and found it to be a cheap send up of Tron and the Matrix.
I think overall the premise for BR2049 was lackluster and as you pointed out, not really necessary as a scientist like Wallace with the technology at his behest could create a procreating replicant after hundreds, if not thousands, of iterations. We know enough from the first film that the short lifespan was embedded inside the Replicants' DNA so Roy's attempt to reverse it would have required Dr Tyrell's full-scale reproduction to not include that mortality strain. Tyrell just didn't have it in himself to cooperate otherwise he'd still be alive.
Whether the movie is boring or not is not the issue. Coming here with your boring post says it all.
share