Vegas was radioactive in the past, but K asks his drone to check for radiation and it doesn’t find any, so the fallout must have faded since then.
K and the vendor discuss the woods’ radioactivity and one of them mentioned that wherever it had been was a place that had been radioactive but was now safe.
But even with the radiation faded away, Vegas hardly looked appealing, what with the perpetual sandstorm haze.
Was it ever revealed how Vegas got contaminated? My guess: a terrorist dirt bomb.
I think there was a reference to a terrorist dirty bomb, wasn’t there? Or maybe I saw something about that on teh Web.
Meant to post this earlier - a clever, Thirties-noir style trailer for the original movie: Blade Runner Trailer - Classic Noir - YouTube
This would be incidental to the cause of the upcoming slave revolt. Although, sure, they need to keep their numbers up somehow.
Yes, but what we saw of Los Angeles and San Diego was worse. And seeing how tiny and shitty K’s apartment was, the casino Deckard took over was much nicer. Plus all that booze. (Although we were never told what he was eating, it couldn’t have been much worse.)
I also wonder where the power was coming from for the malfunctioning floor show. Maybe 20 years of solar charging is enough to top off the batteries, even in that haze.
By 2049, every big hotel could have a small fusion reactor in the basement.
Yeah, but the implication was that Vegas had been dead a long time. Certainly long enough to cool down from the radiation. So I doubt it has 2049 technology anywhere other than K’s spinner.
In the Blade Runner universe, we already had flying cars, off-world settlements, and replicants in 2019. So personal-size fusion reactors in 2039 aren’t that big a stretch.
It would have been cool to see a “Mr. Fusion” system on the back of the spinners.
The lead up to that moment, was a medical exam. He was studying her to see if she was fertile, When she turned out not to be he killed her.
And isn’t that a lovely little bit of misogyny. She can’t breed, so might as well kill her.
It, not her. At least that was my interpretation. I doubt he thought of it as a her at all.
Wallace killed her because he enjoyed it.
I think it was a mistake to make him that kind of monster.
I agree.
He regarded her as Product. Not a living being.
I was not defending his behavior in my post up there. I was simply describing what I felt he had been doing.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I’m late to the party, having just seen it at the local second run theater.
I love the original, and have watched it many times over the years. To me it’s a perfect, self contained work of art, and didn’t need a sequel. That said, I enjoyed the new one, and wasn’t offended by it, but it just didn’t have that spark of genius that the original did.
The one thing I felt it lacked compared to the original was a feeling of immersion. I just didn’t get that feeling of being on the rain soaked city streets, surrounded by the strange denizens of the city. The new one felt like I was observing from a distance.
When “Rachael” was talking to Deckard, I didn’t think it looked like Sean Young. To me it looked like a different actress wearing the same outfit and make up. I was surprised to read that it actually was a CGI creation.
No.
You’re no fun anymore.
I loved the original because of the combination of noir and sci-fi: the robots are more “alive” than the beaten-down gumshoe sent to kill them. I wanted to like the sequel, but the noir element wasn’t there. Too much sunlight, too many honest people, and Gosling is too pretty.
I just saw it last night, and I loved it.
I agree that it wasn’t very explicit, but I understood it immediately as I was watching.
Two kids, a boy and a girl, with the same DNA. That doesn’t mean twins, it means that one of the DNA records is fake. Just a copy of some other person in the system.
I’ll have to go watch that scene again to be sure, but since they mention the genetic disorder, I assumed that the girl’s DNA was real, that the replicant child was a boy, and that they’d chosen the girl because she would die young, the way that it’s a common trope (maybe was also an actual practice) to create a false identity by finding someone who died as a child in a place where the death record isn’t computerized. You then have a real birth certificate, and no other real person out there to trip you up. Not sure how well the details of that work out, but it made sense in my mind as I was watching it. And of course we are encouraged to think that K is going to be the child by lots of other things in the movie.
The conversation that K has with Lt. Robin Wright makes this work for me. K is aware that his memories are fake, and that they’re probably there for psychological conditioning reasons. There could be thousands of other replicants with the horse dream, but none of them would find the real horse because they wouldn’t (a) see the same date carved on a tree and (b) follow the trail of the DNA to the child slave place. None of them would even look for the real horse.
Maybe. Although if you want to avoid casual detection, a remote job and a medical condition that means no one can ever get close enough to examine you seems like a pretty good cover.
It worked for me. The major theme running through both movies is how human the replicants are, and how inhumane the humans are. Wallace is power corrupted to the extreme. He’s a god-king pharaoh creating and destroying in his golden pyramid.
For all the talk about how sexual reproduction of replicants is more efficient than manufacturing (or however they’re made), the real reason he wants to make them reproduce is that he wants to be a god.
I definitely want to watch it again. The visuals are stunning, and I expect there are many nuances to discover on a reviewing. One minor detail that I noticed that most movies would just miss entirely. In the last scene, K’s clothes have faint dried salt patterns on them after the fight in the ocean.