 |
| Blade Runner 1982 |
versus
 |
| Blade Runner 2049 |
IMDB users rate Blade Runner 2049 at 8.2 out of 10. Pretty heady rating for
IMDB. I’m aware that anyone who preferred the original gets dissed as an ol’
fogey. I fall into the old category, but don’t admit to the fogey part.
Nevertheless, I will go on record as preferring the original. (Both films
scored 8.2)
My reasons are from a different perspective than most.
Admittedly, film is an art form and presentation certainly plays into the
craft. From a visual perspective, I might even give Blade Runner 2049 the edge.
It paints a dystopia world with deft precision. Where it falls behind the original is the
crux of good storytelling. Bad guys gotta be bad.
In the original movie, Rutger Hauer portrayed Roy Batty with relentless malevolence, yet managed, in the end, to elicit compassion for his character.
Batty was a worthy rival, who transitions into a sympathetic victim. A fine
piece of acting, that.
 |
| Luv vs. Roy |
On the other hand, Sylvia Hoeks plays Luv like a high school
mean girl, and the script resorts to clichés to portray her evilness. For
example, when Luv stomps on K's mobile projector to kill Joi, it reminded me of a B-movie where the antagonist kicks a dog to convey dastardliness.
And then when Luv finally dies, we think, oh good, it’s over. When Batty dies, we weep.
I’m prejudice, of course. I believe the art in storytelling
requires an antagonist that presents a heavy challenge to the protagonist.
Heroes need villains to be heroic. We want the protagonist to win, but he or
she keeps losing until just before the curtain falls. The tension comes from uncertainty.
Even though we’ve seen story upon story, each time we are transported to
another place and time where the villain might actually win. Sometimes, we get a reveal at the end that turns the
protagonist’s victory poignant. A neat trick, when done right, and the original
Blade Runner pulled this off with
panache.
And that’s why I prefer the Blade Runner 1982.
