as mentioned, it IS definitely one of the best outings this year, especially compared to the "competition".
with names like villeneuve and deakins at the helm, what else should one have expected?
it's also important that filmmakers get the message, that this still has a place in big budget, not just the repetitive, lazy crap that gets made almost entirely in post-pro.
however, to me (!) the movie demystified what made the original special in the first place. permission to call this move the "ridley-scott" still pending.
the ambiguity about what makes a human (or rather conscious) being, which i accredit to david webb peoples understanding philip k. dick best, was sorely underdeveloped.
[spoiler]for instance, the original choice not to go into detail about replicants' manufacture was deliberate.
it didn't matter how they came to be. what matters is what they are. how experience, fake or real, formed their character.
just like deckard, the viewer should find their own terms on which to rate them, facilitated by a visual likeness.
with 2049 they now chose the least important aspect, the "love-story" (the most unbelievable and sudden part of the original), to put their money on. obviously also as a convenient way to force deckard back into all this.
throw in a miracle child (the laziest plot device i can think of), translating all contemplation back onto a physical level, sorta missing the point.
who cares if deckard got a crush on rachel and wants to check her slots for compatibility? what's important is that he began to view replicants as individuals, capable of genuine emotional responses and experiences. not programmed robots you shoot when they become a liability.
this is perfectly finalized by him realizing that even roy beatty, who wasn't given any "emotional cushion", had developed a personality, based on his own unique experiences in the short time granted to him. and that he was afraid of death because of it.
with 2049, they fidgety grabbed at similar themes, but always superficially, as a side note, built around their misplaced focus.
the introduction of the purely visual AI would be a good example. it's an interesting extension of the question, what is needed for consciousness and life we would deem "valuable", but never handled in a way that allowed for a conclusion beyond "oh look, she got stumped.". like stewball mentioned, jonze's "her" would be a good example on how to go for depth with this sort of thing. which begs the question if it shouldn't have been left out altogether.
or if this sequel was needed in the first place, $$$ aside.
sure, the twist about "not being the one", if there even was such a thing, was a nice touch. but as a thematic extension of what 'blade runner' was about, it's pretty useless. and in all honesty, who didn't see it coming from a mile away?[/spoiler]
don't get me wrong, except gosling's performance, which frederic_g54 so aptly described as "mastering the kuleshov effect" (+one indeliberately hilarious outburst), 2049 has a lot to offer, especially in technical terms.
but as a sequel to a cult classic, it simply couldn't further any of its agendas for me. which i kinda think a sequel is supposed to?
not saying everyone needs to think this way, but one should mention that even villeneuve himself said it was an outright impossible task from the getgo.
on the other hand you have people like ford, who say they wouldn't have done it, if the script hadn't blown them away.
up to you, which opinion you think is the marketable one
have a nice weekend, dudes.
p.s.: did you know that according to ridley scott, 'alien' no longer takes place in space? it's set in plumme now. new cut coming up.