Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Movie • Page 13

I still don't think that's how to interprete what she said. she wasn't talking in a literal sense.

 

I just watched Final Cut. How does it make it pretty damn clear? Didn't get that at all.

 

Perhaps I need to rewatch it, but if I recall correctly it has both the unicorn origami and the insert of the unicorn dream, signifying that it was an implanted memory

 

George Lucas gets all sorts of criticism for adding stuff to the Star Wars trilogy, but Ridley Scott somehow escapes criticism for fundamentally changing Blade Runner multiple times. There is almost no reason to believe Deckard is a replicant based on the original film.

The replicant argument is fun because there is no definitive answer.

 

That's something I still can't figure out. I don't know if it was just her desire to put a little bit of herself in the memory, as she says or if she was hoping to be found. I don't know how much she knows of herself.

Didn't Mackenzie Davis' character also recognize the horse on K's nightstand? But K was the first to actually have a reason to show up at the actual orphanage. There were other reasons I was certain the Replicants all shared some of those memories but I'm kind of buzzed right now and can't pull them.

 

I don't think most of the criticism comes at Lucas because he wants to change the original movie but because he wants to revise history by making it as difficult to possible for fans to see the original version. At least with Blade Runner the three cuts are easily accessible

 

True, but George Lucas does arbitrary stuff like place a rock in front of R2D2. Really George, that’s your ultimate vision? Scott’s amendments change the understanding of the film.

Look, I’m all for ambiguity, I think it leads to interesting conversation. With that said, just going off the Final Cut which, according to Scott, is the version he was finally able to make with out studio intervention, it makes it seem like he’s a replicant.

 

Scott hasn't changed Blade Runner, the studios have. The Final Cut is the only one he had control over/could present it the way he wanted it. That was his intention originally but the studio kept interfering.

and if it avenges Lucas at all, Scott has received a ton of shit for what he's done to the Alien franchise, rightly so.

 

The reason people do not give Scott a hard time is because very few people saw Blade Runner when it first came out and most people dismissed it. If it was one of the most successful movies of all time, like Star Wars, and he fundamentally changed it the way he has, it would be interesting to see if people gave him the same hard time about it.

 

Changing the understanding of the film is the central point. Lucas' changes really don't change the core of the films, absent some of the character development of Han by taking away his first shot against Greedo. Scott's changes, like you mention, fundamentally change what the film is. By stripping the narration and adding the dream sequences, it is a drastically different film.

This is not a criticism of Scott; the Final Cut is the best version. Also, the people who yell about Star Wars changes tend to be nerds and obsessives and Blade Runner never had that sort of fanbase. If the original Blade Runner had been critically re-evaluated in the 2000's and the Final Cut came out today, I would be interested to see if people would accept it. The only thing I can think of that compares are the to versions of Apocalypse Now.

 

But again, his intention was to portray Deckard as a Replicant from the start. The studio didn't want that. Even the Directors Cut didn't give him the freedom he wanted. He wasn't retroactively changing the entire story, he was finally telling the story he wanted.

 

It's kind of impressive how he was able to misunderstand his own movie

 

After Prometheus and Alien: Covenant, I'm convinced he misunderstood Alien too

 

He does lol. I’ve said it before but Prometheus has some redeeming qualities; Covenant is a dumpster fire


Edit: completely forgot that came out this year. One of worst of 2017 for sure

 

It is retroactively changing the entire story because for years the only version was the one people saw. How it came to be is irrelevant, whether it was Lucas not having the technology he wanted to make scenes work or the studio interfering with Scott.

 

Seriously? You're blaming the director of a movie for fighting to release his original version after outside forces altered it just because the altered version was already out there? That's absurd

 

No one is blaming anyone of anything. Pretty much everyone agrees the Final Cut is the best version.

 

Scott changed the film to restore his original vision when control was taken from him, making the film better in the process; Lucas changed the films because he's an obsessive tinkerer and doesn't understand Star Wars, making the films worse in the process. Pretty clear difference there, in my opinion.

Also the "Director's Cut" from the 90s, which Scott had nothing to do with, was the first version to have the replicant stuff, so Scott wasn't even the one who originally added that stuff back in anyway.

 

What does he not understand? What is there to even understand?

Scott changed Blade Runner, and this sequel decades later changes the original as well. Scott's changes fundamentally change what Blade Runner is about, but George Lucas was given a hard time for years because he added a couple animals and made the Ewoks blink. It is a clear double standard. Someone brought up that Lucas made the originals unavailable, and that is an important point, but artists should be encouraged to change their films over time as they see fit.

 

Really hope word of mouth spreads about this film and it does better.

 

I don't understand how you aren't getting this. Scott restored what Blade Runner was always supposed to be about. Lucas changed things without regard to how they affected the characters (Han shooting second, Luke screaming in Empire as he falls after fighting Vader) in addition to other dumb things that didn't need to be there (adding more rocks in front of R2 as he hides from Sand People). And Scott fixed studio interference, Lucas changed things that didn't need to be changed. It's different, it's so clearly different I'm just so confused as to why this conversation is even happening.

 

Personally, I’d be more mad at Lucas for hiding the original films from the public than CGI he put into them. Wouldn’t Disney own the rights to them though?

 

Probably some rights problems with Fox, honestly. Not that I know for sure of course, just a guess.

 

I surprised I convinced two people last night to see it with me considering it’s nearly three hours long, it started at 10:40, and neither of them had seen the first one lol. Both of them really enjoyed and want to see the first one now.

I do wonder what their experience was like though. Cause for me, and this isn’t a detriment, the whole plot was very transparent. As soon as they find the bones I was like ”oh okay so it’s invisibly Rachel’s kid and possibly it’s K” and then the story basically unfolded as such. Which is fine, the first one’s plot is very straightforward as well. But to my friends watching not knowing who Rachel is, they but have had a very different experience and seen this as like a big mystery and probably felt like they were in the dark for a good portion of the film, which may or may not have been a positive thing

 

Fox owns A New Hope forever

Edit: however, Disney owns the world so I’m sure they could buy it for a high price I dunno