I feel the writers of 2049 simply didn't get what the original Blade Runner was actually about. Blade Runner is not a strictly literal depiction of events, it is a very symbolic film about humanity and oppression. The "replicants" nature is left vague on purpose, which is meant to point us towards the idea that they aren't really manufactured at all. A surface-level reading of the film makes little sense, as there are numerous logical inconsistencies with the nature of the replicants, and things only make sense once you look at what they actually represent. They represent rebellion against the oppressive system that makes slaves out of everyone in it, and that's why they need to be "retired".

2049 drops the ball by taking the whole replicant-thing way too literally, and actually showing us that they are manufactured products. Sure, 2049 isn't a dumb film by any means, and it covers some interesting themes of it's own, but it just feels like the sequel depicts a completely different world from the first film. I wouldn't hold this against the writers, as almost no-one seems to grasp the meaning of the first film, but it seems that either the writers misunderstood the original, or they intentionally changed the implicit meaning because they were afraid audiences are too dumb to actually piece it together, or would outright reject the idea if it was explicit.

Hampton Fancher wrote the screenplay of both films. So I suppose it's possible that you understand his script better than he does, but it seems pretty unlikely.

Personally I enjoyed the way that the film was different to its predecessor in a lot of ways.

\> The "replicants" nature is left vague on purpose, which is meant to point us towards the idea that they aren't really manufactured at all. A surface-level reading of the film makes lit

I feel like you’re going to need to justify some of your assertions before it’s possible to discuss your later points

The first movie is all about why and how the replicants are manufactured... They're designed to work in places where humans can't and Deckard investigates the corporation that makes them. Nothing vague about it at all.

the replicants being manufactured in the second one is a huge plot point. tyrell made life and wallace was making knock offs trying to chase what tyrell had done but couldn't. it also exists to allow K to grow into a living being. the point is that even manufactured beings are beings. feel like you misread it entirely

Right? I’ve never seen anyone say that.

The original movie never leaves it vague. Chew grows their eyes. Sebastian straight up says "I made you" to Roy and Pris. The whole Tyrell scene is Roy asking his engineer for more life and getting a technical answer about why the four year lifespan can't be undone. That's not window dressing you can scrape off to find the 'real film' underneath.

I completely agree with the OP. Besides, "Blade Runner" is a film that stands on its own; it doesn't need a continuation featuring the same characters. I have nothing against the idea of a new "Blade Runner" exploring the philosophical themes of the original or offering counterpoints. But the very idea of turning the original film into a franchise—driven by that unhealthy geek obsession with lore and continuity—has once again given us the kind of cynical project Hollywood specializes in. It is yet more proof of this industry's strong tendency to cannibalize itself.

I get what you mean. There's definitely less mystery around the nature of replicants in the sequel, but I do think you're slightly over exaggerating the mystery in the first film.

We are unambiguously told that the replacants are made and why at the start of Blade Runner, and they even visit several of the people involved in the making of them throughout the movie.

I think the point is not whether or not they're man-made, but whether or not that means they aren't "alive" or have meaningful thoughts and feelings, like humans do. At least thats what I find myself thinking about when I watch it.

>The "replicants" nature is left vague on purpose, which is meant to point us towards the idea that they aren't really manufactured at all.

Not in the slightest. There can be vague elements of the story but there is no doubt that they are manufactured.

Maybe they are confusing Blade Runner with Alien and the origins of the Alien species. That’s my only guess.

Tyrell only did it once and arguably by accident.

I think a better place to take that interpretation is that their nature is left vague so that we as the audience can't other them from the regular humans. We're told they're different, but we don't see much that actually indicates they're less than human.