Oh. Dang. My bad.
Rachel DIDN’T have green eyes. Her eyes were brown. Deckard was lying to him. He was saying, you built me an imperfect reproduction of the woman I loved. But what he was REALLY saying, was, you can’t manufacture me another Rachel. There is, was, only one. Which gives more credence and credibility to the argument that while a replicant, she had potentially become self-aware. And her reproductive capabilities was only just a piece of what made her special.

That’s what I was going to say? Or something close to that? Hahaha. I have no idea what point I was going to make there, but there you have it. I’ll glue that into the post. Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes I have too many thoughts running through my head for my own good.

You make a great point about the other. Which, not to get political (as he does anyway), Trump’s tweets after the Las Vegas shooting, vs his tweets after the recent New York terrorist attack. Two totally different responses all hinged on this other that you talk about. The vegas shooter needed psychological help. But yes, people different than us are not people. They are inscrutable. Different. And less than. I personally have preferred the discussion about robots, striving to become men, which, correlates to men, trying to become gods. Trying to overcome our lowly state. Our attempt to overthrow our creator, which wasn’t obliquely reference in BR1, but literally called out and literally happened. Right? But they are similar strains off of the same sheet of music.

Regarding to whether Deckard is a replicant or not, it’s brilliantly addressed in the movie: when K asks if the dog is real, Deckard says “I don’t know”, making a “I don’t care, stop asking silly questions, if it walks like a dog, barks like dog, then that’s good enough for me, plus it drinks whiskey, that’s a dream dog right there”. Which I think is the viewpoint the film makers want the audience to adopt: if one wants to be human and acts human, than one IS, and no one has the right to say otherwise, even when one isn’t human. Very democratic, it doesn’t matter where you’ve come from, what matters is who you are.

I thought the original Blade Runner dealt with the Other: the one who talks different, looks different, is aggresive, we have no problem disregarding their wishes and treat them harshly (read: all the people we have killed over thousands of years), the one who isn’t We. In the movie, we recognize that the Other is so similar to We, we wonder whether we are good people when we kill them. In 2049, everyone whose presence we enjoy is non human, and their struggles and hopes are real. But I couldn’t connect with them, instead I watched a beautiful rebellion of the oppressed, that is hopefully inspiring us to become the change that we want to see in the world.

Beautyful movie, I was very engrossed in the world, was not bored one second, even when things were illogical (K fails his baseline test, which means he is no longer controllable and he may kill anyone with his super human strengh, and Joshi tells him to run and that she’ ll give him a head start. Why? She only wanted to have sex with him, when did she develop feelings?)

Yeah,
I’ve done quite a bit of reading about the evolution of Deckard as Replicant. I don’t believe it was initially intended for him to be one. Not even Ridley, who is outspoken in his belief that Deckard is a replicant now. Personally, I don’t think it wise for the movie creators to say one way or the other. They should encourage the question, and encourage the enquiry. But they shouldn’t answer it… which many from the writing crew of 2049 and the production crew are saying what they think. Which seems wrong to me.

But yeah, PKD definitely thought Deckard was a human. But if you watch in the screenplay re-writes pieces that identify him as human definitively were dropped in pre-production and never came back. So the evolution of the idea is interesting. Yeah, I agree with you “Mr. Archer” that 2049 lacked Dick’s cleverness, or you put it better, wry sense of irony, or humor? Something like that. Which I agree with. But it was clever all the same. If you create a sequel after 30 years, you better freaking give me a reason to watch… and they really did. A child is brilliant. Reminds me of the movie Uncanny which I recommend you watch highly. Just a three “person” play almost – but it boils this idea down to its absolute core and then makes a movie from that.

Thanks for the compliment Tim. I always like your thoughtful and insightful comments. You have a canny (see what I did there) knack for keeping me honest. But oh how I adored this movie. Set up an interesting idea about man struggling against his creator and I am in every single time. Just such a perfect analogy to life in general and our existential crises. But maybe that’s just me.

It seems the movie gives a huge tell when both K and Decker run from danger in a scene. K easily runs through a wall but Deckard cannot and has to take a longer route.

If you’ve read every book and short story by PKD, you’ll know he mostly wrote stories in which “robots” become more humane (not necessarily more human) than humans.

In the end scenes of the first Blade Runner, the depth of what was occurring and witnessed by Deckard, took place as the replicant knew he was near dying…although the replicant’s tears were obscured by the torrential rainfall. The release of the dove he held was a symbolic of his consciousness ending.

This sequel was darker yet did not disappoint but it seems less based on PKD’s writings. The movie lacked his wry sense of humor he often creatively added to futuristic scenarios.

I always like your take on movies, Taylor. This one is particularly a good read. Admittedly, I also briefly wondered if Deckard was a replicant while watching this sequel.

Hey Charles,
Obviously if you are fully and totally emotionally attached to the original (which, I would argue I am as well) then you are going to have a hard time swallowing really anything outside the confines of the first movie.

I personally saw the baby as a simple way to push a simple question, which was, what does it mean to be human? Freedom? Independent thought? Moral agency? Reproductive abilities? Which just furthers the meta-conversation from the first one perfectly. That movie talked about a robot uprising determined not to die – and killing their own creator. Which is just a veiled discussion about human limitations and our own attempt to kill God. Our own attempt to live forever. No? So you add the ability to procreate to the discussion and things get all kinds of interesting.

But just from a story standpoint I bought it. I liked where the screenplay writers went with it. I totally understand where you are coming from. Thanks for not throwing anything at me even though we don’t necessarily agree! hahaha.

Thanks Dave,
There is a large school of thought that the 7 prototypes were more life like in every way… (including by not limited to the now known reproductive capabilities), but also in strength and limitations. And now that we’ve seen 30 years into the future we know they also age realistically too! hahaha. But you make a good argument either way. Obviously not everyone is going to believe that Deckard is a replicant. Those people are all idiots. But that’s irrelevant to the discussion! hahah.

Thanks again Dave…
Taylor

Excellent blog on BR2049 Taylor!