Blade Runner 2049 Told the Wrong Story

Ridley Scott's 1982 Sci-fi masterpiece BLADE RUNNER was ahead of its time. It wasn't well received back then. It was seen as too unreliable and dragging in many spots. I guess the world didn't see the onslaught of Artificial Intelligence coming. BLADE RUNNER gave birth to a new subgenre of science fiction--Cyberpunk.

Blade Runner 1982

Nowadays, cyberpunk is commonplace and celebrated by its millions of fans. This includes myself. The subgenre has rightly found its respect and place in movie history with the several cyberpunk films released since BLADE RUNNER. 

Because of the genre's success through the past few decades, with great films like THE MATRIX, TOTAL RECALL, and MINORITY REPORT, the buzz began happening to produce a sequel to BLADE RUNNER.

Not a good idea, in my opinion.

It didn't need a sequel. It needed a definitive ending from Scott. He created several versions of BLADE RUNNER through the years, each with its own new spin. (I refuse to think Deckard is a replicant. It doesn't make any sense and negates the sequel.)

The reason 2049 sucked, besides the stale acting and 2-D texture of digital filmmaking, is because of the retcon of Rachael. PROMETHEUS, another one of Scott's offshoot sequels to his prior franchise ALIEN, fell victim to the same retconning. The space jockey was related to humans? Really?

via GIPHY

Whereas Rachael, in the first film, was said by Deckard's superior, Bryant, was a Nexus-6 version of the current replicants manufactured by the Tyrell Corporation, in 2049 she's suddenly now a Nexus-7. And the only one in the world. Apparently, Rachael was unique. But it was never conveyed as such in the 1982 version. She was just as smart as Roy, Leon, Zhora, and Pris (just not deadly).

But because Hollywood thinks audiences are stupid and won't remember such details, Scott and his team retconned Rachael to be a newer model. Thus, her new prototype model gave her two specific gifts. 

1. She could live just as long as a human being.
2. She could procreate.

Don't get me wrong. I respect the grand idea, but such ideas weren't mentioned at all, not even slightly, in the 1982 story. 

Because Scott and this team decided to go with this storyline, what followed was a storyline that was unable to grab the attention of the audience. Not only was the Rachael character not in the film, but it was a mystery as to who the child of Rachael was. 2049 led audiences to a boring mystery, thinking that Agent K (Ryan Gosling) was somehow the offspring of Rachael and Deckard. 

And then we find out he is nothing special. He's still just a replicant sellout who tracks and kills other replicants. At the very least, they could have had a father/son adventure storyline. Deckard and K could have gone through the cliche moments of getting to know one another. And then one could have died to show the other the importance of life. Or whatever. Something superficial, cliche, tired, or expected. It still would have been better than the out-of-touch story we got in 2049.

To the filmmakers involved, it probably felt like a good idea to retcon the Rachael character. But it truly was the worst choice they could have made for a sequel to one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.