reddwarf666222 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 9 hours ago, fantastic_four said: A few completely spoilery ending-related questions for those who have seen it: Hide contents What was the deal with the boy/girl twin thing? How the heck can identical twins be boy/girl in the first place? Your DNA determines your gender, so if you have identical DNA you have to be the same gender. Fraternal twins can be boy/girl because they each come from a separate egg, but identical twins are always the same sex. So if we are to assume that Deckard is the father and Rachael is the mother of the child as the film indicated, how the heck can human and replicant DNA be compatible enough to produce offspring? OK, so Tyrell figured out a way to make replicants procreate, but humans AND replicants? WTF? Wallace can't figure out replicant/replicant reproduction, but Tyrell figured out human/replicant reproduction? HOW?!?! That seems a HUGE stretch, and a bizarre one. There was the lingering question from the first film as to whether or not Deckard was actually a replicant, but doesn't the fact that he visibly aged indicate he's human, and therefore we've now got a credulity-stretching human/replicant child? 1. It was a fake entry to cover the tracks. 2. Does not matter because the first answer was the male was a fake entry to cover the tracks. 3. Tyrell specifically picked Deckard for his place. So at some point he must have gotten ahold of Deckard's DNA and made a replicant that he could procreate with. I'm glad is he a replicant or not dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50 Cent #II (1st) Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 3 hours ago, reddwarf666222 said: 1. It was a fake entry to cover the tracks. 2. Does not matter because the first answer was the male was a fake entry to cover the tracks. 3. Tyrell specifically picked Deckard for his place. So at some point he must have gotten ahold of Deckard's DNA and made a replicant that he could procreate with. I'm glad is he a replicant or not dropped. Spoiler Something not brought up. You've forgotten that the offspring of 2 replicants, the daughter was not able to survive without the bubble she lived in due to her "sickness", so things didn't seem to go as planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddwarf666222 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, 50 Cent #II (1st) said: Hide contents Something not brought up. You've forgotten that the offspring of 2 replicants, the daughter was not able to survive without the bubble she lived in due to her "sickness", so things didn't seem to go as planned. There is only one kid the girl. The boy was a fake entry to cover the tracks. She was not sick she was just in the bubble for her protection so no one would know who her parents were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyTheAbyss Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 4 hours ago, N e r V said: 'Blade Runner 2049' Struggles to $31.5 Million Opening Weekend (article here) I honestly didn't know the movie opened this weekend until I saw this headline on the morning news. Not even Robin Meade could put a positive spin on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50 Cent #II (1st) Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, reddwarf666222 said: There is only one kid the girl. The boy was a fake entry to cover the tracks. She was not sick she was just in the bubble for her protection so no one would know who her parents were. Yes, 2 replicants produced one daughter, that was stated. It was explained in the movie (I believe a couple times) that she was in the bubble due to her not being able to go outside for a reason. "...an auto-immune deficiency prevented her from travel and forced her to live in a sealed off chamber." otherwise she would have been off world. Looks like you missed that during the movie. Edited October 10, 2017 by 50 Cent #II (1st) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddwarf666222 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 40 minutes ago, 50 Cent #II (1st) said: Yes, 2 replicants produced one daughter, that was stated. It was explained in the movie (I believe a couple times) that she was in the bubble due to her not being able to go outside for a reason. "...an auto-immune deficiency prevented her from travel and forced her to live in a sealed off chamber." otherwise she would have been off world. Looks like you missed that during the movie. Nope I just believe it was a lie made up to cover the tracks. The baby could be a human and replicant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 2 hours ago, 50 Cent #II (1st) said: Yes, 2 replicants produced one daughter, that was stated. They said that long before we were re-introduced to Deckard and he was named as the father, so it wasn't two replicants, it was a mix. Anybody heard how they made Sean Young look so young? More CGI I presume, like Leia in Rogue One? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyQuinn Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Went to see this today! All in all, I enjoyed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, fantastic_four said: Anybody heard how they made Sean Young look so young? More CGI I presume, like Leia in Rogue One? Here's a description of what they did for Sean Young where he says making her look like Leia in Rogue One would have been a dealbreaker for him: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-blade-runner-2049-resurrected-that-character-f/1100-6453912/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50 Cent #II (1st) Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, fantastic_four said: They said that long before we were re-introduced to Deckard and he was named as the father, so it wasn't two replicants, it was a mix. Anybody heard how they made Sean Young look so young? More CGI I presume, like Leia in Rogue One? Now I understand why you're confused. Spoiler Deckard was a replicant that thought he was a human until near the very end of the original BR (Final Cut). It has to do with the unicorn dream. Denial is a river in Egypt. And it looks like they'll be more of Leah in the next Star Wars from the trailer released today. Edited October 10, 2017 by 50 Cent #II (1st) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 9 hours ago, 50 Cent #II (1st) said: Deckard was a replicant that thought he was a human until near the very end of the original BR (Final Cut). It has to do with the unicorn dream. Denial is a river in Egypt. And it looks like they'll be more of Leah in the next Star Wars from the trailer released today. Ridley Scott himself has given variable answers to that question, sometimes saying he's a replicant and sometimes not. Harrison Ford has confirmed multiple times that Scott clearly wanted it to be up to the viewer to decide and gave clues both ways; Ford himself thought he was human. My question is that if he's a replicant, is he the only one who visibly ages or did they establish others doing it? And I don't even get the "replicant" concept now that 2049 has explored it further. If they have human DNA, they're human. Maybe another species, but they're human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Sinescu Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 9 hours ago, fantastic_four said: They said that long before we were re-introduced to Deckard and he was named as the father, so it wasn't two replicants, it was a mix. Anybody heard how they made Sean Young look so young? More CGI I presume, like Leia in Rogue One? This was one of the first things I googled as soon as I got home from the movie. I thought for sure they just found someone that looked close enough to her, but then I saw her name in the credits and went 12 hours ago, AnthonyTheAbyss said: I honestly didn't know the movie opened this weekend until I saw this headline on the morning news. Not even Robin Meade could put a positive spin on it Dollars aren't the only metric for measuring a movie's success. Neither are awards. Let's face it, this just is not a "date" movie. I don't think there was any expectation going in that this would somehow appeal to Johnny Public and I really doubt Villeneuve or Ridley would be overly concerned. As has been mentioned already, this movie is scoring very high marks within the demographic it most closely targets and it's currently at 88%/83% on Rotten Tomatoes. Everyone I know that's seen it loved it, but most of the people I know are into this kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Just now, Martin Sinescu said: This was one of the first things I googled as soon as I got home from the movie. I thought for sure they just found someone that looked close enough to her, but then I saw her name in the credits and went That's what I thought too because I thought she looked slightly off and her voice was slightly off; I had seen the original shortly before seeing 2049 and thought she was different. And sure enough, they did hire a lookalike, but somehow altered her with CGI to look even closer. I'd like to see the lookalike to determine if what I thought was off was coming from the lookalike's differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddwarf666222 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 21 minutes ago, fantastic_four said: Ridley Scott himself has given variable answers to that question, sometimes saying he's a replicant and sometimes not. Harrison Ford has confirmed multiple times that Scott clearly wanted it to be up to the viewer to decide and gave clues both ways; Ford himself thought he was human. My question is that if he's a replicant, is he the only one who visibly ages or did they establish others doing it? And I don't even get the "replicant" concept now that 2049 has explored it further. If they have human DNA, they're human. Maybe another species, but they're human. Yeah the Deckard Replicant angle was dropped for this film. As as far as the Replicant concept I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 11 minutes ago, reddwarf666222 said: As as far as the Replicant concept I get it. How are they different from humans? Or clones? Or genetically-engineered humans? They all seem to be in the same biological boat as far as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanPiercy Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Yah, I thought that was whack; Deckard is OBVIOUSLY a replicant in the original. The unicorn dream substantiates that and was the big reveal in the original. Having said that, I really liked 2049. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Sinescu Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 5 hours ago, fantastic_four said: How are they different from humans? Or clones? Or genetically-engineered humans? They all seem to be in the same biological boat as far as I can tell. Wasn't this the point the movie was trying to stress (both movies, really), where they're building an underground movement to prove they're humans, not machines, and shouldn't be treated as slaves? 5 hours ago, DanPiercy said: Yah, I thought that was whack; Deckard is OBVIOUSLY a replicant in the original. The unicorn dream substantiates that and was the big reveal in the original. Having said that, I really liked 2049. As far as Deckard being a replicant, without diverting the discussion from 2049 too much, it was definitely open to interpretation. I had never even heard this theory until maybe 10 or so years back when I ran across it on the old Bladezone forums and it just seemed preposterous to me. I believe both Ford and Hampton Fancher who wrote the bulk of the screenplay later said he was not. Ridley seems to have peppered, maybe even forced, some ambiguity into it at some point and the Final Cut has even more of these hints. For my part, I think it's a terrible idea to have him be a replicant. I think it's at odds with the conclusion of the movie. The point, and really part of the beauty, of the movie is that by the end both humans and replicants begin to shed their fears/biases and appreciate each other in some way (Deckard protecting and running off with Rachel, Roy saving Deckard in his dying moments). If they're all replicants saving replicants, it's not dynamic, profound or meaningful -- of course they would save each other. I think the unicorn dream is such a stretch anyway. Just seems to me like an attempt to introduce some forced twist that is unnecessary and was not originally intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brain Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Just got back from seeing this in real 3-D. Assume ! It was everything it need to be to be a great sequel. 8 out of 10. Bosco685 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Why were there a bunch of beehives in that post-nuclear city Deckard was in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, fantastic_four said: Why were there a bunch of beehives in that post-nuclear city Deckard was in? I just assumed it was because Deckard had taken to beekeeping in his "retirement"... Plus it sets up an Easter Egg throwback to the "You see a wasp crawling on your hand" line from the original movie. Rachel immediately responded with "I'd kill it" while K just watches the bee. Who had the human response and who had the replicant response? Edited October 11, 2017 by Loki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...