this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
112 points (100.0% liked)
movies
22814 readers
124 users here now
Rules for Movies & TV Discussion
-
Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
-
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
-
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.
Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've always thought that the original movie is more meaningful if it takes a synthetic person's emotions to draw out Deckard's buried-by-trauma emotions. If a "fake" person can love a "real" person then does it matter they're "fake"? Doesn't that make them just as "real"?
I think that interpretation also fits more neatly into 2049's story. "Real" and "fake" are a matter of intention, not origin.
But I fully agree that it was amazing that 2049 could pull off a sequel that satisfies both of sci-fi-fandom's legendarily-at-odds camps. An incredible movie. Every time I think that Hollywood is creatively bankrupt, one of these gems manages to slip through into the annals of sci-fi history.
There are absolutely great interpretations of both. The bubbling internal conflict of being a Blade Runner while also being a replicant, the fact that replicants are so indistinguishable from a human that only a replicant could do the job, the mind fuck of meeting a replicant that doesn't know they're one. The directors cut was my introduction to the film so I just gravitate towards it.