From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 5/3/2019 8:00 PM, Anson Carmichael wrote:   
   > Bice wrote:   
   >> Yeah, the pointless killing just to show "this guy's really evil" was   
   >> a bit over the top.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Well, that's pretty much what the ending was pointing towards.  I   
   >> imagine that will be the main plot element of a third movie, if one   
   >> ever gets made.   
   >>   
   >>    -- Bob   
   >   
   > I think the killing, if memory serves, was related to the fact that   
   > replicants could be created, but for some reason could not be   
   > created fertile. Since Leto's character was searching for fertile   
   > replicants, the one he killed was executed for being infertile.   
   >   
   > Some mention was made earlier that a massive blackout had   
   > occurred at some point in the past that wiped out all or most of   
   > the data the Tyrell corporation had on replicants. The Leto   
   > character wanted to mass produce replicants, but he couldn't   
   > grow them fast enough to feed demand or develop the market   
   > capitalization he wanted. The fact that Decker and Rachel were   
   > able to conceive meant that Tyrell had found a breakthrough that   
   > Leto had been searching for, but the data had been wiped in the   
   > blackout some years ago.   
   >   
   > Re: Replicant Rights   
   > I think the theme of the story was that it didn't matter who was   
   > "real" and who was not. The value of being a sentient being was   
   > making one's own choice and having personal agency in life. As   
   > a result, Ryan Gosling's replicant character was constantly being   
   > told what to do by at least two factions that wanted him to be   
   > their servant. One side was the human Bladerunner unit that was   
   > using him to hunt down other replicants. The other was the   
   > replicant resistance movement that had taken their idea of   
   > freedom to the point of religion. In the end, rather than doing   
   > what either of them wanted him to do, he did what he thought   
   > was right. If indeed he died in the end (SPOILERS), he died   
   > a self-realized being, not a servile one.   
   >   
   > A lot of the film is left ambiguous, I think, for dual effect.   
   > On the one hand, the audience was meant to chew on and ponder   
   > the unanswered questions, and on the other hand, Gosling's   
   > character was trying to deal with the world without a lot   
   > of critical information. He was just as confused as the   
   > audience was and had to decide who he was going to be with   
   > a lot of gaps in what he understood was going on around him.   
   >   
   > That's my thought on this, anyway. The film was definitely   
   > not for everybody. The original Bladerunner was mostly a cult   
   > film by accident while 2049 was trying to create the   
   > ambiguity that came from some of the shenanigans surrounding   
   > the myriad of edits in the original. This was coupled with   
   > modern filmmaking sensibilities and the final product is   
   > fundamentally worthwhile or not depending on one views the   
   > whole mix of it all.   
   >   
   > Again, just my thoughts on the film. Take it for what it is   
   > worth.   
   >   
   You put a lot of thought into that review.  Thank you.   
      
   --   
   Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation   
   instinct are running screaming.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)