Main Menu

Blade Runner 2

Started by Goaty, 27 February, 2015, 09:53:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Apestrife

Quote from: Keef Monkey on 12 October, 2017, 10:22:20 AM
It didn't seem to go down so well with the couple of guys sat behind us though, who loudly talked about how boring, long and terrible the original Blade Runner was (why did they come to this?!) and were clearly bored out their minds 15mins in so just cracked jokes, kicked our seats, drummed away on their arm rests and went for several smoke breaks, each of which necessitated some really irritating jacket zipping and velcro tearing. It was frustrating, sitting there knowing I'd have enjoyed it way more at home on blu-ray in a few months, but knowing that I'd never navigate the spoilers for that long so needed to compromise and see it with...shudder...people.

Once I got a group of 10 kids to leave a movie theatre. Told them to be quiet. Helps to have a deep voice I guess.

Quote from: Keef Monkey on 12 October, 2017, 10:22:20 AM
Lengthy run-times do sometimes hurt a film's re-watchability for me, in that they aren't films I can throw on for a rewatch on whim in the evening, rather they need an afternoon devoted to them and that time is harder to come by. It's for that reason the Hateful Eight blu-ray has sat un-watched since release, despite us loving it in the cinema and often saying to each other how great it would be to watch again sometime.

I love putting one on when I know I have a free night, or early morning. Especially Apocalypse Now Redux. Quite sure I'll watch Blade Runner 2019 and 2049 in one sitting once the later is on blu ray :)

Keef Monkey

Early morning is a good shout actually! If I have a nothing day I do like to get up early and watch a film before lunch, a great start to the day.

I, Cosh

Not read any of this (or watched any trailers.). 3D or not 3d?
We never really die.

JOE SOAP

Not much point in 3D for this film. Not composed or shot for 3D, and dark as it is, would lose of lot of detail by wearing shades.


Tjm86

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 13 October, 2017, 12:04:26 AM
Not much point in 3D for this film. Not composed or shot for 3D, and dark as it is, would lose of lot of detail by wearing shades.

The future's not so bright then?

Mattofthespurs

Quote from: von Boom on 12 October, 2017, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: Mattofthespurs on 12 October, 2017, 06:07:27 PM
I see where you are coming from but for me it's art. The more you put into it yourself the more you'll get out.
I was with a group recently that went through the Sistine Chapel. The rest of the group breezed through in ten minutes and I spent 2 hours plus in there and got chastised after by the rest of the group because they waited and, in their words, 'I could have bough the book and looked at the pictures later.'
I am someone who will happily spend six hours in the Tate or the National Gallery absorbing. I appreciate time is a factor but I'm happy to let the carpet go un vacuumed, and the dusting not done, and all the other mundane things got unattended if it means I get to have an experience that will possibly mean something to me later on.
I could quote Roy Batty's famous lines from the first film, most of which possibly took him more than 2 and a half hours, but I won't.
But that's the point I'm trying to make.
Appreciating art takes as long as it takes to appreciate it.
And I consider BR2049 art.
So shoot me, but I do.

Please tell me you were wearing a beret and smoking a Gitanes while writing this.
Bien sur!

Keef Monkey

Quote from: I, Cosh on 12 October, 2017, 11:52:53 PM
Not read any of this (or watched any trailers.). 3D or not 3d?

Didn't even realize there was a 3D version! I saw it in 2D in quite a small cinema and loved it, and didn't get the impression 3D would add anything to it.

Keen to see how it looks in IMAX as I've seen it mentioned that's the format it was shot for, so uses the extra height well. If I make it along to another viewing while it's in cinemas then that's what I'll be going for.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: Keef Monkey on 13 October, 2017, 10:24:06 AM
Keen to see how it looks in IMAX as I've seen it mentioned that's the format it was shot for, so uses the extra height well. If I make it along to another viewing while it's in cinemas then that's what I'll be going for.

I saw it in 3D because that was the only IMAX option available. I think it's worth mentioning that bog-standard 3D (at least in our local Cineworld) tends to be badly-calibrated, prone to ghosting, and quite head-ache inducing. The 3D for IMAX has always been impeccable.

I can't say the 3D added much to the film, but it certainly looks amazing in IMAX. (Also: better sound.)
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

TordelBack

Mmmm, I wanted to see it in IMAX too, but likewise all the showings I could get to were in 3D, and I couldn't be arsed peering into the murk and balancing glasses for circa 3 hours (even though our Cineworld does have a superb 3D IMAX setup, by far and away the best screen I've ever experienced).

Hawkmumbler

Saw it. ADORED it. Going to watch again tonight. 'Nuff said.

Mardroid

Quote from: Rara Avis on 12 October, 2017, 10:17:29 AM
I loved the scenes that were [spoiler]lit by water[/spoiler], they were really beautiful ... maybe a tad overdone  but just gorgeous.

It was too long imo .. they could have cut [spoiler]the fight scene between K and Deckard[/spoiler]

While it was long, I wasn't bored.... although I think they could have perhaps shortened that scene a bit.

Quote, also the [spoiler] doesn't it say at the start that newer model replicants now must obey humans so how can they have a rising (?), it might have been better if they had just stuck to the child of Rachel and Deckard stuff in that scene [/spoiler]

[spoiler]I believe most (if not all) of them were Nexus 8s, successors of the models hunted by Deckard in the first film in that the shorter life-span rule does not apply to them, but previous models to K and Luv's.

(Incidentally their model is never mentioned, is it? I would guess they are Nexus 9s, if the previous models are Nexus 8s.)

That being said, at least one of them appeared to be quite a young woman, (the girl that acted as surrogate for K's holographic girl-friend in that weird proxy 'love' scene) but I don't think their model was shelved that long ago.

Bear in mind that K never goes with their plan of rebellion. Luv, does kill a human (or was that guy a replicant too? I'm not sure who is or isn't in the police station), but she could have special programming. That being said, nobody states the new model won't kill humans, just that they are obedient, and she is obedient to her own master. In fact she is devout to a fault.

If there are later models among the rebel crowd, the idea that replicants can progress beyond their initial restraints has been a theme since the first film.  The Voigtt Kampff test is supposed to test empathy and emotion, after all, and Roy Batty displays both by the end of the film. Not that they're ever without them,
but it would appear they are programmed to be slower to react, or something.[/spoiler]


QuoteAlso regarding the [spoiler]child that Rachel and Deckard had[/spoiler], was this alluded to in the first movie?

I don't believe so.

Anyway, I really liked this film, and felt it really explored and expanded on ideas from the previous film in a meaningful way. I read a review (not here) generally suggesting that while the reviewer liked the film they seemed to think it more style over substance. That was definitely not the film I saw. It abounded in both.

Eric Plumrose

Saw it yesterday ('props' to Cineworld for actually presenting the film so that it wasn't just silhouettes talking throughout).

Thought it looked gorgeous, albeit in a kind of self-aware we're-making-a-sequel-to-BLADE-RUNNER-so-we-have-to kind of way. Ditto the soundtrack.

Enjoyed it more when it was being its own thing than a sequel but the indifferent narrative makes it hard to care (something Jim's also noted): K's investigating this but it's also that [spoiler]and it relates back to him or does it but obviously not because the movie's taking its time or maybe it does because it's taking its time . . .[/spoiler]

Annoyingly, of all the Judeo-Christian symbolism I clocked I can only remember [spoiler]the miracle birth[/spoiler] (natch), [spoiler]so it's more Joseph and Mary than Adam and Eve (but . . .)[/spoiler].

I'm also undecided if all the callbacks to the original were nuanced or just fan service. Again, I've forgotten pretty much all of them with the exception of the eye close-up and [spoiler]K looking at his hand every so often[/spoiler]. Bizarrely, I had the sudden realization halfway through that Robin Wright reminded me of Rutger Hauer.

There's some nice, underplayed humour [spoiler](an obviously incapable Deckard saying "We could do this all night or we could get a drink" and another scene I've forgotten)[/spoiler] and one misstep [spoiler](Joshi's head-drop on her desk after she's been killed)[/spoiler].

Would also have much preferred [spoiler]the miracle child's birth being a source of hope than an actual incentive to rebel[/spoiler], so overall . . . disappointing.
Not sure if pervert or cheesecake expert.

IndigoPrime

Mrs IP and I watched this last weekend. The first film we've seen out together since mini-IP appeared. And we watched it at a 10:10 morning showing. Probably not ideal.

We both broadly enjoyed it, although 'enjoy' is a loaded work. I think, crucially, I'm not sure I'd watch it again (although these days rarely rewatch things anyway), and the main takeaway we both had was that the film was crushingly, unrelentingly sad.

In a sense, that's probably part of the point. In the original, society's crumbling anyway, and those who can get off world are leaving. Now, decades later, we see a broken, toxic world – in every sense – where it's hard to tell what is real (and where that doesn't seem to matter anyway). And, yeah, lop off three seconds from every one of those extended scenes and you might have a less crazy runtime.

Mardroid

I agree that the film is rather sad, but[spoiler] I thought it ended on a nice optimistic note as far as Deckard is concerned. Of course he isn't really the main character of this film (not quite true I suppose, as events revolve around him and Rachel, but it's through another's eyes), so it could be taken as a bit of a downer in that regard. K died nobly though, doing something highly empathetic[/spoiler]. I liked the ending.

SIP

I saw this for a second time this week. It was still incredible. And even knowing exactly what was to come, it did not feel too long.