Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Re: a) do you mean he hopes he is more than just a replicant?

Yeah, I think he hopes that he is "real" because, as a replicant working for the man, he thinks of himself as "fake," i.e., less than human.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon, yeah there is a major theme of how prejudice works. You have this line between human and replicant. But that line creates other lines, like when Mariette sees that K has a Joi phone and she's like "oh you don't like real girls." So there's a hierarchy of realness and fakeness. It's obviously very important to the replicant female characters in the movie to establish that, although might be fake in a sense, Joi is even less than them.

The "twist" is that K is not the offspring of Rachael and Deckard. It's a given that he's a replicant. He runs through walls.

K is a replicant. This is made rather obvious by Sapper's comments as well as the other cops at the station - also several residents of his apartment building. Including the old Hungarian lady who makes her distaste for the skinjob known. (Yes, I know they shot a lot of it in Hungary, and the language has been a part of "cityspeak" since EJO used it in the original (He calls Deckard "Horse c**k" in Hungarian.) and he calls him "Pensioner/retired person" in this one).
The is he/isn't he a replicant isn't the mystery in this movie. It's blatant out and out "he is one".


The memories of the wooden horse, etc are meant to lead you to believe that he MAY be "the child", but that child was female.



The "real girls" comment is also a reference to another Ryan Gosling movie ("Lars and the real girl") because Villeneuve is a fan of his work.

 trexmeyer wrote:
The "twist" is that K is not the offspring of Rachael and Deckard. It's a given that he's a replicant. He runs through walls.

And gets his head repeatedly smashed into one until it breaks.(the wall not his head)

 trexmeyer wrote:
The "twist" is that K is not the offspring of Rachael and Deckard. It's a given that he's a replicant.

This sort of begs the question. Replicants are manufactured, people are born - according to the film.

He goes toe-to-toe with Sapper Morton (combat medic nexus 8, but still a soldier) and comes out much better than Deckard did against a superannuated nexus 7. Even if Deckard WAS quite a bit "older" than he is.

Even the other replicants don't like him (Mariette's 'friends' - the other "pleasure models"). One of them calls him "motherf***er" in Finnish (to be fair, she (that actress) IS Finnish, though).

He's the decoy for "the child". Not the child.

???

Yes, it's clear from the beginning that K has "superhuman" strength and endurance. That's not the measuring stick of being real versus fake. How one comes into the world is the measuring stick.

Remember, Replicants aren't robots. In terms of tissues and organs, there's no difference between manufactured and natural human beings. Tyrell & Co. figured out how to "build" humans from the ground up, rather than merely breeding them or cloning them.

Point is, the outcome is judged by the process. That's why the crucial issue in BR2049 is the (in)ability of manufactured people ("Replicants") to procreate.

If K was born then he's "real" - thus the purported twist is that, despite the emotional arc allowing us to hope otherwise, K was not born.

Other Replicants don't like K because he's a Blade Runner.

Now the real question is still whether Deckard is a replicant?


But yes, the idea is that he's created and not born.


Being born would mean that he has a soul.

But he comes to terms with the fact that you don't not need to be born to have a soul.


God I need to watch this film again, maybe back to back with the blu Ray of the original.

I like the contrast between K and Roy from the original

Roy makes his "tears in the rain" speak about how he has all these memories that are his and no one else's and that when he dies, they are lost

K, otoh, says that all his best memories are "hers". Meaning that his memories will live on. And he is at peace with that.

-

Does it really matter whether Deckard is a replicant? Stelline was born, rather than manufactured, regardless.

The relevance of Stelline being born is, it nullifies the born/manufactured distinction. In other words, result turns out to be more important than process. Life can come forth from the womb of a manufactured person.

Like all such prejudices, this one seems a bit silly after it becomes irrelevant.

 Galef wrote:
I like the contrast between K and Roy from the original

Roy makes his "tears in the rain" speak about how he has all these memories that are his and no one else's and that when he dies, they are lost

K, otoh, says that all his best memories are "hers". Meaning that his memories will live on. And he is at peace with that.

-

This is a very nice one.

Deckard is pretty heavily implied a replicant in this film. It is the whole reason why Wallace wants the child. Wallace even asks him if he ever wondered if he was specifically designed to fall for Rachel. Also, it seems like the whole 2 replicants having a child thing is pretty integral to the story (since they are supposed to be incapable).

Which is a pretty stupid conceit to begin with, that artificially birthed humans are not human. Of course they are, just as sterile humans are still humans. The whole movie was an overlong exercise in navel gazing that missed good opportunities to showcase how people dehumanize others so long as it benefits them. It also had a surprisingly sexist narrative (women are largely either lovers, mothers, and daughters that need to be protected or whores and killers- even the one strong female officer is largely masculine and asexual, meanwhile *every* sex worker is female) that took place in a very white future. Seriously, not 1 black or Latino in power in Los Angeles? And othering through the eyes of Ryan Gosling (who can turn his girlfriend on and off at will and exists only to please him, BTW)? Really? It's a movie about white people liberating other white people, more specifically intergenerational power struggles between heterosexual white males, which is shockingly tone deaf in a world where we still have constant persecution of racial, gender, religious, and sexual identity groups. It is a pretty, vacant, dull film.

BR2049 inherited the classic debate about Deckard and consciously decided to leave well enough alone. That question is totally irrelevant to Wallace, other than as part of his attempt to manipulate Deckard. It's also irrelevant to the story of BR2049. What actually matters is Rachel: she's not supposed to be able to bear children and yet ...

The prejudices of a culture often seem absurd to outsiders. This is also the case with respect to a fictional setting. If you ignore or even simply overlooked the exposition, you will probably have trouble understanding the prejudice against Replicants. However, much of this exposition is implicit because, I think, the film wants you to be enough of an outsider to sympathize with K more than K sympathizes with himself.

K is not an outsider to his world; the prejudice he encounters makes sense to him. He has internalized it. He has constructed his external personality and internal emotional life to deal with it. We see a fellow police officer scream bigoted insults at him in the halls of the precinct. We see the same slur scrawled across the door of his apartment. K doesn't let it affect him, at least not visibly. He just does his job.

That's the way he sees himself: an object designed to accomplish its purpose. And that's the core of the prejudice against Replicants. Going back to why Replicants exist in the first place, humanity needed slave labor "for use off-world." Replicants are not clones. They are built from the ground up, in imitation of humans. By the later models, the imitation was so great that Tyrell could boast that Replicants were "more human than human."

It's foolish to criticize BR2049 for not portraying non-whites in power. First, the highest civil authority depicted in the film is a police captain (who is a woman). The most powerful person (and least human) in the film is its villain, who is (par for the course) a white male. Second, more powerful officials are portrayed in BR2036 Nexus Dawn: one white man, one white woman, one East Asian man, and one black man.

Criticizing the film as misogynistic is like criticizing Starship Troopers for being fascist; it's a great way to gauge who totally missed the point of the film. Joi is a projection of K's suppressed desire to both give and receive human sympathy; the fact that she is treated as a "character" at all (rather than an element of K's characterization) is supposed to reflect poorly on K, as when Mariette notes that he "doesn't like real girls." Luv, too, is contemptuous of K's fetishization (she stomps the emanator). Moreover, K (like the audience) begins to believe that he is the Chosen One only to find out (from a woman) that not only is he nobody but the Chosen One is yet another woman.

 jmurph wrote:

Which is a pretty stupid conceit to begin with, that artificially birthed humans are not human. Of course they are, just as sterile humans are still humans. The whole movie was an overlong exercise in navel gazing that missed good opportunities to showcase how people dehumanize others so long as it benefits them.

In that world, for the people that live in it, replicants are not considered humans because they are made. Is the premise of the first movie. And both movies show that there is some difference in the inner world of Replicant and Humans in BR. Roy and K overcome that, but is part of what make them special from the point of view of an outsider.

It also had a surprisingly sexist narrative (women are largely either lovers, mothers, and daughters that need to be protected or whores and killers- even the one strong female officer is largely masculine and asexual, meanwhile *every* sex worker is female) that took place in a very white future.

The "sexist narrative" is an observation I found online very often in many bloggers/The guardian articles etc but is IMHO a very shallow interpretation of what happens. The director itself said that BR2049 is about today, not tomorrow. Should not a director show, and perhaps denounce, objectification (in case of the movie, literal objectification)?
If the police officer is asexual, why she hits on K?
The fact that a man, portrayed as evil, is trying to seize and control reproduction is an anti-feminist theme? Since when?
The male character is victim of a typical dynamic of an oppressive society on men: disposability. By the way, this is something that disturbed me deeply ready many commentators. Many were appalled by the violence on the women, but male disposability was assumed. A given.
This is not how is supposed to work.
Overall, the movie has a one of the main themes disposability. We see it in humans excluded by the society, degraded to poor scavengers, and in the child slaves.

Seriously, not 1 black or Latino in power in Los Angeles?

The old movie implies migration from east asia and europe. True that the new one shows one african. One of the prostitutes speaks Finnish. The soviet union is still up. Is a different world and I can imagine that what happened changed dramatically the migration patterns.
We are not sure that the ethnic composition of the population but who are we seeing in power other than Wallace? You wanted a latino wallace? What could have changed? You would have complained about the fact that the bad guy is latino?
Is almost 10 months I am in this country, and for the life of me, I still cannot understand this narrative omni-present in american media. Is almost as one can relate with characters only in base of the ethnicity. So I cannot watch The Seven Samurai because there are no Italians? When I was a kid I did it wrong because I liked Blade? Representation is important but should it overcome any artistic decision? The Thing by Carpenter is a bad movie because it has only men?

And othering through the eyes of Ryan Gosling (who can turn his girlfriend on and off at will and exists only to please him, BTW)? Really? It's a movie about white people liberating other white people,

Is about a self-discovering human saving other humans because an empathy discovered through shared memories.
The humanity is what is important. In the movie the walls are between humans and replicants. The amount of melanin is not an issue (as it should not be in real life).
I am sorry but I cannot help finding this statement racist.
Also, the "girlfriend" becomes possibly more and more independent until she gains humanity as well, unless you go with the interpretation that she is in fact an illusion (and he realizes that in the famous bridge scene).

more specifically intergenerational power struggles between heterosexual white males, which is shockingly tone deaf in a world where we still have constant persecution of racial, gender, religious, and sexual identity groups. It is a pretty, vacant, dull film.

1) Are you assuming the sexual inclinations of the characters? Even K and Deckard could be bisexual for what we know. Wallace could be anything, his kiss is a mere act of power (copied by Luv later in the movie, even if she has arguably second reasons).
2) You assume that a movie to be a metaphor of real life events must follow the same events in the same fashion. You can talk about segregation showing on film any group of humans, separated for any reason.
3) Is being an heterosexual white male something inherently bad? You make it sound like it is.
4) What do you think of the movie Hotel Rwanda?

There is no doubt that Decard is a replicant.

In the first movie when in the dark replicants eyes have a reflective quality to them not unlike cats or birds at night.

When you watch BR you will notice when he interrogates Rachel that her eyes have that quality. And at several points Decard is in similar lighting and you see his eyes are the same.

It's a dead give away you have to watch for. Watch the eyes.

There is no definitive answer. Sir Ridley insists that Deckard is a Replicant. Harrison Ford and screenwriter Hampton Fancher disagree. Denis Villeneuve intentionally did not answer it one way or the other. In BR2049, Gaff tells K that there was something about Deckard's eyes - this is a reference to the classic reflective eye theory, and the debate more generally. It's kind of a joke because in order to buy the eye theory you have to have already concluded that the glowing eye imagery is actually meant to signify Replicants, which even Sir Ripley hasn't outright claimed.

 Manchu wrote:
There is no definitive answer. Sir Ridley insists that Deckard is a Replicant. Harrison Ford and screenwriter Hampton Fancher disagree. Denis Villeneuve intentionally did not answer it one way or the other. In BR2049, Gaff tells K that there was something about Deckard's eyes - this is a reference to the classic reflective eye theory, and the debate more generally. It's kind of a joke because in order to buy the eye theory you have to have already concluded that the glowing eye imagery is actually meant to signify Replicants, which even Sir Ripley hasn't outright claimed.

Scott HAS claimed that. They went through a lot to try a get the effect. When they figured it out though a rig of light/mirror/ and screen they had to actually attach to the camera, it became something they used in specific scenes and only with specific characters. The director, who was in charge of all those shots, says hes a replicant and filmed it with all the evidence to say he was.

Some well thought out responses.Bear with me as I attempt to manage the embedded quotes.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

Which is a pretty stupid conceit to begin with, that artificially birthed humans are not human. Of course they are, just as sterile humans are still humans. The whole movie was an overlong exercise in navel gazing that missed good opportunities to showcase how people dehumanize others so long as it benefits them.

In that world, for the people that live in it, replicants are not considered humans because they are made. Is the premise of the first movie. And both movies show that there is some difference in the inner world of Replicant and Humans in BR. Roy and K overcome that, but is part of what make them special from the point of view of an outsider.

I think this is addressed more in my point that the film is heavily a white hetero male narrative, and artificially trying to call them outsiders, whatever the conceit of the original stumbles now, so I will get back to this.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

It also had a surprisingly sexist narrative (women are largely either lovers, mothers, and daughters that need to be protected or whores and killers- even the one strong female officer is largely masculine and asexual, meanwhile *every* sex worker is female) that took place in a very white future.

The "sexist narrative" is an observation I found online very often in many bloggers/The guardian articles etc but is IMHO a very shallow interpretation of what happens. The director itself said that BR2049 is about today, not tomorrow. Should not a director show, and perhaps denounce, objectification (in case of the movie, literal objectification)?
If the police officer is asexual, why she hits on K?
The fact that a man, portrayed as evil, is trying to seize and control reproduction is an anti-feminist theme? Since when?
The male character is victim of a typical dynamic of an oppressive society on men: disposability. By the way, this is something that disturbed me deeply ready many commentators. Many were appalled by the violence on the women, but male disposability was assumed. A given.
This is not how is supposed to work.
Overall, the movie has a one of the main themes disposability. We see it in humans excluded by the society, degraded to poor scavengers, and in the child slaves.

First, I have noticed a reflexive tendency to defend the movie by saying "you don't get it". That is a bad argument that could apply equally well to those who don't see the sexism. So let's stick to the basis of our opinions and recognize different people with different experiences can reach different results.

Let's start with the director's comments- he states that it is about today and gives the whole spiel about caring about portrayals of women. So let's look at the portrayals. Women are the only ones portrayed as sexual objects and sex workers. There is no deep commentary- it's seems to be a continuation of in built assumptions. The movie spends a lot of time on the whole replicant/real person struggle but kinda treats these women as scenery. Men are the movers and shakers. Women are, at best, stand ins for male urges. They are not empowered in any way, and the film never really addresses that.

Wallace is a bad guy, clearly, and his obsession with recreating natural reproduction is not anti-feminist. But again, the problem is that it is all males driving the story. Women are still secondary objects. Even Joshi, who is the closest we get to a real female character, is heavily masculinized, and tragically underused. Which *could* have been played to subversive effect, but her hitting on K just shows that where they bring in her femininity, it is a typical romantic approach to the male lead. Not good. Why not just have her using her own pleasure model (with a clear shot of a handsome muscular model in full nude)? But, nope, women never get to show any true sexual control and it's all female sexual imagery. Mariette, likewise had potential as a strong character, but ends up being relegated to subservience.

Depictions of violence are tricky. Yes, there was violence against men, but it was generally two way- they guys at least got a chance. To that degree, I would disagree that the violence directed at Joi was particularly misogynistic (well, except to the degree that she is a pretty stereotypical negative female stereotype, but I digress). However, the violence towards non-combatants was much more one sided. Really, this wasn't a huge issue for me as the glorification of violence didn't seem excessive. It was more the lack of agency that was the issue.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

Seriously, not 1 black or Latino in power in Los Angeles?

The old movie implies migration from east asia and europe. True that the new one shows one african. One of the prostitutes speaks Finnish. The soviet union is still up. Is a different world and I can imagine that what happened changed dramatically the migration patterns.
We are not sure that the ethnic composition of the population but who are we seeing in power other than Wallace? You wanted a latino wallace? What could have changed? You would have complained about the fact that the bad guy is latino?
Is almost 10 months I am in this country, and for the life of me, I still cannot understand this narrative omni-present in american media. Is almost as one can relate with characters only in base of the ethnicity. So I cannot watch The Seven Samurai because there are no Italians? When I was a kid I did it wrong because I liked Blade? Representation is important but should it overcome any artistic decision? The Thing by Carpenter is a bad movie because it has only men?

Again, if the director is saying this movie is about the world of today, arguing some fictional migration pattern is a bit disingenuous. It would have been nice to see some POC in positions of authority, not necessarily the bad guy. Don't take it personally- do a little research on Holly wood casting. There has long been a problem with Hollywood consistently using minorities for ethnic stereotypes and criminals. Even when a main character is originally supposed to be a non-white, Hollywood tends to cast them as white anyway. It's an ugly history that is deeply tied in to America's history of racial and cultural segregation and trying to appeal to a white, hetero, male dominated majority. Most whites don't even recognize how insidious and corrosive it is. But it is definitely real. Fiction fans have a nasty tendency to want to gloss over this stuff instead of dealing with it head on.

And no, The Thing is not a bad movie because it has only men. But there is a problem when movies continue to follow the same stereotypical roads and don't even realize it. That's the thing about movies like Blade Runner 2049; I don't think anyone sat down and said let's make a movie with some pretty racist and sexist overtone, rather it's a product of biases that have become so ingrained they are almost automatic. It's just a shame that a movie that has so much potential and is supposed to fundamentally be about illustrating the futility and destructiveness of othering still falls into such ways.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

And othering through the eyes of Ryan Gosling (who can turn his girlfriend on and off at will and exists only to please him, BTW)? Really? It's a movie about white people liberating other white people,

Is about a self-discovering human saving other humans because an empathy discovered through shared memories.
The humanity is what is important. In the movie the walls are between humans and replicants. The amount of melanin is not an issue (as it should not be in real life).
I am sorry but I cannot help finding this statement racist.

@Lance845

What I mean is, Sir R is on record explaining the reflective eyes are purely exegetic/stylistic (hence why VK testing is necessary; "more human than human"). Which amounts to nothing more than reaffirming his personal position about Deckard being a Replicant. If you accept auteur theory, there's no need to talk about eyes: you already have the director's word. We're only talking about reflective eyes at all because Sir R's interpretation isn't enough to carry us through to the work of another director, Villeneuve. That's why Gaff's comment in BR2049 is so telling: it's a sidelong smirk at the debate because in-setting there's nothing noticeable about Nexus 7 eyes.

@jmurph

You are letting the tail wag the dog. For example, you insist that Joshi is "masculinized" - but this is simply handwaiving away evidence that doesn't suit your thesis. You say the female characters are insufficiently empowered and yet you characterize an assertive female character in a position of authority as "masculinized." At best, you're simply projecting your own internalized sexism (strength, power = masculine) onto the movie. This is probably why you're misreading the scene where Joshi hits on K as reinforcing the desirability of the male lead.

What happens is, Joshi shows up to a subordinate's home uninvited, decides to hang around getting drunk despite it being inappropriate and awkward, and caps off the evening by making a half-hearted pass at a subordinate. Although Joshi is not acting from malice, her actions are nonetheless presumptuous, offensive, and belittling. But K must simply endure it, as a subordinate and as a "lesser" person given the politics of the setting. Many women in the audience will be familiar with what K's going through (a.k.a., sexual harassment). The whole scene is constructed to demonstrate how prejudice does not have to be intentional or even conscious to be a real thing. Joshi can reasonably see herself as open-minded and genuinely concerned for K but we see the interaction from K's perspective where Joshi's behavior comes off as insensitive at best and downright gross at worst.

You also notably failed to address Luv, except by writing her off as a killer - which is an odd criticism. How does Luv being a killer harmonize with your complaint that the female characters are underempowered? Luv is clearly depicted as extraordinarily competent. At the same time, she is no mere one-dimensional badass. Her characterization, in a duet with K's, demonstrates how self-destructive it is for the victims of prejudice to construct their identities on the basis of accepting said prejudice. Luv tells herself she is content to be "lesser" so long as she is the best of the lesser ones (the angel/slave duality). Like K, she sublimates her suffering and longing into cold professionalism. But I guess that makes her "masculinized"?

I guess you also missed that the leader of the resistance movement is a woman. And that Mariette's true motivations throughout the film are revealed when we learn that she is an agent of the resistance; not a sexworker but a freedom fighter. And that the most important in-setting character, the point of all the action throughout the film, is a woman. And that the entire film revolves around the reproductive power of women as symbol for hope in the midst of human misery (which is in turn embodied by a white, male character). And this is before we even get to the complicated question of Joi as an idealized projection of K's own suppressed internal dimension.

 jmurph wrote:

I think this is addressed more in my point that the film is heavily a white hetero male narrative, and artificially trying to call them outsiders, whatever the conceit of the original stumbles now, so I will get back to this.

I fail to understand which part of the movie is specifically "white". The movie talks about universal human value. Belonging, memory, etc do cannot resonate with another audience because of the low level of melanin in the actors?
Also, what does "white" means in this case? I am Italian, I wrote "caucasian" immigrating in the USA, but my culture is not a finnish culture, syrian culture, spanish culture, german culture, or an Iranian culture. If you allow me, you are watching the world through extremely narrow lenses.
You mean WASP? I am not ango-saxon and for sure I am not protestant. I should fail to identify with with any character in the movie? Not even sure this is valid for this movie. Where is the border? I am at loss.

First, I have noticed a reflexive tendency to defend the movie by saying "you don't get it". That is a bad argument that could apply equally well to those who don't see the sexism. So let's stick to the basis of our opinions and recognize different people with different experiences can reach different results.

Not implying that you are "not getting it". I just find ironic that a movie that tackles some themes without just checking some presence boxes (we have x and y, therefore we are progressive!) is accused of being sexist.
It also drives me mad, because diversity in movies is becoming just checkboxes and pandering; if then the movie appeals to the lowest common denominator is ok as long as all the boxes are checked (and those who dislike it will be called racists or sexists).

Let's start with the director's comments- he states that it is about today and gives the whole spiel about caring about portrayals of women. So let's look at the portrayals. Women are the only ones portrayed as sexual objects and sex workers. There is no deep commentary- it's seems to be a continuation of in built assumptions. The movie spends a lot of time on the whole replicant/real person struggle but kinda treats these women as scenery. Men are the movers and shakers. Women are, at best, stand ins for male urges. They are not empowered in any way, and the film never really addresses that.

No woman in the movie is a mover or shaker? The police chief and her authority and orders? The replicant prostitute/spy? Luv is the true antagonist since Wallace is too distant. The boss of the resistance? Even the daughter, arguably, because she set in motion the events that led to K's "awakening".
K that rejects all of this in the climax. He rejects to follow, at the end, the orders of two women - the chief and the resistance commander. To do that, it means such women had power in the first place.

Wallace is a bad guy, clearly, and his obsession with recreating natural reproduction is not anti-feminist.

The attempt to control female reproduction is a feminist issue. If you deny this, I don't know what to say. Unless I misunderstood what are you meaning here.

But again, the problem is that it is all males driving the story. Women are still secondary objects. Even Joshi, who is the closest we get to a real female character, is heavily masculinized, and tragically underused. Which *could* have been played to subversive effect, but her hitting on K just shows that where they bring in her femininity, it is a typical romantic approach to the male lead. Not good. Why not just have her using her own pleasure model (with a clear shot of a handsome muscular model in full nude)? But, nope, women never get to show any true sexual control and it's all female sexual imagery. Mariette, likewise had potential as a strong character, but ends up being relegated to subservience.

First and foremost, I fail to understand how having only males, or only females or whatever driving the story makes a specific movie inherently bad. The Godfather is bad because of this? I really fail to grasp this basic assumption.
Secondly, Joshi had a weak spot for K and commits an act that is borderline sexual harassment. There is attraction but not romanticisms. Is another instance of desire projected on a object-person (in universe).
Thankfully Joshi is more complicated than that and has motherly traits, as long as traits not related to her gender like her social structure vision, and aim for Order.
Mariette is playing double agent for the resistance. Commanded by a woman. Did we watch the same movie?
Also how in heaven can you decide arbitrarily that Joshi is not properly feminine for the role she is supposed to play? If anything, this smells of crypto-sexism.

Depictions of violence are tricky. Yes, there was violence against men, but it was generally two way- they guys at least got a chance.

You mean like the guy surprise-murdered by Luv? I seriously doubt that.

To that degree, I would disagree that the violence directed at Joi was particularly misogynistic (well, except to the degree that she is a pretty stereotypical negative female stereotype, but I digress). However, the violence towards non-combatants was much more one sided. Really, this wasn't a huge issue for me as the glorification of violence didn't seem excessive. It was more the lack of agency that was the issue.

I register 2 non-combatant female replicants killed, vs 1 man killed by surprise. Joi is a very special case I fail to understand how is supposed to be misogynistic unless you take her first appearance at a complete face value.
Joi is programmed to be what K wants to hear. In base on how you interpret what happens to her, she either rejects her role and becomes a real girl, or she was a scam in the first place, maybe a way Wallace gathered data, and realising this is part of K's maturation/rebellion.

Again, if the director is saying this movie is about the world of today, arguing some fictional migration pattern is a bit disingenuous. It would have been nice to see some POC in positions of authority, not necessarily the bad guy. Don't take it personally- do a little research on Holly wood casting. There has long been a problem with Hollywood consistently using minorities for ethnic stereotypes and criminals. Even when a main character is originally supposed to be a non-white, Hollywood tends to cast them as white anyway. It's an ugly history that is deeply tied in to America's history of racial and cultural segregation and trying to appeal to a white, hetero, male dominated majority. Most whites don't even recognize how insidious and corrosive it is. But it is definitely real. Fiction fans have a nasty tendency to want to gloss over this stuff instead of dealing with it head on.

But these patterns were part of the background even in the original movie. Olmos used a cityspeak composed of Japanese, Spanish, and German, Hungarian, Chinese, and French. The USSR is still there. You are demanding that part of the old world-building is ignored because you want some token representation instead of a focus on universal themes, and a coherent universe.
The rest of this part of your post just makes me think about the discussion raised by Ghost in the Shell. The white knights complained about the "whitewashing", while the Japanese did not give a crap. Also why Idris Elba can be Heimdall? Why that is ok (it is for me, but because I think is a good actor). Really this is ridiculous. Cognitive dissonance.
Criminals... should again I complain about the Godfather? Italians brought mafia. Is a fact. Immigrants are a resource, but not always the best come. This does not mean I support the Orange Guy, and he is not crazy about me, mind it (btw, I see your point of view is typical for the left in the ango-saxon countries... with priorities like this, be prepared for other 4 years, and good luck to us all).
But you cannot get offended by that. This remind me the Simpson and all that jazz about Apu. That is a great guy, nice life and kids.
Italians in the Simpson? Mafiosi and a Cook. Italians complaining? Zero.
Seriously, the ones that keep seeing themselves as victims will be forever victims. Is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Is a culture of weakness.

And no, The Thing is not a bad movie because it has only men. But there is a problem when movies continue to follow the same stereotypical roads and don't even realize it. That's the thing about movies like Blade Runner 2049; I don't think anyone sat down and said let's make a movie with some pretty racist and sexist overtone, rather it's a product of biases that have become so ingrained they are almost automatic. It's just a shame that a movie that has so much potential and is supposed to fundamentally be about illustrating the futility and destructiveness of othering still falls into such ways.

But how in heaven is this a priority? Do you complain there are no Japanese in Zulu?
Why everything must have a well measured representation, a checklist or is invalidated? Why this has priority above story in the way a movie is judged?

Which tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is. Absolutely skin color should not be an issue. But for hundreds of years it has been and continues to be. Ignoring that and the systems that allow it to continue is exactly why is continues. Calling out racist and sexist narratives is the only way to address the issue.

But what is racist or sexist in this narrative? If a movie has only blacks is racists? If has only women is sexist? This is nuts! A movie can have a majority of a given sub-group of people and not being demeaning, or maybe show violence or conflict and be clear that is not a view the director supports. I am appalled.

The girlfriend is always a program designed to please. That will never change. The fact that he has a moment of awareness about it would have been a lot more effective if he had shown more revulsion. As it was, it still came across as a kind of pity moment.

She is either an illusion (in that case is like complaining that the Wizard of OZ is actually an puny guy) or she mirrors K's act of independnce and will. But since she starts like a 50s housewife, that's not good.
You see what happens here? This mentality kills writing. It becomes a minefield. I can see why writers prefer safe mediocrity.

1) K and Deckard were clearly portrayed as straight males. Both are portrayed as dominants in heterosexual relationships. They are the main driving forces and center of the story. Wallace's orientation is irrelevant- he is a monster for narrative purposes. Portraying him as non-hetero would have other troubling implications.

2) Ignoring reality is usually a bad idea. It is especially bad when you follow tropes that undermine your message.

3) No, it is not. The problem is that heterosexual white male has become the default due to power dynamics, to the degree that other voices are not heard. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this becomes especially problematic in a movie that approaches othering. It just shows a tremendous lack of self awareness.

4) I think that is getting too far off topic....

1) And again then, why is bad then that K is hetero. Why is important that he is "white" in an universe in which the main "wall" is between manufactured or not (albeit we witness an horrible social stratification even among "proper humans").
And more importantly, why a non hetero cannot be a villain. What you wrote has seriously unfortunate implications.

2)This is just a nonsense that kills any metaphor, ever.

3)Power is in money and in violence. You are falling for a fallacious narrative.

4) In Hotel Rwanda, a real story from the Rwandan genocide is told. Is people that belong to an ethnicity, the Hutu, killing another ethnicity, the Tutsi, because walls in the society. In your worldview, these are all black people. The genocide was based on divisions degenerated because of the former colonialism, let's not forget this - but the hands on the machetes are of the fanatical Hutu nationalists.
Same the Rohingya. You would not call white the people killing them.
You just base a narrow view about oppression based on the assumption that all the evil in the world is because of a group of people with Y chromosomes, not enough melanin and that like females. The world is bigger than that. More complicated. And even each of these men is more than that. You are the one building walls.

Look, I loved Blade Runner growing up. But as I learned a bit more about the real world, I began to see some very troubling things mixed in there. BR2049 was a chance to deal with some deep issues and it kind of stumbled. Like I said, it's not that it's some horrible racist misogynistic screed, just boring and largely superficial. Which is disappointing.

I find more boring and superficial reduce, if you allow me demean, people to their "race", sex and sexual orientation.
Dehumanizing, actually. And pointless, because if one follows this direction will always find a way to put more walls, separation, and find more subgroups that do not feel represented.
It also justifies some kind of gakky writing. Or allows corporations to dodge criticism ("how do you dare to state that our inclusive movie is written like crap, you sexist/racist!"). I would say is a dangerous road but is too late. We are already there.
If instead you focus on universal human experiences, you can enjoy a movie even if has not all the boxes checked, all the actors come from a distant country, and so on.

Also, if you find troublesome THAT scene in the original BR, that's another topic entirely. About a scene involving a man that in that moment is the Villain (see the Zhora killing, Scott literally rubs it in your face). And the scene became a meme itself because there are clearly points in which Deckard stops, and both are arguably very clumsy because of their uncertain humanity. Rachel implies she cannot rely on what she knows because her memories are fake, and Deckard blocking her is well beyond the act, is about her survival. She goes out, she is dead.
But hey, let's become the new religious bigots and try to find sin everywhere, this will go a long way.

It really seems like a case of watching a film through a political prism or filter. I am not sure which metaphor is better suited: bending the light or simply blocking it?

Manchu:
On the other side, such flippancy indicates an opaqueness in and of itself. Again, different minds can reach differing opinions. All minds are prisms (or filters). One of the tragedies that often happens is refusing to admit the biases that creep into our definitions of "normal".

I understand that some do not see the issues that I see. I think that I have provided sufficient examples of the problems with the movie, and others can always explain them away from a different perspective. That's fine. Dismissing others perspectives, however, I think goes to the very root of the problem.

Joshi's pass is a great example of how a pretty good idea can be mishandled. So, a superior making sexual advances is bad. But then they portray it with the one female in power and as an attraction to the white, hetero, male lead. If you can't see why this is problematic given the history of narratives in film, I don't know what to say. Likewise, masculinization is a thing. When a female character is portrayed in such a manner that the parts that mirror stereotypically "male traits" are glorified and feminine traits are either ignored or minimized, you have masculinization. It is a separate issue entirely from casting. Again, I thought Joshi could have been a really great character and was criminally underused.

I am not ignoring Luv- she falls into a well worn niche of femme fatale. A female character that ruthlessly acts to do her bosses bidding is not an empowered character. She is merely a tool. Had her character struggled with her actions and ultimately made some sort of decision, she would have been more than a one dimensional character.

Yes, the leader of the resistance was female. Great, but she was a few lines of dialogue, not a character making any kind of real decisions or having any real impact. Mariette is another that had great potential as a character for exactly the reasons you point out, but, again, ultimately gets reduced to a tool. Dr. Steline is another that has a lot of potentially interesting character points, but is literally kept in a glass cage the entire movie.

Again, I don't think any of it is overt, intentional stuff, but it's still pretty rough given the premise of the movie. Also, my primary gripes aren't just this stuff- it's that it is a poorly paced rather boring movie. Even if it had addressed some of these issues better, it would still be a dull, if pretty, slog. Just less disappointing.

Kaiyanwang: Obviously there are some communication issues between us. When I said Wallace was not anti-feminist, I could have been clearer for example, that I did not feel he was an illustration of the movie's anti-feminism; his character certainly had an anti-feminist (although really just more inhumane in general) nature. The movie made it very clear this is a Bad Thing.

Likewise, there seems to be some cultural disconnect on what "whiteness" means in the context of the US and discrimination. I strongly recommend you do some research in the area, as it is a complex and fascinating if disturbing history that shapes the US to this day. There is also a good deal of writing on the trend in entertainment to make protagonists white, hetero males, and funnel everything through that spectrum presumably for economic reasons and the exclusionary effect it has on other voices.
The short version is that the US has long protected very wealthy interests and there has been a constant struggle between those seeking a more egalitarian society and those who would prefer a perpetual subservient worker under class. Slavery caused it to divide largely along racial lines (previously, ethnic groups such as Italians and Irish were often not considered white) and post Civil War, a lot of effort was dedicated to keeping racial divisions in place. These were reinforced by legal force until the Civil Right movement started to be victorious in tearing them down. Unfortunately, patterns that had been created over the years remained, and oppressive systems jettisoned their most obvious elements, but continued in place. Since the Civil Rights movement, the struggle for more egalitarian society continues and regressive elements have been somewhat successful in rephrasing it as an attack on "traditional values" and/or white males. I won't go any further than that, as it is delving into US politics, which is verboten.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@jmurph

Experience is inherently subjective, of course. But there is a distinction between critically engaging a movie versus grading it against some extrinsic ideological rubric. A worthwhile critique must first give the movie the chance to explain itself (what's called "understanding the film") and then secondly address that explanation. It's clear that you don't care what BR2049 has to say for itself. Instead, you care about whether it meets whatever quotas you brought to the theater, which are arbitrary to anyone who isn't on board with your agenda. And that doesn't amount to useful insight. For example:

 jmurph wrote:
If you can't see why this is problematic given the history of narratives in film, I don't know what to say.

This contains no information about the film. You are merely asserting a claim to the moral high ground. Your entire response to Kaiyanwang is the same: "learn more so you can agree with me." It is impossible to take your complaint about being dismissed seriously when that's all you yourself are doing.

I have learned that the word "problematic" is an intellectual void. Labeling something "problematic" is necessarily incomplete because it merely flags the labeled thing as ambiguously troublesome (similar to how the passive voice obscures who is acting). If you think BR2049 is sexist, just argue BR2049 is a sexist movie. If you think it's racist, argue it's a racist movie. Why intentionally obscure your point by draping the gauze of "problematic" over it? Quite simply, the critique has to be vague because evidence and argument will not support the more precise, trenchant criticisms of sexism and racism. In the case of BR2049, this is because the film introduces and deconstructs a fictional prejudice to explore IRL prejudices. That theme is front and center throughout.

So what does this word "problematic" actually mean, given that it is intellectually hollow? It's a concept of totalitarianism: we must use approved vocabulary to demonstrate that we are thinking approved thoughts. Earlier in the thread, Kaiyanwang sarcastically posted:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
let's become the new religious bigots and try to find sin everywhere

In the same way, "problematic" means the subject does not exactly align with the ideological purity of the self-appointed censor, regardless of how or why.

For example, is Luv "empowered"? The character is clearly sufficiently competent to successfully pursue her goals. Your counterpoint is, those aren't her goals. In fact, that question is explored by the movie - are Nexus 9s capable of free will? As it turns out, what they think, feel, and do is no more or less determined than it is for (other) human beings. This is crucial because the point of the movie is to show that the supposed distinction between human beings and Replicants is an illusion of prejudice. Wallace is exploiting Luv by brainwashing her into accepting that she is merely the instrument of his will. We see, however, that Luv has doubts about this and struggles with it but ultimately cannot deal with the terror of admitting she is a free being who must accept personal responsibility for the good as well as the bad she has done. (K is forced to face this when Stelline says his memories are real - his response is to explode in pain and anger while every moment before this he is totally stoic.)

Luv doubles down on the concept that she only wants what Wallace wants but this is clearly a shoddy rationalization because, at the very least, it overlooks that what she really wants is, as she ultimately asserts, to be the best. Being the best isn't just willfully accepting the lie that she is "fake" - she has to be "fake" in order to be the best. Because how on earth can we say that one subject is better than another? "Best" is a quality of objects, not subjects. So, yes in fact she is pursuing her own goals throughout the movie. Luv is a three-dimensional character and empowered in any meaningful sense. Luv is not some narrative metaphor for women generally. She is "her own person" - a fully-realized character of equal standing to the protagonist (specifically as his foil).

jmurph, I am convinced that you have the best intention and I am sure 100% of your intellectual honesty, but I am likewise convinced that you see everything through very specific lenses.
I can only say that albeit the civil rights movements fought the most righteous of battles, now these principles are wielded as weapons by some, and used either as a measure of power or to enforce artificial agendas that kill creativity and discourse, as long as detracts from authentically and nowadays more complex power dynamics related to sheer power and wealth, and how they dictate the directions of our society. Is pointless to aim for representation while you have such wealth disparity imho. This is a false battle. An easier battle if you wish, while the true oppression shifted elsewhere. Easier to put a black guy as a protagonist in a movie than solve huge wealth disparities.
Also, IMHO you alienate a huge fragment of working class "whitecisheteros" that do not see themselves, and should not see themselves as oppressors.
A working class that has specific standards and feels justifiably threatened by globalisation because got the short end of the stick, and is easy prey of populists. Feels threatened and has an high rate of drug use and suicides, by the way. Wow, is great to be on top!
Sorry but this worldview is at best outdated.
I will not proceed further because of the off-topic, but one should acknowledge that we are indeed moving toward a slightly bladerunneresque future. I ask often myself who, how many, will benefit from what me and my colleagues will discover.

In merit of the movie, I think Manchu covered it better than me.
For those interested, I remembered this link about Luv. My apologies if someone already posted it upstream.
https://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/tears-of-a-machine-the-humanity-of-love-in-blade-runner-2049

I'm not so sure because it seems like a rather clumsy restatement of a certain Guardian article to me.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm not so sure because it seems like a rather clumsy restatement of a certain Guardian article to me.

But that's the woman that defined The Last Jedi "the most triumphantly feminist Star Wars movie yet".
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/dec/18/star-wars-the-last-jedi-women-bechdel-test

Note the bedchel test in the link. Numbers, boxes checked. Superficial analysis. Themes and motivations be damned.
Nevermind if the female protagonist is fascinated by a Dark Triad man, Twilight-style, or Holdo behaves like the most unreasonable commander ever.

As always, go to comments, order by recommendation and enjoy.
The guardian has better readers than writers

 jmurph wrote:
Joshi's pass is a great example of how a pretty good idea can be mishandled. So, a superior making sexual advances is bad. But then they portray it with the one female in power and as an attraction to the white, hetero, male lead. If you can't see why this is problematic given the history of narratives in film, I don't know what to say.

Role reversal is a common and frequently very effective tool to get people to see what others experience. Take the scene as written, with a male supervisor acting in a presumptuous, entitled way towards an employee, with the employee having to just tolerate it because of their weaker position. Make the senior a male, and most men will see it through his eyes, and they are likely to focus on his awkwardness and the issues in his life that's led him to this point, and miss the situation he's put the female employee in. They will see the act as unintentional and therefore likely dismiss it as harassment. But in BR2049 instead we have the junior staff member as male, so men see the event through his eyes, and they see what he has to tolerate, regardless of the intent of the supervisor. They see the scene through the eyes of the victim, something they likely wouldn't do if the genders are in their more common roles.

It's a very effective technique, and it was well used in this situation.

Kaiyanwang: I agree 100% that casting choices in American movies are hardly the most important human rights issue and definitely trend towards 1st world problems. Economic disparity is certainly the crux of the issue; unfortunately in the US at least, it is inherently linked to our racial past. And I also agree that entertainment is often just a distraction from the harder issues. But, since the topic is the movie, here we are! I would never label someone who likes the movie or disagrees with my assessments as somehow "bad"; as I repeat, different minds, different conclusions. And I also fully accept I could be wrong. I tried you link, but it seemed to be no longer working.

Manchu: Tying some critiques of a movie to totalitarianism. Wow. Not touching that.

Of course not, as described above that's your MO (at least ITT).

Boy, the link works copypasted but not from dakka.
Google "roger ebert love tears", in case. Weird.

To answer to what you wrote, I do agree that inclusivity is good, but it should be not a measure of the quality of a movie, especially at the level expected now. Nor characters should be written along pre-determined patterns otherwise they are offensive, this kills the creativity IMHO.