Russ007--

I basically agree with your two main points, but I don't think they necessarily undermine the film.

My view is that Ana does not know she is meant to be part of some grand uprising; rather, the rebellious replicants are simply pinning their hopes on her, hoping that once they somehow "free" her from her isolation, she will automatically join their revolution to overthrow or at least gain full equality with humans. However, since she is half-human (and I realize one has to be in the "Deckard is human" camp to subscribe to this theory), I'm not at all sure she'd be on board with a violent revolution, resulting in the "deaths" of not only replicants, but thousands or more humans before a truce satisfactory to the replicants is reached.

In any case, given the director Denis Villeneuve's professed respect for the Blade Runner story-- which is backed up by his refusal to answer conclusively just exactly what Deckard is in Blade Runner 2049 --if he does direct a third Blade Runner film, audiences should not expect any clear-cut answers (this only further illustrates that your two main points do not necessarily undermine the Blade Runner universe).

As you have alluded to, the point of the BR movies is not really to answer these questions, but to make us think about the nature of reality itself, and about what it means to be human. This is what makes the Blade Runner films such excellent examples of good cinematic storytelling-- the interpretation is largely left up to the audience, without the director trying to spoon-feed answers to anyone. I suspect that Mr. Villeneuve will continue this tradition, if he does indeed make a third Blade Runner film (which I think is unnecessary, as I thought Blade Runner 2049 was unnecessary-- even though I greatly enjoyed it and gave it a 9 out of 10, the same rating I gave the original Blade Runner, though I do think the original is a hair better).

@northcoast said:

Russ007--

I basically agree with your two main points, but I don't think they necessarily undermine the film.

My view is that Ana does not know she is meant to be part of some grand uprising; rather, the rebellious replicants are simply pinning their hopes on her, hoping that once they somehow "free" her from her isolation, she will automatically join their revolution to overthrow or at least gain full equality with humans. However, since she is half-human (and I realize one has to be in the "Deckard is human" camp to subscribe to this theory), I'm not at all sure she'd be on board with a violent revolution, resulting in the "deaths" of not only replicants, but thousands or more humans before a truce satisfactory to the replicants is reached.

In any case, given the director Denis Villeneuve's professed respect for the Blade Runner story-- which is backed up by his refusal to answer conclusively just exactly what Deckard is in Blade Runner 2049 --if he does direct a third Blade Runner film, audiences should not expect any clear-cut answers (this only further illustrates that your two main points do not necessarily undermine the Blade Runner universe).

As you have alluded to, the point of the BR movies is not really to answer these questions, but to make us think about the nature of reality itself, and about what it means to be human. This is what makes the Blade Runner films such excellent examples of good cinematic storytelling-- the interpretation is largely left up to the audience, without the director trying to spoon-feed answers to anyone. I suspect that Mr. Villeneuve will continue this tradition, if he does indeed make a third Blade Runner film (which I think is unnecessary, as I thought Blade Runner 2049 was unnecessary-- even though I greatly enjoyed it and gave it a 9 out of 10, the same rating I gave the original Blade Runner, though I do think the original is a hair better).

It's not so much that Ana wouldn't help the rebellion as it is more about the fact that the rebellion wouldn't be able to use her as their (symbolic) leader against humans. This is because of what I mentioned earlier about the social classes – humans wouldn't 'accept' her as the same as the Nexus-8s. They might let Ana do what she wants without being monitored or hunted, but they wouldn't give that same freedom to the others. So even though I agree with what you said about her deciding against the rebellion (I also lean towards Deckard being a human), it's besides the point. Humans would make the decision for her, essentially.

I'm curious what you think about the first observation. The Nexus-8s only had to sacrifice her to Wallace in order to achieve their end goal.

"The Nexus-8s only had to sacrifice her to Wallace in order to achieve their end goal."

I just don't see it that way, Russ. In the end, Wallace wants to be in control; to him, what he learns or doesn't learn from Ana is irrelevant; and I believe it will be this way for most humans-- they will not see replicants as deserving of full equality, and though they might have more sympathy for "half-humans" such as Ana, and might even treat them better, with more freedom, than full replicants, they will still see anything that is less than full-human as undeserving of full equity. Reproductive capability will mean nothing if it is done by anything that is less than fully human. I'm not even sure all replicants would join in a revolution; more likely, you'd have most humans, with a sizable group of replicants, against the remainder of the replicants, along with a few human sympathizers. I think the rebellious replicants in BR 2049 are naive to assume that all replicants would automatically side with them.

In any case, anyone expecting to see a full-on war in the next BR film (if one is made), I think will be sorely disappointed. That is just not how the Blade Runner "franchise" works; these films are more noir slow-burners than fast action films with easy answers.

These are just my opinions; others are free to have their own.

@Invidia

I think the film made it clear that Rachael only gave birth to the one girl on the day and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Freysa tells K that she was present during the birth, as she was a medic just like Morton was. Even Deckard only acknowledges a single child. It's actually one of the bigger themes that K wasn't the lead of his own story. He was a simple replicant who found his humanity, despite his perspective being a lie (that he was the miracle).

Also, Ana is the child of Deckard (human/replicant) and Rachael (Nexus-7) so it doesn't make sense that their child is a hologram. And if she died at an early age, why create a hologram in her image when nobody else suspected her to be special? You pointed out that the snow went through her hand at the ending, which insinuates that she's a hologram. I think you forgot that everything she creates inside the bubble is a hologram. Remember the forest or birthday cake that disappeared at the click of a button? So it was holographic snow passing through her and not the other way around. It's really as simple as that. The only reason she's in the bubble is because of the disease she has - or at least she thinks she has. We don't know if it was faked or not to ensure that she was safe/hidden from people.

@Invidia said:

@Russ007

It's really as simple as that

https://www.looper.com/89567/biggest-unanswered-questions-blade-runner-2049/

The entire plot hinges on the fact that K has memories leading him to believe he's actually Deckard's son. However, it turns out that though they're real memories, they actually belong to Deckard's daughter, Dr. Ana Stelline, who specializes in creating false memories for replicants. She states pretty clearly that putting real memories in replicants is illegal, but it seems like the only way that memory could have existed is if she created it. Why? And how did her memories end up in K? It seems beyond the scope of coincidence that the blade runner who's investigating the mythical replicant child would happen to have her memories. But who implanted them in K, and why?

When the film opens, K is already on the case, tracking down the first lead—Dave Bautista's replicant farmer Sapper Morton—which breaks open the investigation and starts him down the path that leads to Ana and Deckard. How did he find out about Sapper? Did someone send K specifically to retire Sapper, knowing he had Ana's memories? The movie hints at the idea that K was a decoy meant to lead investigators away from Ana, but if so, boy, did that fail spectacularly!

The more questions you ask about it, the more new questions it creates.

So, about those memories Ana has. She tells K that her parents were ready to go offworld and they left her in this bubble when she got sick at the age of eight. That's clearly a lie, though, because she has memories—which have been implanted in K—about her time living in the orphanage. So what does she really remember, and what does she really know about herself? The replicant rebel leader Freysa tells K she has Deckard's daughter safely hidden away, implying that Ana knows about the rebellion, and thus her own replicant parentage. Plus, she clearly recognizes her own memory when she talks to K. So is she in on it all? Or is Freysa blowing smoke? If the movie had gone on for another ten seconds we would have gotten the answer, but since it didn't, we'll have to settle for just guessing.

As you see from this article, there's NOTHING SIMPLE about the STORY or about what takes place in it.

@Russ007

Even Deckard only acknowledges a single child.

In the CASINO DECKARD also tells K that he wasn't there when Rachel gave birth to their child, so he's not going to know what happened, because he was sent away before the birth takes place in hopes that this would prevent those hunting for them from finding them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=osaiN-RcxqM

Blade Runner 2049 - Bar Scene [HD]

Here's the TRANSCRIPT:

>Got a name?

 - Officer KD6-3.7.

 - That's not a name That's a serial number. 

Alright. Joe.

 What do you want, Joe?

 - I wanna ask you some questions.

 - Like what? Like, what was her name? The mother of your child. What was she like? Did you live here together?

 Too many questions. I had your job. I was good at it.

 - It was simpler then.

 - Why are you making it complicated? 

- Why don't you just answer the question?

 - What question?

 I didn't figure you, as one for bullshit.

 What's her name?

 Rachael. Her name was Rachael. 

What happened to the kid? Who put it in the orphanage? Was it you?

>**I was LONG GONE , by then**. 

You didn't even meet your own kid? Why?

 Because **that was the plan. I showed them how to scramble the records, cover their tracks. 

Everyone had a part. Mine was to leave**. 

Then the Blackout came, baked over everything. Couldn't have found the child, if I tried.

 Did you want to?

 - Not really.

 - Why not?

 Because we were being hunted! I didn't want our child found. Taken apart. Dissected! 

Sometimes, to love someone... you gotta be a stranger

As you see, DECKARD claims he was LONG GONE by the time RACHEL gives birth (which could also be ANOTHER LIE ... because he's also talking to a BLADE RUNNER who was HUNTING for him when he says that … one that he's also just had a HUGE FIGHT with). And The "TOY HORSE Issue" (which is also discussed further down) also seems to indicate he's not been HONEST with K.

Because if he wasn't there when the CHILD is born, and he has NO IDEA how to find it after the RECORDS are DESTROYED, then HOW does that CONTAINATED TOY that's full of RADIATION end up getting to the CHILD in the ORPHANAGE where it's been HIDDEN???

And here's a LINK where we discussed the REBEL LEADER issue here before:

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/335984-blade-runner-2049/discuss/5a42ff49c3a36858c5047de4

Dec 26, 2017 · In other words, since The REBEL LEADER also wants K to kill DECKARD, of course she'd LIE to him. Because he's also not very likely to KILL his own father. And LUV also points out to him how the REBEL LEADER has MOST LIKELY LIED to him.

So The REBEL LEADER could also have LIED and/or simply not have known what happened. And she might also LIE because it gives her STATUS to say she KNEW the REPLICANT that gave BIRTH to another one (which would also sort of be like claiming you knew JESUS and were there when he was born). And that kind of a LIE might also be the reason why she becomes someone the other REPLICANTS would follow the LEAD of. Meaning she's also NOT going to ADMIT she's LIED and risk loosing that STATUS.

And from what you've said, RACHEL was also WISE not to TRUST HER, because she may also have given her child to WALLACE( like you say) in hopes that doing so would enable other REPLICANTS to also be able to reproduce children as well.

What's clear enough is this REBEL woman didn't really care very much about the TWINS (the records say TWINS were taken to the orphanage), because otherwise she wouldn't have DUMPED them there in that place where children were obviously being abused by the man who took care of them and EXPLOITED them by getting them to WORK for him as his source of SLAVE LABOR.

So, imo, whatever the woman tells K is also nothing one can depend upon. Because if she cared about the kids she'd have never ABANDONED them that way and left them there in that place which is a CHILD SLAVE LABOR Camp .

The other thing to NOTE is how 6 10 26 is also K's BIRTHDAY. And that's also the date that is carved on the bottom of the TOY HORSE.

if she died at an early age, why create a hologram in her image when nobody else suspected her to be special?

When the GIRL TWIN DIES (like the records say) this would be when someone creates the HOLOGRAM copy of her (which would also act as a DECOY to have people looking for the BOY find her instead of him). And then they'd probably also end up thinking the entire story had been a HOAX.

everything she creates inside the bubble is a hologram.

Yes, she creates the cake, but WHY is she looking at the SAME STUFF falling down that K is looking at and AT THE SAME TIME???

What I suspect is she's DOWNLOADING his MEMORIES (which is why we see the SAME THING as K sees).

Someone else also said the CEILING is open and the SNOW STUFF is falling down into the BUBBLE area, but there's also no indication that's the case due to the way there's nothing on the FLOOR.

And The SNOW like stuff could also be FALLOUT from the NUKE that was set off.

In other words, it's anything but SIMPLE, due to the way so many people who see the SCENE keep coming away with so many DIFFERENT perceptions of WHAT they think they've seen.

Same situation with the BEES. Some assume the BEES aren't REAL (because they have to EAT FAKE FOOD that WALLACE produces due to the NUKES making it impossible to grow FOOD anymore). So if nothing can grow anymore (including TREES), then how can BEES be REAL???

But then in an interview the director also claims they were REAL (even though VEGAS was suppose to be an area where the RADIATION was HIGHEST which would make it LESS LIKELY the BEES could survive there).

And DECKARD was also suppose to have been living there for several years as well.

And we know the RADIATION is HIGH due to the way the GUY who examines the TOY HORSE was able to locate or tell how to find DECKARD by the amount of RADIATION that was found on the TOY.

And here's still another link that also points out how UNLIKELY it is that the child would even have the WOODEN HORSE that's been there in VEGAS at all:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/goofs

The tritium radiation of the wooden horse figurine (the Trojan Horse) leads blade runner KD6-3.7 (Joe) directly to where Deckard has been hiding, but Deckard has been on the run and was already in hiding long before the birth event on 10th June 2021. So exactly how did the child being chased when at the orphanage, get the wooden horse figurine, and subsequently hide it? Either someone else transported the wooden horse figurine from Deckard to the orphanage, or perhaps Deckard left the wooden horse figurine with pregnant Rachael (N6FAA52318) as a unique gift for their child, or there is a large plot hole here.

It was Freysa, leader of the rebel Replicants, who (with Sapper) hid Ana Stelline after she was born. This must mean that Freysa had Deckard's complete trust, and it was she who transported the horse from him to his daughter after the radiation event but before young Ana hid the figurine.

But again, the FACT that she KNEW the TWINS were in that ORPHANAGE and does NOTHING to improve their lives would also mean she's NOT to be TRUSTED, because she also doesn't really CARE very much about them to leave them there in that place. And the FACT that she tries to talk K into KILLING DECKARD also proves she didn't care very much about RACHEL and the way she felt about DECKARD. And that kind of behavior also ADDS UP to the REBEL LEADER being as COLD HEARTED a person as WALLACE was (who also didn't care about the OTHER NEW BORN REPLICANT that he KILLS just because through no fault of it's own it couldn't REPRODUCE a child).

So even though the director says the BEES were REAL BEES, it still MAKES NO SENSE that the BEES or DECKARD would survive living there.

And it also MAKES NO SENSE that the CHILD ends up with the TOY HORSE that DECKARD makes and CARVES a BIRTHDAY onto the BOTTOM of it that he shouldn't even KNOW about.

Not unless DECKARD also LIES to K, which also seems to be the case, especially after K asked him if RACHEL had LIVED there with DECKARD in VEGAS.

Watch the CLIP AGAIN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=osaiN-RcxqM

K: Did you two live here together? 

Deckard:  Too many QUESTIONS

IF K is right and RACHEL had lived there in VEGAS with DECKARD, then that might also indicate she DID NOT DIE and her DEATH is an ILLUSION (just like DECKARD's DEATH is an ILLUSION that was CREATED by K).

The only reason she's in the bubble is because of the disease she has - or at least she thinks she has. We don't know if it was faked or not to ensure that she was safe/hidden from people.

Yes exactly.

Her entire LIFE could be a LIE.

And I also think it's possible that RACHEL FAKED her own death by placing her serial number on those bones they find and that she could also still be alive.

Just like K also creates the other LIE about DECKARD being DEAD as a way to get the LAPD and WALLACE to stop searching for him.

This is a WORLD FULL of ILLUSIONS where Nothing is what it seems to be and can't be taken at FACE VALUE.

Which is also why one hopes they'll make another BLADE RUNNER FILM again, so that we can find out what happens after DECKARD meets Ana, and if ANA did DOWNLOAD K's MEMORIES, and then IMPLANT them into another PROTOTYPE REPLICANT BODY as a way to be able to RESURRECT K again.

And I also suspect the other GIRL that K had sex with is PREGNANT as well.

Because I still also think K is the OFFSPRING of RACHEL and DECKARD no matter what that REBEL leader said.

And that probably also means the REBEL LEADER LIED to K about who he is as a way to try to get him to KILL DECKARD for her (which, imo, also makes her just as EVIL as WALLACE who kills the new born).

Or maybe RACHEL giving BIRTH is also a LIE that the REBEL LEADER comes up with as a way to MOTIVATE a REBELLION???

Me, I'm sticking with the theory that K really is the OFFSPRING of RACHEL and DECKARD (which will also be PROVEN when MARIETTE gives birth to still another REPLICANT from her having had 3 way sex with K and HOLOGRAPHIC JOI).

Because the RECORDS also say:

THE BOY DISAPPEARS.

And then he also ends up HIDDEN in a place (right there in their own territory) where the LAPD would least suspect he's been hidden??? A place where he also happens to have the SAME KIND of a JOB that DECKARD himself use to have???

And he also just happens to ACCIDENTLY be placed on a case where he KILLS a REPLICANT who helps RACHEL give birth???

Which then leads to his finding her BONES buried under a DEAD TREE???

A DEAD TREE that also happens to have the SAME DATE carved on it (K's BIRTHDAY) that is also CARVED onto the bottom of the TOY HORSE that he also happens to have MEMORIES of HIDING there in the orphanage as a CHILD???

Someone has obviously deliberately MANIPULATED K and what he does.

The QUESTION to ask ourselves is WHO did it and WHY did they do it.

IF ANA put the MEMORIES into K, then WHY would she do that??? What purpose would it serve her to disobey the LAW that also forbids her from doing so???

Why would she want to do something so CRUEL as that??? Planting MEMORIES of her getting BEATEN UP by a group of other BOYS who wanted her TOY???

And since when does a group of young boys BULLY and BEAT UP a young girl???

Don't young boys usually also BULLY other BOYS???

As you see asking QUESTIONS about this FILM just leads to still more QUESTIONS about it.

And here's still another LINK that thinks K is a HUMAN TRICKED into thinking he's a REPLICANT:

https://www.inverse.com/article/37165-blade-runner-ending-post-credits-ryan-gosling-human-replicant-snow-memory

maybe he did live that toy horse moment but was conditioned and tricked into thinking the memory belonged to someone else. We’re told K’s false memory and the toy horse is are part of a larger puzzle. It’s doubtful that puzzle will be explored in a sequel to Blade Runner 2049. But, if it were, it’s nice to think that the sad Replicant lying in the snow at the end of the film might be more human than he knows.

Or maybe he's A HYBRID (HALF HUMAN/HALF REPLICANT) just like he thought he was ALL ALONG???

AKA: THE BOY WHO DISAPPEARED (just like the RECORDS he finds said he did)???

And Still another thing to consider is this:

IF K's MEMORIES are FALSE, then couldn't the MEMORIES of SAPPER and the REBEL LEADER also be FALSE as well???

Because someone else may have also PLANTED them into them the same way as they did K???

And the same way as TYRELL also PLANTED the MEMORIES of his NIECE into RACHEL ... who also carries PHOTOGRAPHS around with her ... thinking it was PICTURES that were taken of HER with her MOTHER ... when it was really the NIECE of TYRELL with her mother in those PHOTOS???

Which leaves us with this QUESTION:

How can anyone who's a REPLICANT KNOW for sure that what they think they KNOW is REAL and isn't something that someone else PLANTED into their MIND???

MY CONCLUSION:

The story might be SIMPLE if all one is interested in is SKIMMING the SURFACE of it without DIGGING DEEPER DOWN into the much more INTERESTING kind of SUB TEXTUAL STUFF that one can also find HIDDEN in it or even right there in plain sight within it.

Remember the forest or birthday cake that disappeared at the click of a button?

Yes I do. And isn't it's also interesting how ANA chose to DISPLAY a HOLOGRAPHIC BIRTHDAY PARTY during K's VISIT when she and K also SHARE the SAME DATE of BIRTH.

@Russ007

2. The same army, whose members are exclusively Nexus-8s, believes that they are completely equal to Ana who is notably not a Nexus-8.

Which brings up another INTERESTING ISSUE which is RACHEL's probably a UNIQUE one of a kind NEXUS 7 (unless Deckard is also one).

read:https://www.looper.com/89567/biggest-unanswered-questions-blade-runner-2049/

To put the replicant timelines into quick perspective, in the original film, Harrison Ford's Deckard was hunting Nexus-6 models. In 2049, Dave Bautista's character is a Nexus-8, and Ryan Gosling's K is a Nexus-9. And, obviously, the androids evolve with each new model number. Nexus 6s had a four-year lifespan. Nexus-8s, like Bautista's Sapper Morton, can live much longer, and can apparently visibly age.

K's model, the Nexus-9s, are similar to the 8s, but are apparently much, much more subservient. In the "2036: Nexus Dawn" short, Jared Leto's Niander Wallace introduces the first Nexus-9, who's happy enough to stick a glass shard in his own jugular at a word from Wallace. They're pretty foolproof, is what we're saying.

So what about the missing model? Where are the Nexus-7s? As far as we know, neither film explicitly mentions a Nexus-7, but 2049 left an Easter egg that reveals Rachael (Sean Young) from the original film to be one of those—possibly the only—elusive Nexus-7s. When K is hunting down the serial number from the bones he found buried under that tree, the serial number begins with N7. It's possible that's short for Nexus-7. The bones, of course, turned out to belong to Rachael, which would make her a Nexus-7 (if that's what the serial number implies, anyway).

And that alone opens up a whole new can of worms. Could all the Nexus-7s reproduce? Was Rachael the only Nexus-7, or a special version? And if Deckard's a replicant, is he a Nexus-7 as well? Yeah, have fun answering those.

So IF RACHEL is a NEXUS 7 MODEL, then wouldn't that also make ANA a NEXUS 7 Model as well??? Or does being a HYBRID HALF HUMAN/HALF REPLICANT BEING somehow NEGATE a being from being a NEXUS MODEL at all??

And here's still another VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION for you:

HOW can a REPLICANT who is BORN with an ALREADY FULLY GROWN UP ADULT BODY be able to GROW UP from a CHILD into an ADULT???

Great FILM isn't it??? The way that thinking about it can really f**k with one's head???

Don't forget about how we saw the NEW BORN REPLICANT that was BORN before WALLACE KILLS her.

And from a TECHNICAL stand point shouldn't the NEXUS 8's also be more ADVANCED MODELS than the 7 MODELS???

But if RACHEL's the ONLY MODEL that can REPRODUCE ... and they NUKED and DESTORYED the INFORMATION that Tyrell had that would enable them to make other NEXUS 7 MODELS ... then wouldn't that also mean the REPLICANTS DESTROYED any hope they may have had of ever being able to REPRODUCE themselves???

Unless K is also RACHEL's OFFSPRING and got MARIETTE pregnant when he had 3 way SEX with her and with HOLOGRAPHIC JOI, which might also result in a GRANDCHILD of RACHEL being born.

Because if she does have a GENETIC CONDITION that forces her to live inside of the BUBBLE (and if she's NOT a HOLOGRAM like JOI), it's also unlikely ANA would chose to have any offspring of her own and RISK having it end up with the same condition. Plus there's also the other ISSUE of her offspring being HUNTED so that it could be DISECTED as a way to try and figure out how to make other REPLICANTS that could REPRODUCE.

But since MARIETTE is a prostitute, if she get's pregnant she probably also won't even realize K is the father her child. But a REPLICANT getting pregnant would still also put her AT RISK of being HUNTED down as well. But maybe she also keeps a DATA listing of all of her clients in case one of them wants to ""HOOK back up" with her again??? So for that reason K might also be on that DATA LIST of her clients???

@Russ007

Wallace would be their key to unlocking what they've wanted. It's horribly ironic, but all it costs is giving Ana to Wallace. A human would do that.

And how surprised should we be if the REBEL LEADER also turns a pregnant MARIETTE over to WALLACE for the same reason as you say it would be to her advantage to turn over ANA to him???

As for HUMANS doing that …

A human like K's DEAD BOSS might do that, but NOT ALL HUMANS would do it. The FACT that SOME humans chose to HIDE Jews who were being HUNTED down by NAZI's during WW2 also PROVES this to be the case and that NOT ALL HUMANS do things for SELFISH reasons. And K also proves that not all REPLICANTS do INHUMANE things either.

This is a general response to all of the rambling you have been doing, but generally, no. Blade Runner 2049 is not that deep, or mysterious. In fact, it's greatest fault is that it is far simpler, and less ambiguous than the first film. In many respects, 2049 is an amazing movie, but a very poor Blade Runner sequel. Additionally:

"But the kind of GENETIC CONDITION the one TWIN had may also have been like TURNER'S SYNDROME (where a female is born with MALE DNA)."

This is complete nonsense. Turner's syndrome would not magically result in identical twins of opposing genders. You're drastically over-reaching in an attempt to give this film greater depth and meaning than it really has.

Finally, as an English teacher, seriously, please pick either lower case or upper case, and stick with it. Your bizarre mashing of typing styles IN an ATTEMPT at EMPHASIS is enough to induce convulsions.

Wow... you're actually trying to accuse me of an ad hominem. First of all, my criticism of your typing style had absolutely nothing to do with the argument you were making. It was entirely a separate criticism of your horrible sense of grammar and typing. Second, it doesn't matter if you read an article or not. If you have a story where you want to claim that two characters are a set of identical twins, but one of them has turner syndrome, guess what? THEY AREN'T IDENTICAL. One of them has a genetic disorder that is absent in the other. Therefore they are not genetically identical, therefore they would not be identical twins. Not the least of which is the fact that men and women are genetically different, something that can be tested for, and K would easily have been able to analyze the genetic code present and actually determine the sex based on that. Again, a clear example of sloppy writing and a fundamental inability on the part of the writers to understand basic biology.

The only fallacies at play here are the ones being used by yourself. You, like another member of this forum I will not name, need to learn to check your biases, and actually learn the line between subjective and objective.

@Invidia said:

At least GO READ the ARTICLE before you try to DENY what it says isn't SO.

Because otherwise you're pretty much SPITTING in the WIND by trying to CLAIM what they've said has NO MERIT without having even BOTHERED reading what it is that they've said.

So instead of SLOOPY WRITING what we have is a case of SLOOPY READING where you haven't even READ the ARTICLE that you now try to claim has no VALIDITY.

Attacking someone's POSTING STYLE is an AD HOMINEM due to the way you ATTACK the PERSON rather than their ARGUEMENT.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

And If you don't like the posting style I use then you're also FREE TO PLACE me ON IGNORE and that's the end of that.

I read the article. The argument you are referring to still involves a genetic mutation, and therefore there would be minor genetic differences that would still be traceable. You're wrong. You never bothered to properly research the argument, you just cherry picked it because it fit your particular biases. In order for one "identical" twin to be male, and the other female, they would have to have different chromosomes. That would show up in genetic records. You're wrong. It's that simple.

Second, you really need to learn what ad hominem really means. Me criticising your posting style is an entirely separate argument. It is possible to have two conversations at the same time. I never once used my criticism of your grammar to refute the arguments you were making. This entire conversation bas been me critising your ideas on their merits and critising your grammar separately. Learn the difference before you play psuedo-intellectual victim. It will only hurt you in further conversation/argument.

Additionally, it's spelled "Sloppy". I'm pretty sure you are intentionally misspelling it in an attempt to mock or irritate me, but it again just reflects badly on you.

@Invidia said:

Both K and the audience are led to believe that his memory was an implant, of Ana’s creation. However we only have Fresya’s word that only a single female child was born, and at the time she tells him that she’s motivated by needing to use him to kill Deckard. In Luv’s words to Lt. Joshi. “You’re so sure. Because [s]he told you. Because we never lie?”

LUV admits REPLICANTS LIE. FRESYA is a REPLICANT who wants to use K to kill DECKARD. Therefore she has a MOTIVATION to LIE.

Our hidden interpretation revealed through the literary clues woven throughout the film is the possibility that K and Ana were in fact twins, and moreover, that Ana died and was given a holographic afterlife

THEIR INTERPRETATION is that LITERARY CLUES that are WOVEN into the FILM indicate that K and ANNA were TWINS, ANNA DIED, and was then given a HOLOGRAPHIC AFTERLIFE.

I didn't CHERRY PICK anything. YOU, on the other hand, CHOSE to CHERRY PICK and IGNORE what doesn't fit in with YOUR INTERPRETATION then turn around and PROJECT onto me what you yourself have done.

In cases where this occurs, the female child will present Turner Syndrome. Stelline mentions the reason for her isolation being as a “compromised immune system”, which fits with one of the symptoms of Turner Syndrome. It’s also worth watching the birthday memory scene carefully. The very last child introduced seems noticeably different to the others, much younger, and less healthy. Another symptom of Turner Syndrome is growth defect in infants. Turner Syndrome is also typically characterized by infertility. If K and Ana are twins, then any further descendants would need to be from K, not Ana.

Mariette, perhaps?

Since K had SEX with MARIETTE, that also sets up the POSSIBILITY that DECKARD could become a GRANDFATHER, and K could also become a father (which also sets up the story to progress to the next set of events that will take place in the NEXT SEQUEL).

What's more, in VEGAS DECKARD also tells us that The RECORDS were CHANGED and even ERASED as a way to PROTECT the offspring Rachel gave birth to because DECKARD (who was also a BLADE RUNNER) also knew they'd try to HUNT DOWN and kill anything that was born to a REPLICANT.

That's why the RECORDS were missing from the BOOK in the ORPHANAGE.

But then K and JOI also find the other RECORDS on MICRO FILM that indicate TWINS had been born: and ONE of them (The GIRL) had DIED.

And that's why what the article says HAS VALIDITY.

Because the SUB TEXT of the STORY also tells us another DIFFERENT STORY than the other one we hear from the UNTRUSTWORTHY LEADER of the REPLICANT REBELLION who also has a MOTIVATION and a reason to LIE to K.

Hahaha! Well you've just proven my point now. First of all, no, I haven't cherry picked anything. I specifically refuted one of your arguments based on biology, immediately disqualifying any intended or interpreted alternative meanings, which you have NOT cited or sourced any relevant sources for. If this film was intended as a metaphor only, then you might have had a point. But it wasn't meant as metaphorical. It was a more serious, cerebral science fiction. I chose my argument, and I refuted it on its own merits. You however, keep insisting that it is the case, despite the key detail that is the basis for the entire argument having been refuted. I haven't ignored anything. If the core of your argument is fatally flawed, the rest of your argument falls apart, no matter how much you dress it up to look and sound pretty. You need to learn that just because you like something, it doesn't make it a masterpiece. I actually like 2049. I'm just not going to pretend it's as smart as you want it to be. It rings hollow when compared to the original film, I suspect due to only one of the original writers having been involved. It doesn't have the polish that the other script did. Either way, none of it makes you any less wrong.

criticising your posting style is an entirely separate argument.

No it's not. It's all part of the SAME PROCESS (which is to try and DISCREDIT my other argument by suggesting that anyone who types the way I do isn't worthy enough of having what's been said taken seriously).

And what it does it REVEAL to us the reason why one SHOULDN'T TAKE what you have to say SERIOUSLY.

Because it also makes you a MEAN SPIRITED TROLL and a BULLY which is also why you now keep INSISTING on having us ACCEPT it be YOUR WAY even when AMPLE EVIDENCE has also been PRESENTED that INDICATE the POSSIBILITY that the LITERARY CLUES are telling us it's ANOTHER DIFFERENT WAY than the way that YOU CHOSE to see it .

No, it isn't. I posted a clear critique of your argument regarding the film itself, and a complete separate criticism of your grammar. They are two different critiques, about two different things. The fact that you respond to both only proves that point. If you cannot tell the difference between the two, that is your problem, not mine.

And only another SEQUEL will REVEAL which way is right.

Or maybe not, BECAUSE of the way the other ISSUE regarding whether or not DECKARD is also a REPLICANT or not was also NEVER RESOLVED with this SEQUEL. Since he lives in a RADIATED VEGAS (the most contaminated area in the country), that would seem to indicate he wasn't human. But there are also still other arguments put forth that indicate he is human.

And that ISSUE also still remains UNRESOVED.

Therefore there may also NEVER be any CLOSURE with this other ISSUE either.

And the MAIN PROBLEM at hand may also be your INABILITY to deal with that kind of AMBIGUITY.

I understand ambiguity just fine, and none of what you have written in this section has any relevance at all. None of my discussion with you has been in any way related to whether Deckard is a replicant. I honestly just think you like seeing yourself type.

This entire conversation bas been me critising your ideas

AGAIN, THE IDEAS put forth are NOT MINE.

They are the IDEAS of those who WROTE the ARTICLE.

Since I DID NOT WRITE IT or have anything to do with it, that also means YOU have also a SERIOUS COMPREHENSION PROLEM**.

How many times does one need to TELL YOU and REMIND you of this FACT before it finally SINKS in???

I haven't seen you properly source any of your arguments, but whether or not they originated with you, you are using them consistently to prove your points, which means that you have accepted them as ideas, and you are using them as your own in support of your chosen argument. But fine, if it makes you happy, let me rephrase that as "me criticising your arguments".

And yet you also claim to be an ENGLISH teacher???

All one can do is PITY your POOR STUDENTS.

My students are doing just fine, thank you very much. But hey, now who's resorting to ad hominems?

"Since I GRADUATED CUM LAUDE with a DEGREE in LITERATURE, one doesn't NEED to PLAY at being what you refer to as some kind of "PSUEDO-INTELLECTUAL VICTIM."

Because that DEGREE also CONFIRMS my INTELLECTUAL STATUS is not that of a PSUEDO.

On the other hand, the FAULTY kind of reasoning that you've put forth would indicate that you've once again PROJECTED something onto me that most likely also applies more TO YOU YOURSELF (who is probably also only PRETENDING as if you have a degree when you probably also do notand IF you do teach ENGLISH it's probably also only as a TEACHING ASSISTANT to someone else in some GRAMMAR, MIDDLE, or HIGH school setting).

And if anyone has been MOCKING anyone, that would also BE YOU who STARTED the FLAME WAR in the FIRST PLACE by MOCKING my POSTING STYLE which also HAS NOTHING whatsoever to do with this FILM or with the TOPIC at hand.

And the reason you did it was to try to BULLY ME (which you still keep trying to do in each proceeding message that you've posted .

But like I said, having GRADUATED with HONORS gives one CONFIDENCE in what one is saying and it also makes one IMMUNE to that kind of a thing."

Well now I am quite confident that you are a liar. Show me your credentials, because I highly doubt you have any relevant experience in literature or English. Not with a posting style and use of language like that. If you had actually graduated with honors, you would be able to discern the difference between two separate arguments in a conversation. Of course, I knew you would play the victim, but let me point out this simple fact: criticising your use of grammar once is not bullying. It's a criticism, albeit a bit mean-spirited one perhaps. You however have now twice in the same post attempted to completely refute and discredit my entire argument by attacking my character and ability personally. Who is bullying who?

Edit By the way, in fairness, here is my own citation regarding your arguments for Turner Syndrome: https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/types-of-twins#unique-fraternal-twins

Can we not all just get along here? Let's keep our discussion solely focused on the film instead of each other.

(Also, my two fallacies still stand today.)

@Invidia said:

@Tsavo said:

I specifically refuted one of your arguments based on biology

AGAIN, the ARGUMENT is NOT MINE.

It belongs to the person who wrote the ARTICLE, once again PROVING the POINT previously made about the problem you have with COMPREHENSION.

Before reading the article I'd also NOTICED the same things the article addresses:

--That K and JOI find the other EVIDENCE that indicates there had been TWINS and the FEMALE TWIN had died.

--That there was also the POSSIBILITY that the REBEL LEADER had LIED.

Whether or not the idea originated with you, you are using it as an argument, therefore making it your argument. Additionally, you have not linked or cited a single article that I have seen, only another thread.

I actually like 2049. I'm just not going to pretend it's as smart as you want it to be. It rings hollow when compared to the original film

HOW???

What is it about the ORIGINAL makes it better???

What exactly do you mean when you say POLISH???

What are some specific examples to prove that point??/

Beyond the primary story, the other mysteries are mostly just hinted at. There are no clear answers, not even a clear presentation of the questions the film asks, beyond interesting questions. We are never given anything to indicate that Deckard is in fact a replicant from the dialogue, beyond one question. "Did you ever take that test yourself?". The film leads you to the questions, but never really pushes beyond that. Its focus is on the primary storyline, which is rather simple and straight forward. Everything else is only question and implications about the nature of humanity, and the ambiguity between what makes us human. Granted, the early cuts were a bit rough, but a lot of that can be chalked up to studio interference. That is what makes the original film deep, and well crafted. It never tries to beat you over the head with its complexity, only presents you with a simple story about a jaded cop hunting down replicants.

2049 on the other hand is all able obscure plots, rising insurrection, and "This breaks the world", without any real exploration of how or why. There is nothing simple about the story, and all of the mysteries are rather heavy handed and forced, in addition to being poorly thought out.

ME:

And the MAIN PROBLEM at hand may also be your INABILITY to deal with that kind of AMBIGUITY.

YOU:

I understand ambiguity just fine

ME again:

UNDERSTANDING it isn't the same thing as being WILLING to ACCEPT IT.

The POINT is DECKARD, RACHEL, and others went to GREAT LENGTHS to HIDE the FACT that RACHEL had given birth. And they were obviously also RIGHT to do so due to K's BOSS giving him orders to HUNT down and kill her OFFSPRING.

And The POINT of mentioning the possibility of DECKARD being a REPLICANT is to ILLUSTRATE how BOTH VIEWS have VALIDITY in regards to that ARGUMENT. In other words, due to the situations regarding him that we're confronted with it's also an AMBIGUOUS matter that lacks a RESOLUTION (which, imo, is also the same way as certain situations that we find in BR 2049 leave us) .

And "What takes place in the FILM" is the SOURCE of the ARGUMENTS that were put forth.

I also accept ambiguity just fine, when it's well crafted. There is very little ambiguity in 2049, just people overthinking the story and trying to force ambiguity into places that it doesn't exist. Deckard possibly being a replicant has no relevance in this specific argument anyways. Therefore, it is irrelevant.

Well now I am quite confident that you are a liar. Show me your credentials, because I highly doubt you have any relevant experience in literature or English.

Your FALSE ASSUMPTION that one has LIED to YOU is also YOUR PROBLEM (NOT MINE). Because I also KNOW that you've been TOLD the TRUTH. So go ahead and CHOSE to live there inside of your ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSE if you like where you like to PRETEND that things that are TRUE and NOT TRUE.

AA in LIBERAL ARTS

BA in HUMANITIES: CONCENTRATION LITERATURE

Also attended GRAD SCHOOL where an INTERDISCIPLINARY DEGREE was required:  

SUBJECTS STUDIED:  LITERATURE and PSYCHOLOGY

I said show me, not type random credentials that may or may not be true.

Not with a posting style and use of language like that.

Some consider EMILY DICKINSON to be the GREATEST AMERICAN POET.

Ever notice the way she WROTE her POEMS???

https://poets.org/poem/im-nobody-who-are-you-260

I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you – Nobody – too?
Then there's a pair of us!
Don't tell! they'd advertise – you know!

How dreary – to be – Somebody!
How public – like a Frog –
To tell one's name – the livelong June –
To an admiring Bog!

You'd no doubt take a RED PEN --MARK the POEM UP-- and complain about how they contained too many DASHES, etc. etc. etc.

I am quite aware of Emily Dickinson. Your posting style is neither poetic nor creative. You emphasize random words that are completely irrelevant to your points, and even then not even with consistency. You use bold and italics without any apparent rhyme or reason, and what's more, you're writing posts that are at least intended to be intellectual, not creative. You have absolutely nothing in common with her, and your argument is nonsensical here.

Instead of POSTING this LINK try EXPLAINING whatever it has to say in it in YOUR OWN WORDS.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/types-of-twins#unique-fraternal-twins

Imagine if you were to include a LINK in a TERM PAPER instead of trying to EXPLAIN in your own words the reason why you'd included a LINK.

You'd obviously get an F GRADE if you tried to do so.

First of all, I already explained it in my own words in the last several posts. It's very clear you're reaching for criticism here. Second of all, it's called citation, and yes, it is accepted in term papers. In fact, in any serious academic paper the absence of citation would likely result in an F grade. Again, you're only proving that you clearly have no understanding of the academic world.

I also knew a woman who had Superfetation TWINS who didn't look anything alike (one was tall and thin and had PALE brown colored hair/the other was short and had a bright yellow or blond hair color). But the one with the PALE BROWN hair also looked just like her OLDER SISTER (only younger).

And the woman also explained how it was due to the fertilization of a second egg in her body when she was already pregnant.

But that's also NOT what the ARTICLE is talking about. And we're also NOT talking about Heteropaternal superfecundation or about TWINS by different fathers either.

Because What we're talking about is "a MAKE BELIEVE CONDITION" that the WRITERS also MADE UP.

Blade Runner 2049: Diagnosing Galatians Syndrome ...

http://sartorialgeek.com/blade-runner-2049-diagnosing-galatians-syndrome/

Perhaps, then, we aren’t being asked to see Ana as someone with this mysterious Galatians Syndrome… but, rather, as someone who will serve to cure its inherent presence in Replicants everywhere. What this means for the future of the Blade Runner franchise – if anything – is unclear.

According to the papers Agent K finds, Dr. Stelline (as we later piece together) is the one diagnosed with Galatians Syndrome. And given her existence in a walled-off room, we can likely assume that the fictional syndrome has something to do with a compromised immune system.

Maybe.

We’re never really given any depth of explanation, but we can assume all day. Would the offspring of a human and a Replicant naturally have a compromised immune system? It’s possible. There’s a lot we don’t know. Though it’s equally likely that Dr. Stelline is largely fine health-wise, and was simply “stored away” for safekeeping. We don’t know.

K almost seems to be the one who suffers a sort of “Galatians Syndrome,” if we present it as psychological rather than physical (due to the way that he FAILS the BASELINE TEST).

Which is also WHY the FILM is FULL of AMBIGUITY.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. First, both examples of twins you just cited are again not identical twins, and therefore would not have the same DNA, so your statement is completely irrelevant. Second, Galatians Syndrome has nothing to do with the possibility of twins, but might be the result of at least one of the parents being a replicant. This was an example of good ambiguity in the film.

ambiguity

[ˌambəˈɡyo͞owədē] NOUN

the quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness.

But YOU'RE NOT OPEN to more than ONE INTERPRETATION are you ( due to the way that you keep CONSTANTLY INSISTING upon YOUR WAY of seeing things being the ONLY WAY to see them)???

Yes, I know the definition of ambiguity, thank you very much. I have been using it in the correct context this entire argument. Additionally, I have never really pushed any of my own thoughts regarding the story of 2049 before this very post. The rest of the time I have focused only on refuting the argument you keep putting forward regarding the concept of twins, which in no way shape or form, or even with some "make believe" syndrome would explain. There is no way that you would see a set of twins with identical DNA, but different sexes. You can argue all you want, but you're wrong. It's sloppy writing, that's it.

And since you're also such a FAN of the original BR Film, also thought you might find my other THEORY interesting. Are you also a Star Trek Fan??? Because it also involves one of the NEWEST Trek shows called DISCOVERY.

Because in Ep. 5 of S3 there's also a scene where you see a FAMOUS DIRECTOR wearing the same kind of LARGE EYE GLASSES as TYRELL wears in BR.

So naturally I also made the CONNECTION, and think maybe the Asian character that you see in the CLIP below is eventually going to POKE OUT the eyes of this guy wearing the EYE GLASSES (the same way as ROY BATTY POKES out the eyes of TYRELL with his fingers):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeO6dHB-tUw

Exclusive Clip: Star Trek Discovery S3E5 - "Die Trying" | SYFY WIRE

Because the hologram also makes reference to how it was discovered that there's "a chimeric strain on the subatomic level in the Terran Stem Cell." And this ASIAN character is also a TERRAN (a former EMPRESS who ruled that world), who is also going to want to seek REVENGE upon this GUY wearing those glasses (the same way as ROY BATTY also seeks REVENGE upon TYRELL).

And with RUTGER recently having passed away ... that could also be A TRIBUTE to him ... IF the show does have this Asian character (called GEORGIOU) do that to the guy wearing those GLASSES.

You also have to SUBSCRIBE to the CBS ALL ACCESS channel to be able see the show.

So IF you already get that channel, then STAY TUNED and let's see if this THEORY is RIGHT or NOT.

I enjoy Star Trek, but I am not a fan, and have very little interest in STD. I much prefer "The Expanse".

Anyways, this will be my last response to you in regards to this argument. I have already made my point, and you have so far presented nothing to refute my points. Additionally, I have little interesting in continuing any debate with someone who first falsely accuses their opponent of an ad hominem, before then proceeding to aggressively use ad hominem attacks against me. It's hypocritical and incredibly intellectually dishonest. Anyways, I doubt there will be much of anything constructive in the following replies.

@Russ007 said:

Can we not all just get along here? Let's keep our discussion solely focused on the film instead of each other.

(Also, my two fallacies still stand today.)

Well, that was the goal, I had hoped that the conversation would be more constructive and civil, but of course it went differently. By the way, I'm not sure I would call your arguments fallacies, but they are pretty good points.

@mechajutaro said:

@Russ007 said:

I want to get others' opinions on this so I'll try to make my observations as short as I can. You can just read my two main points below if you're very familiar with the story.

Fallacies:

**1. The rebellious 'army' of replicants wanted to protect Ana (Deckard's daughter) from Wallace's experiments, which would've ironically helped their uprising.

1. The same army, whose members are exclusively Nexus-8s, believes that they are completely equal to Ana who is notably not a Nexus-8.**

Breakdown:

1. The Nexus-8 replicants made by the Tyrell corp want to keep their future leader Ana alive long enough until their numbers and resources are sufficient to either talk politics with humans or in the worst case go to war and risk dying for the right cause, which is to be free from suppression and have equal rights to the humans. Wallace has a god complex and wants to be known as the man who populated the entire universe with humans and replicants. He says that he needs Ana to unlock the mystery of how to get them to breed amongst themselves, but he will need to therefore 'experiment' on her, which the army assumes would effectively be torturing and killing this supposed miracle. Aside from the replicant's human instinct to refuse giving her up to Wallace, wouldn't that not be the easiest way for them to get equality? Think about it. Once Wallace discovers how to make them breed then there'll be a chain reaction of these new replicants being born and in no time there'd be more of them than humans. (More about replicant classes in fallacy #2.) With so many of them and with their fundamental argument that "if a baby can come from one of us, we are our own masters", how could humans and particularly the LAPD not give into the pressure of their demands? If the army thinks it can stop being labeled slaves with 1 example of a born replicant, then how can they not see the advantage of having millions of examples? Wallace would be their key to unlocking what they've wanted. It's horribly ironic, but all it costs is giving Ana to Wallace. A human would do that.

2. The second fallacy is that whether the Nexus-8 army used Ana as their symbolic leader or chose to hand her to Wallace for there to be a million born replicants, the truth is that humans wouldn't equate the Nexus-8s as being equal to the new fertile models (let's call them Nexus-7.1s) because of their incapability to reproduce. In fact, the simple existence of the reproductive Nexus-7.1s, or even Ana who's a hybrid consisting of a Nexus-7 (Rachael) and human/replicant <7 (Deckard), should make the army of Nexus-8s completely obsolete. Humans would think even less of the leftover Nexus-8s. There argument that "if a baby can come from one of us, we are our own masters" is deeply flawed because they mistake Ana for their own. For some reason they don't understand or acknowledge that there are different classes and Ana is a symbol of hope for Rachael's lost kind and not theirs. Notable examples of how social class is important in the BR universe would be: humans constantly talking down to all replicants, K coldly telling Morton (Nexus-8) that his kind "runs" unlike his own, and Mariette (Nexus-8) telling Joi that she's empty. Heck even Luv thought she was better than K and they are both Nexus-9s! No way are the Nexus-8s going to be listened to when they're further down the social hierarchy now that the newer models exist. So there's no way that they'd be able to win their 'war' for freedom without solely relying on violence. Ana is also unaware that she is part, or completely, replicant. How can they be so sure that she won't snap or simply use her class and miracle label to distance herself from the Nexus-8s? So why even use Ana or future Nexus-7.1s as a symbol for freedom? And if they want to keep replicants in general alive then Wallace is their sole hope because the gene pool from Ana's offspring (assuming she can reproduce in the first place) would be severely lacking and her kind would die out from genetic diseases along with the Nexus-8s over time as they have natural lifespans.

In the end these two fallacies ruin the film's story. I know that the themes and questions the film poses are the more important aspect of the BR series rather than the plot. It's just that you could've had the same complexity without needing to jumble the characters' motivations.

1. Hollywood's still trying to sell us on Gosling in these more hard-bitten roles. Dude's great as a slacker or downtrodden romantic lead, but for Yahweh's sake, stop trying to turn him into some sort of heir to Clark Gable or Harrison Ford
2. Denis Villeneuve's brilliant when he's working in the realm of slow burning crime dramas(Prisoners, Sicario)and low frills neo noir, like Enemy. He's out of his depth when he starts playing in the sandbox of FX heavy sci-fi yarns though. Movies like Blade Runner are a niche where the Ridley Scott's of the world(those who excel at style, and care f-ck all about substance)outshine everyone else

Honestly, I didn't mind Gosling in the role. I thought he did well with the material he was given. That said, I would be curious to see how it would have turned out with another actor. You're right though, he's certainly no Harrison Ford.

As far as Denis, it's an interesting take. Personally I think he actually does really well with sci-fi, I just hope he refrains from trying any more "Blade Runner" sequels. I have not seen "Enemy" yet, but considering one of the areas where I thought 2049 failed miserably was in its complete absence of anything even remotely resembling noir, aside from some pretty good lighting moments, it would be nice to see him do a good neo-noir. I'll have to check it out. Either way, given it's lack of sequel status, and lack of hard sci-fi, I am cautiously optimistic about Denis' take on "Dune".