> but the sequel keeping with that timeline, kinda changes it out to alternative-history
I think this is a huge problem with the cyberpunk aesthetic today. What defined it was the fact how transgressive and original it was when it was first introduced. When I saw 2049 and how close it stuck to the original, it didn't seem futuristic but retro, including one scene with a CCCP advertisement which obviously made sense as a vision for the future in the early 80s but seems counterfactual now.
I think the movie would have benefitted from taking many more liberties with the setting to avoid this retro-futurism.
The first Blade Runner is a view of a dystopic future that raises a number of philosophical themes.
The second Blade Runner is a love letter to the first that also expands on some themes and further adds to the original myth. It’s kids playing in their dad’s sandbox once more.
If you started reworking the original BR environment, it would not work. The whole point is to throw you right back to the original, warts and all. You have to anchor it firmly, so that then you can take some liberties elsewhere (nuked Vegas etc).
>The second Blade Runner is a love letter to the first that also expands on some themes and further adds to the original myth
fully agreed, but I wish it would have been as visionary and as much of a leap as the original movie. We seem to live in the age of love letters with star wars, comic book adaptions, ready player one, and soon a fourth matrix movie.
I would be really glad if we had more filmmakers work on truly new aesthetics instead of just paying homage to works of the 70s, 80s and 90s.
There does seem to be a dearth of new sci-fi aesthetics. I suppose there was a moment in 2013 with Oblivion's iPodpunk style, Elysium featuring Neill Blomkamp once again showcasing his "Global South sci-fi" style and themes, Her doing a heartfelt American version of Black Mirror's near-future consumer tech sci-fi, and Snowpiercer's vivid revolution in an enclosed vehicle.
As an absolute fan of Blade Runner, I disliked BR2049 and I really think it was a mistake to film a sequel of the original. I don't think the original needed a sequel, the open ending and unanswered questions were perfect, and in fact most of the "tied loose ends" of the sequel kind of run contrary to the original for me. They undermine their characters and make it all some sort of silly experiment/conspiracy that simply doesn't do it for me. I dread the thought of Ridley Scott now saying he has more stories to tell... especially if they are of the "quality" of his Alien/Prometheus sequels.
I think I would have enjoyed BR2049 better had it been an entirely new movie and not a sequel to something. And if it didn't have Jared Leto overacting, of course, but I suppose that cannot be helped.
I know this is just a matter of taste/aethetics, but I feel exactly the opposite; I was annoyed that it didn't feel more like the future of the original movie. I felt like all of the screens should have been CRTs, even if there were also holograms present. If we could invent replicants before replacing our CRTs, why not invent holograms too? I loved that they kept the Soviet Union around and put that giant Atari advertisement in.
I think this is a huge problem with the cyberpunk aesthetic today. What defined it was the fact how transgressive and original it was when it was first introduced. When I saw 2049 and how close it stuck to the original, it didn't seem futuristic but retro, including one scene with a CCCP advertisement which obviously made sense as a vision for the future in the early 80s but seems counterfactual now.
I think the movie would have benefitted from taking many more liberties with the setting to avoid this retro-futurism.