In Blade Runner 2049, we get glimpses of how huge cities such as San Diego and Las Vegas look. They both seem to have been nuked somehow. Is there any canonical explanation for what has happened or if the situation extends to other parts as well? (or I guess the right question to ask is which other cities are not affected).
-
There are a few things that have happened, but not very well defined, on purpose.– MöozCommented Jan 7, 2018 at 9:36
-
1movies.stackexchange.com/questions/81167/…– Paulie_DCommented Jan 7, 2018 at 10:36
-
@Paulie_D Yes, related, however, none of those answers have any canonical explanations.– MöozCommented Jan 8, 2018 at 3:06
3 Answers
Las Vegas
In an interview about the film, director Denis Villeneuve had the following to say about Vegas:
The lights in deserted Las Vegas are the glow of radioactive fallout in Blade Runner 2049. "That dirty bomb generated a strong amount of radiation, but it doesn’t destroy the infrastructure," says Villeneuve.
After the radioactivity dissipated, Vegas became barely habitable, the perfect place for Deckard to hide out. "Nobody wants to live there. Like the Russian city Chernobyl, the place becomes a ghost town," says Villeneuve. "So Deckard went there after the first movie."
Los Angeles / San Diego
In the same interview he comments on Los Angeles, indicating that its situation is the result of climate change, but admits that there was some exaggeration on the part of the filmmaking team about the speed at which such changes can happen. As San Diego is only 2 hours away by car, the same explanation should apply for that city, too. In fact, Villeneuve speaks not only about Los Angeles but also about California in general:
The global climate in 2049 is even more berserk than it was in the original film. California copes with never-ending winter and is crowded with refugees.
This view is starkly demonstrated by the massive sea wall on inland Sepulveda Boulevard, protecting the city from the rising Pacific.
"It's not very optimistic portrait of the future," says Villeneuve, who says filmmakers consulted scientists about future climate and technology. "I would say it’s an exaggeration, an exploration. The ocean rising could happen one day. But not that much. It’s a sci-fi movie."
-
-
2If you're interested, I was going to write a bit about how the reason why the Earth is the way it is is not important to Denis, he
"wanted to show humanity’s relationship with nature — how human beings are disconnected more and more from nature, how we are trying to control nature"
and"For me, one of my goals was to create a bleak world with...The humanity of the characters creates beauty."
– MöozCommented Jan 8, 2018 at 2:27 -
1@sparc_spread : Thanks. There are only comments (thus far) about the cities that we see in the film.– PraxisCommented Jan 9, 2018 at 21:42
-
1@sparc_spread
In this world, there’re no more countries, only a few megapolises — Los Angeles, maybe New York, maybe London, maybe Ouagadougou...
– MöozCommented Jan 11, 2018 at 21:31 -
1@Praxis: here's hoping they'll delve more into those places. Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 15:54
This isn't a direct answer, but it's interesting to compare BR 2049, not just with the first movie, but PK Dick's original novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? In DADES, the Earth is, as I recall extremely underpopulated and then there is that whole animal adoption fetish because something wiped out 99% of animals. These are underplayed in BR1, but front and center in the book.
It's been a long time, so I don't recall it that well, but the novel gave the distinct impression that there had been a major catastrophe, not detailed upon unless I missed it, that pretty much destroyed Earth's ecology. If you're looking for that, you'll see much more of it in BR 2049 than in the first.
While I like both movies, I found 2049 markedly more in tune with PKD aesthetics than the first Blade Runner. Not to criticize BR1 - a straight out unquestioning adaptation of DADES would probably never have succeeded as film.
-
1One if the lead screenwriters of both movies, Hampton Fancher, has said that he didn't really take many adaptations from the book as he didn't really like it.– MöozCommented Jan 8, 2018 at 4:37
-
Well, that's no surprise there. DADES as-is would hardly make a great movie and, like all PKD books, is a bit hard on the reader. My point was just that the idea of ecological catastrophe fits well with the original book and, while it may not have made it directly into the screenplay, could very well have inspired some of the set design and world background - I assume at least some of the people who worked on the movie's overall concept read the book. Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 22:56
San Diego took an actual nuclear bomb hit (US Naval Location)... then was utilized as a dumping ground over the destroyed city since its radioactivity was flushed by weather conditions (as well as that orphanage location)... while Vegas was a dirty-bomb and stayed virtually intact but radioactive.
-
3Do you have any evidence, such as quotes, that you could edit in here to support your answer?– TheLethalCarrot ♦Commented Jun 28, 2019 at 11:40