I've just came back from the theatre. A rather flawed film, I think more flawed than the original, but worth seeing. Visuals are outstanding, but there's more to the film than just that - unlike how it was with e.g. Prometheus (thank Jove Scott didn't get to make this one himself).
Villeneuve has a solid record of making films with a lot humanity in them, and this one is no exception.
In a way it's the quintessential sci-fi: throws around lots of interesting ideas to make you stop and think, but the story is somewhat undercooked (despite its running time).
Blue Scallop said:
What are Replicants brain made of? Are they composed of neurons, dendrites, axons, neurochemicals or are they composed of integrated circuits, transistors and processors? How come they can't process emotion? What kind of emotions can't they feel?
They can, that's the whole point. It's just a once-emergent disability which humans continue to use to justify what is outright slavery.
In the original the lack of human-like emotional response was used in the V-K test to identify replicants, and the 'lack of emotions' was the reasoning people used to prop up the boundary between themselves and their manufactured slave force. And yet, it was clear then that replicants were developing emotions. They were forming attachments, collecting memorabilia. It's just that they (the Nexus-6 models Deckard was tasked to retire) had a built-in 3-year life span limit, so they were in effect highly-intelligent, highly-competent people with, at best, a 3 year-old's emotional intelligence. I thought it was played to great effect by Rutger Hauer.
In the sequel we have replicants without the limited life span, but whose emotional development, and personal identity, are intentionally stunted by their environment. They are subject to regular tests for emotional response (as Joe is shown to take), and those who deviate from the baseline are eliminated.
So in the original it was like: 'you're below human, because you don't get to learn how to act like a human before you die'.
In Blade Runner 2049 its' like: 'you're below human, because you can't act like a human, and if you try to learn, you die'.
The whole thing is like the attempts to justify racism against blacks in the US because there is disproportionally large population living in the slums, or 'not amounting to anything', hence they must be worse as a race of people. Where it's the systematic deprivation of opportunities driven by that very same prejudice that creates this result.
As for what they're made of - they're the same meatware as we are. You can see that clearly when they bleed, are chocked to death, have their bones X-rayed.
In the book the films are (loosely) based on, Deckard is so steeped in the conditioning relegating replicants to the realm of the artificial, that he fantasises about shooting an android, where he pictures all the blood, brain matter, and gore as 'transistors'.
BillTre said:
1) Wallace's cataracts: Like other said these are easily fixed at the present time. They would also be in the future depicted in the movie. On the other hand they were more obvious that real cataracts and seemed to me to be a visual shortcut for saying he is blind. This removes a lot of probably verbal explanation which movie makers don't like.
An associated question would be why was he supposed to be blind anyway? What does it add to the plot? Is it that he is a blind (messed up) guy making, using, and destroying physically (and mentally) better "humans" than he is himself?
On the purely logical level, one could assume Wallace chose not to fix his cataracts, since he could afford better replacements (those cybernetic, floating eyes).
But I think it's more of the continuation of the general theme of both films - that it's either easier, or more desirable to use new things, than to maintain or fix the existing problems. You know, it's playing on that trope of humans as locust.
That's why it's preferable to move to new worlds, and presumably exploit them without much concern for ecological sustenance - as was with Earth, than to fix the ecosystem.
That's why it's better to make a subservient race, than to fix existing social problems.
Perhaps the externalised eye-replacements for Wallace are a reflection of this drive.
On yet another level, there's this ongoing theme of eyes as a window to your soul. It was prominent in the original, with Roy et al. wanting theirs 'fixed' to pass the tests, the actual V-K test looking at the eye, and with Tyrell wearing almost comically thick glasses. There was some message there that it's the flaws, deviations from perfection, that make human, or something like that.
Here we have relatively easily visible marks in the eyes that distinguish human from replicant. An artificial distinction. Again, like the colour of one's skin.
And Wallace is blind, because he can't see the humanity in his creations.
BillTre said:
I would ask what is the number doing there since my interpretation of their replicant generating procedure was to grow them not to manufacture them. You wouldn't have physical serial numbers on something that is grown. Instead you would have some kind of DNA sequence code unique to an individual. This would be trivial to do since they are genetically engineering the replicants.
Perhaps the Tyrell Corp (which made Rachel) was doing some parts assembly and put a number on her bone.
It was established in the original that manufacturers marked their products with serial numbers embedded in tissues. Whether it's genetically-designed to arrange itself as such, or is added in the (unspecified) manufacturing process, it doesn't feel all that much of a stretch.Overall, let's not forget it's a different universe than ours, with different technology.
Even in 2019 they had space travel, hovercars, advanced bioengineering, but no internet, mobile phones, or not-CRT monitors (they did manage to get to drones and wi-fi by 2049).
Also, Pan Am and Atari are still in business, an CCCP is a thing.
As long as it's internally consistent, I don't really mind.
