I feel bad for the soul and legacy of Philip K. Dick

Rating: Null/10 (27 December 2017)

Could I rate this 0/10?
The original movie was an acceptable dumbing down of Dick's original story - which the author himself superficially validated before passing away. For those who are interested, there's a well researched TV documentary on his life.
Dick created worlds where a reality based on artificial intelligence would collapse in weird and dangerous ways. Read Ubik, The Man in the High Castle, Flow my Tears, and his other stories to get a taste. His inspiration was fuelled by drugs and deep personal and psychological issues -I am not a doctor or qualified expert, but I guess that nowadays, Dick would be diagnosed with some form of bipolar disorder -in the same way Vincent Van Gogh would.
Dick's worlds are full of irony and unusual perspectives on the human condition, he asks pointed "what if?" questions and provides curve-ball answers that take us to unexpected places. If you have not read his work, before you pass judgement on this movie, please read a few of his books.
Evaluating this expensive and exquisitely produced pile of manure only by reference to the original Blade Runner movie would not do justice. Back in the days, Ridley Scott took a gamble on producing an expensive and edgy film -based on an even more disturbing story- that would re-set public expectations about Sci-Fi movies.
My issue with the sequel is that what is left are the weakest bit of the original: the unexplained rain-fuelled darkness over LA due to climate change, the perceived threat of bio-engineered life and its economic exploitation.
These were not the core premises of Dick's story, which delved into the dark corners of what it means to be human. So all we're left with in the sequel is a dumbed-down story of emancipation that dares not fully embrace its premise (hence the inconsequential ending) or socio-political consequences, and just leaves us to ponder for three hours which of the characters is Rick Deckard's son or daughter: who cares???
There was so much potential for this story, the scale of the missed opportunity cannot be understated.
I would not lay the blame on the doorstep of the director, who did a good job to make the vast budget look good on the screen, but I am convinced that the army of scriptwriters and focus-group marketing minions have to shoulder some of the blame for the bland and ill-informed outcome. If Villeneuve had been given a decent story and a quarter of the money, maybe he would have directed a watchable movie.
As it stands, this is a horrible failure, and I can't see how a "director's cut" would redeem it.