The ‘Blade Runner 2049’ trailer.

I started up the video, expecting to hate it. I was happy to hate it, although I’m blessed if I can figure out which Blade Runner is the true Blade Runner, even assuming that that even means anything anymore. And yet: it has promise. Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel, not a reboot. And, shoot: it has Harrison Ford in it.  That suggests… possibilities.

11 thoughts on “The ‘Blade Runner 2049’ trailer.”

  2. I’ve always contend that Deckard is NOT a Replicant for several good reasons:
    .
    1) There is no hard proof (in any version), only very thin circumstantial evidence. A folded unicorn is not proof.
    .
    2) Deckard is substantially weaker. Why would Bryant send out a weak Replicant against stronger Replicants?
    .
    3) Speaking of Bryant, once Rachael leaves the Tyrell Corporation building, he tells Decker to “retire” Rachael.
    .
    4) Roy saves Decker in the end. This act changes Decker, because the next thing you see is Decker racing home to get Rachael.
    .
    As long as Decker is human, all of this has meaning. However if Decker is a Replicant, then this movie is just Replicants doing stuff to other Replicants.

    2. All good points. I personally thinks the story just works better and is easier to invest in if Deckard is human. More understandable. More tragic. Just better story.
      –
      Man who kills runaway replicants falls for a runaway replicant.
      –
      I hate to say this though, but this movie could be falling prey to modern mores, where the better story is just the persecuted minority fighting persecution, rather than just ‘a better story.’

      1. The tragedy is that Deckard does not know he’s a replicant. (But by the end if the movie, he almost certainly strongly suspects.)

        1. I think the ambiguity allows people to make their own part of the story- and makes it a better one. It engages the audience and allows them to make the movie theirs. Then they can discuss it with friends and argue with about it online on comment strings.
          –
          Simply removing that ambiguity kind of takes some of the magic away from the story.

    3. 1) No proof, but lots of circumstantial evidence that implies it. Not to mention that in the story the movie was adapted from, Deckard was solidly established as a replicant.
      .
      2) Flipping the coin, why would you want a replicant that’s more powerful than humans, if you want him to believe he’s human. Also, he’s armed.
      .
      3) Just noting that Rachel did not know that she was a replicant either. And following the order would have shown a pronounced lack of empathy.
      .
      4) True, but that has no bearing on whether Deckard is a replicant. Roy saving Deckard solidly established that Replicants can possess empathy.
      .
      5) You’re making a category error. Robots and androids in fiction are very common instruments for exploring what it means to be human. Which was the central theme of the story, after all.

      1. 1) The movie and book are stand alone works. If you can’t make your case by using what is in the movie, then you have no case.
        .
        2) Do you even read what you write? You know how silly you sound?
        .
        3) Decker didn’t have a chance to follow the order to retire Rachel, Leon attacked.
        .
        4) No one said that Replicants couldn’t feel empathy, that’s why they limited their lifespan.
        .
        5) And all of those stories are about Robots vs Humans. When humans have no stake in the narrative, then why should we care about the outcome or learn the lesson?

        1. 1) There remains plenty of evidence if you exclude the book. But the work does not stand alone. It is based on the book, and Deckard being a replicant is the central theme of the book.
          .
          2) I don’t sound silly at all. If you want a replicant to believe he’s human, he can’t be obviously non-human. A combat model without the planted delusion, who isn’t around humans, doesn’t have that design restriction.
          .
          3) In other words, you’ve got nothing.
          .
          4) Why replicants have a limited lifespan is not addressed in the book or the movie. They’re treated as categorically different in the beginning, but the entire plot is to show them as not so different after all.
          .
          5) And why should we care about the rats of Nimh, or the mice of Redwall? They’re just vermin, after all. :rollseyes

  3. This does seem to end all lingering doubt of whether or not Deckard is a replicant, though.

Comments are closed.