Just got back and I thought it was a fantastic sequel - I just loved being back in that world again and they absolutely nailed it visually, gorgeous to look at throughout.

The more I think about the plot, the more irked I get... so I can understand the frustrations of others.

I've not read any of the proceeding posts as trying to a avoid spoilers. One simple question, if you haven't watched BR1 or forgotten most of it. Will that detract from the experience of the sequel?

I'd argue that it absolutely would detract although it does provide the backstory like Chopper says.

Let's talk about BladeRunner, because the history of BladeRunner is interesting.

For decades people have argued over the ambiguity of Deckards origins. Is he a replicant? Is he human?
It's an interesting discussion, but not for the reasons people think. It's a discussion that's actually based around the nature of memory, and this is interesting because that's one of the central themes of the original film.
There is no ambiguity at all, it's just that memories have been altered as the years have passed and the film has been tinkered with.
In the original film, which I saw when I was about seventeen, Deckard is human, he's categorically not a replicant, and this is interesting because he's a human who falls in love with a replicant. End of story.

This story stood for well over a decade, which is a long time in terms of cinema. During that period there was no talk ever of Deckard being a replicant, and during that period I saw the film many times.

Then something changed.
It was the early 90's and I remember reading in Empire that someone had come up with a work print of the film and there were suggestions that Deckard was a replicant. At the time Scott disowned this version, and when quizzed about the new Deckard theory, would flat out deny it.

But that print was screened and grew traction with fans of the film. What followed was a decade of tinkering by Scott and a lot of revisionist positing that culminated in him finally stating that yes, Deckard is a replicant, he was always a replicant, and if you can't see that then you're a moron. Oh really?
And this is where the faux ambiguity of BladeRunner stems from. Scott had released a final version of the film (as well as a director's cut a couple of years prior that was largely the same as that) that now categorically positioned Deckard's character as being a replicant. Now that's quite a big WTF, because for the original audience, this was never the case, and it throws up more problems than it solves, because Deckard being a replicant changes every single action from eating noodles to drinking whisky that his character makes in the film. It's actually quite problematic, because you're effectively retro-fitting a breathtaking change into something that was never written that way.

The origins of the story are lost in the mists of hazy memories too. The two original screenwriters can't remember coming up with the Deckard is a replicant idea, and instead tell a tale of universally mistaking each others contributions, and originally the unicorn dream sequence was apparently shot, although it's worth noting that it was never in the work print, so the idea must have been shelved as being a bit silly quite early on. The director's cut apparently used shots from the unicorn from Scott's fantasy film Legend. However the final cut apparently has a restored version of what was shot for BladeRunner.

Scott has essentially re-written history, but in the process ended up with something of a fudge because his character was never intended to be anything other than human. Oh, and he's been paid handsomely for his trouble. Convenient that.

So there we have it. The ambiguity of Deckard's character exists not in the films, of which there are essentially two versions. The original film where Deckard is human, and the final cut where Deckard is a replicant. No, the ambiguity lies in the real world and the re-writing of history.

If you grew up with BladeRunner like me, then you'll have a big old soft spot for the original film which is a simple film noir set against a stunning visual backdrop, and Deckard is human.
But if you're of a younger age, the chances are you either haven't seen that version, or certainly didn't see it first, or on a big screen at the cinema, and for you Deckard is a replicant.

It's a philosophical headfuck that's been created by thirty five years of tinkering by an artist who seeing an opportunity, caught the ball and ran with it.

Which brings us to the sequel...

And this is where it gets silly again. There is no ambiguity in BladeRunner: The Final Cut. Ridley Scott's definitive version of the film. Deckard is a replicant.
However, thirty five years have passed and the world has changed. We live in the age of FaceTube and YouBook and always online. An age where mystery and ambiguity are kings, mystery boxes to be opened and endlessly dissected, poked and discussed around the globe. Discussions that go on for ever, because there is no answer and every theory is as valid as the next.
 So now we're in a situation where Scott and Villeneuve sit beside each other and Scott will state that Deckard is a replicant, and Villeneuve will interject and say, actually I don't necessarily think that's the case Ridley...
And this stinks of engineered marketing for the times we live in. Let's keep the discussion going. Let's keep the kettle boiling. But does this service the viewer in any meaningful way? Does it fuck.

I'd argue that Harrison Ford's appearance in BladeRunner 2049 is a bit of a fudge, and would have worked far better if his name hadn't been on the poster, his appearance had been kept secret, and he certainly hadn't appeared in any of the trailers. Because lets be honest, once you've seen him in the trailer, what more does his character actually add to the film once you've seen it. Not terribly much sadly.

For a film about memory and the nature of being human, his appearance in the sequel adds nothing except a bankable face for box office. He's the least interesting aspect of an otherwise thoughtful piece. He is the maltese falcon, but he turns out to be an empty and largely pointless Macguffin. So much more could have been done with his character than what makes it into the film. I see it as a huge missed opportunity. Where has he been for thirty five years? Is he really Deckard? What are his memories? How long does he have left? What were his feelings for Rachael? Why does he seem somewhat ambivalent about having fathered the only replicant child in history? There are just so many interesting places they could have gone with his character. Instead he virtually refuses to answer any questions because we're engineering ambiguity into this thing. M'kay? 
It's a bit of a shame really, because I think Villeneuve is one of a select few directors who would have been genuinely capable of doing really interesting things with his character.

And there we have it. After thirty five years of ambiguity that didn't actually exist, the filmmakers have finally engineered a scenario of genuine ambiguity into their sequel, and artistically (in my opinion) it's a mistake. Financially of course it makes perfect sense.

funny thing memory

g.man

Yeah, bottom line is the sequel is a good film that's treats the original with the respect it deserves. How you view some of it's plotting and themes though is definitely going to be informed by however much baggage you've had to carry from the somewhat muddled journey of the original.

Are there more sequels planned for Bladerunner? I got the impression there would be.

Gamermike wrote:

Are there more sequels planned for Bladerunner? I got the impression there would be.

I personally hope not, but if this one does well there will undoubtably be more.

I've started to hear suggestions that this isn't doing fantasticly financially, which is good because it already exists and it would be cheapen both films if they turned them into a sequel factory.

Vela wrote:

And as an aside, I wonder if we will ever see a film that has aged as well and been regarded as highly as BR in the general "scifi" genre. I can't think of any that touch on philosophical questions in quite the same manner. Maybe The Man from Earth but that gets a bit too fantastical towards the end (and has a sequel out this month too).

I love sci-fi in literary and movie format. I think Alphavile has aged pretty well and Children of Men is embedded with realism throughout which makes it a believable dystopian future. Same could be said for 1984 and the TV version of Handmaiden's Tale. Gattacca could hold true within the next 50 years and be interesting as to whether Annihilation can translate the tone and eerie prose of the book to the big screen.

The bit where they're trying to start the car on that hill has me literally squirming in my seat every time I watch it, even though I know the outcome.

Just seen this. The og Blade Runner flips back and forward with Alien as my favourite film of all time so it had a hard act to follow.
I enjoyed it, definitely, but it still seemed superfluous to me - there's no new ideas that weren't fully explored in the first film, and although it has the looks and the aurals to impress, the narrative felt... Dull. It's far too long, and K's AI girlfriend was a travesty, and what seemed like a plot contrivance for allowing him to talk, without resorting to monologues (shakes fist). There'll be lovely GIFs doing the rounds on Twitter of the visuals, and the ost is will worth a pop, but I am not rushing to see it again any time soon. The original? Probably watch that again tomorrow.

Enjoyed it. A bit too long and some bits were a bit dull, but overall enjoyed it. There are holes and the whole film fels slightly pointless but I love the setting and soundtrack etc. 

Not a patch on the original though. 

And loving G's posts.

I loved the length of it. The pace was very slow. Editing the same. Gave it time to breathe. I can't stop thinking about it. I truly loved it. It absolutely is an unnecessary sequel and at times felt a little vague and empty but the story they told was good and well told.

I very much enjoyed 2049, having watched BR Final cut the day before to jog my memory, and I'm glad I did (I'd only seen BR once before and tbh it didn't leave a huge impression on me back then). I thought that visually it was fantastic, and even the run time wasn't a huge issue. 

Loved K's coat.

Final Cut of BR is unambigious. I love it but if it could have been made ambiguous it would have been better.

Something  could have been made of the scene where Deckard sits at the piano  - it could have hinted at genuine or implanted memories. That would have replaced the dream sequence.