Sorry as try to find thread for it, buried somewhere! lol So Blade Runner 2 is still on.
Acclaimed "Prisoners" and "Incendies" director Denis Villeneuve is in negotiations to take the helm of the "Blade Runner" sequel at Alcon Entertainment.
Harrison Ford will reprise his role as Rick Deckard in the film. The first took place in a dystopian 2019 Los Angeles, but the setting for the sequel is unknown beyond it taking place several decades later.
Hampton Fancher and Michael Green have penned the script which Ford recently called the best thing he's ever read. Ridley Scott, Andrew Kosove and Broderick Johnson will produce and filming is slated to begin next Summer.
Kosove and Johnson said in a joint statement: "We are honored that Harrison is joining us on this journey with Denis Villeneuve, who is a singular talent, as we experienced personally on 'Prisoners'. Hampton and Michael, with Ridley Scott, have crafted a uniquely potent and faithful sequel to one of the most universally celebrated films of all time, and we couldn't be more thrilled with this amazing, creative team."
http://www.screendaily.com/news/production/denis-villeneuve-in-talks-for-blade-runner/5083713.article (http://www.screendaily.com/news/production/denis-villeneuve-in-talks-for-blade-runner/5083713.article)
Fantastic news. Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have been knocking it out of the park this last twenty five years - they have made nothing but great movies with barely a duffer between them.
No, wait! The other...
Prometheaus being Ridley's last effort and revelations about 'Robin Hood/Nottingham' I for one feel underwhelmed by this news.
Still Hampton Fancher was one of the original Bladerunner screen scribes [David Peoples the other] so perhaps it won't be too awful in the end.
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 27 February, 2015, 12:36:46 PM
Fantastic news. Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have been knocking it out of the park this last twenty five years - they have made nothing but great movies with barely a duffer between them.
No, wait! The other...
oooh, you had me biting with that one. I was mentally listing all the rubbish these two had come out with before I saw your last line! Seriously though - why bother? What are the chances of the new movie reaching the highs of the original.
Zero.
Even a pathological optimist could only go so far as to hope it won't befoul the original by association.
That's pessimistic Tordel: one in a hundred. Z
I'm holding out for Legend 2: Die Legender.
There's no doubt whatsoever that Tom Cruise will be up for that.
I watched Soldier (1998) for the first time a few weeks ago, which I was surprised to discover is considered a kind of successor to Blade Runner by writer David Peoples (co-writer of the script for Blade Runner).
Containing several spoken references to Blade Runner, apparently a Spinner vehicle can also be seen amongst the junk on the main setting for the film (I didn't spot it).
My surprise was mostly due to it being, in my opinion, an average film at best. Hopefully, a direct sequel to Blade Runner as described above will help dilute my memory of it.
Yeah I always thought that Soldier connection was really curious. I'm sure I read somewhere at some point that it was written as a straight Blade Runner sequel and was then distanced from it.
Is Ryan Gosling set to be a Rep Detective?
http://time.com/3826309/ryan-gosling-blade-runner/
Eurgh. There are a million great sci-fi ideas, why try and mess with this one? The sole motivation is money, and the sole marks for this particular scam are us.
I'm growing disgusted with the modern movie industry. Read 10 random issues of 2000AD. Chances are good that in one of those will be an idea better than "hey, let's do a sequel to Blade Runner".
So if Harrison Ford is starring, and is clearly aged, does this mean Dekkard ISN'T a replicant then?!
Quote from: shaolin_monkey on 17 April, 2015, 02:51:13 PM
So if Harrison Ford is starring, and is clearly aged, does this mean Dekkard ISN'T a replicant then?!
It means "who cares, money!!!!"
Seems Harrison Ford's entire career plan these days is to just revisit all his classic roles
But what classics they are...
Acually Deckard is probably the least classic. Not a criticism- he serves the film well, but other characters outshine him.... but they're supposed to.
An aged Ford does not mean that he isn't a replicant with the four year kill switch turned off.
Quote from: Dominic O'Rourke on 20 April, 2015, 09:56:35 AM
An aged Ford does not mean that he isn't a replicant with the four year kill switch turned off.
Those self-ageing robots will be the death of us all.
CBR report Bladerunner 2 release date.
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/02/18/blade-runner-2-lands-2018-release-date/
Quote from: Bagley on 28 February, 2015, 10:25:34 PM
I watched Soldier (1998) for the first time a few weeks ago, which I was surprised to discover is considered a kind of successor to Blade Runner by writer David Peoples (co-writer of the script for Blade Runner).
Containing several spoken references to Blade Runner, apparently a Spinner vehicle can also be seen amongst the junk on the main setting for the film (I didn't spot it).
Never heard of it, but a few seconds googling (image search) has revealed Russell's character fought on the Shoulder of Orion.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yl6jKTjW3aw/U7QKjEFWiuI/AAAAAAAA8TI/NHIGFdo29DQ/s1600/soldier1998.png)
Quote from: Dominic O'Rourke on 20 April, 2015, 09:56:35 AM
An aged Ford does not mean that he isn't a replicant with the four year kill switch turned off.
The four year kill switch can't be turned off, even if the creator of the replicants / god of biomechanics could save their life by doing so (or at least buy themselves some time).
Ford
could play an artificial person built to the same spec but without the kill switch engaged in the first place, a la Bishop.
Quote from: sheridan on 19 February, 2016, 08:21:47 PM
Quote from: Bagley on 28 February, 2015, 10:25:34 PM
I watched Soldier (1998) for the first time a few weeks ago, which I was surprised to discover is considered a kind of successor to Blade Runner by writer David Peoples (co-writer of the script for Blade Runner).
Containing several spoken references to Blade Runner, apparently a Spinner vehicle can also be seen amongst the junk on the main setting for the film (I didn't spot it).
Never heard of it, but a few seconds googling (image search) has revealed Russell's character fought on the Shoulder of Orion.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yl6jKTjW3aw/U7QKjEFWiuI/AAAAAAAA8TI/NHIGFdo29DQ/s1600/soldier1998.png)
I've seen Soldier many times and it's pretty good, but that image references Tango & Cash, Escape from New York, The Thing, Stargate, and Blade Runner. So is Soldier a maybe sequel for all these films?
Quote from: sheridan on 19 February, 2016, 08:24:42 PM
Quote from: Dominic O'Rourke on 20 April, 2015, 09:56:35 AM
An aged Ford does not mean that he isn't a replicant with the four year kill switch turned off.
The four year kill switch can't be turned off, even if the creator of the replicants / god of biomechanics could save their life by doing so (or at least buy themselves some time).
Ford could play an artificial person built to the same spec but without the kill switch engaged in the first place, a la Bishop.
Or, indeed, Rachel.
They should make a spinoff about Gaff.
Quote from: von Boom on 19 February, 2016, 08:48:54 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 19 February, 2016, 08:21:47 PM
Quote from: Bagley on 28 February, 2015, 10:25:34 PM
I watched Soldier (1998) for the first time a few weeks ago, which I was surprised to discover is considered a kind of successor to Blade Runner by writer David Peoples (co-writer of the script for Blade Runner).
Containing several spoken references to Blade Runner, apparently a Spinner vehicle can also be seen amongst the junk on the main setting for the film (I didn't spot it).
Never heard of it, but a few seconds googling (image search) has revealed Russell's character fought on the Shoulder of Orion.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yl6jKTjW3aw/U7QKjEFWiuI/AAAAAAAA8TI/NHIGFdo29DQ/s1600/soldier1998.png)
I've seen Soldier many times and it's pretty good, but that image references Tango & Cash, Escape from New York, The Thing, Stargate, and Blade Runner. So is Soldier a maybe sequel for all these films?
There's also references to the battle of Tannhauser gate made during the film.
Quote from: von Boom on 19 February, 2016, 08:48:54 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 19 February, 2016, 08:21:47 PM
Quote from: Bagley on 28 February, 2015, 10:25:34 PM
I watched Soldier (1998) for the first time a few weeks ago, which I was surprised to discover is considered a kind of successor to Blade Runner by writer David Peoples (co-writer of the script for Blade Runner).
Containing several spoken references to Blade Runner, apparently a Spinner vehicle can also be seen amongst the junk on the main setting for the film (I didn't spot it).
Never heard of it, but a few seconds googling (image search) has revealed Russell's character fought on the Shoulder of Orion.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yl6jKTjW3aw/U7QKjEFWiuI/AAAAAAAA8TI/NHIGFdo29DQ/s1600/soldier1998.png)
I've seen Soldier many times and it's pretty good, but that image references Tango & Cash, Escape from New York, The Thing, Stargate, and Blade Runner. So is Soldier a maybe sequel for all these films?
And I'm guessing a nod to Aliens with the 'USCM smartgun' reference. (Drake and Vasquez operated these.)
As for the spinner...
(http://i.imgur.com/kQe1TNN.jpg)
Quote from: sheridan on 19 February, 2016, 08:21:47 PM
Quote from: Bagley on 28 February, 2015, 10:25:34 PM
I watched Soldier (1998) for the first time a few weeks ago, which I was surprised to discover is considered a kind of successor to Blade Runner by writer David Peoples (co-writer of the script for Blade Runner).
Containing several spoken references to Blade Runner, apparently a Spinner vehicle can also be seen amongst the junk on the main setting for the film (I didn't spot it).
Never heard of it, but a few seconds googling (image search) has revealed Russell's character fought on the Shoulder of Orion.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yl6jKTjW3aw/U7QKjEFWiuI/AAAAAAAA8TI/NHIGFdo29DQ/s1600/soldier1998.png)
I see he was also awarded the Plissken patch!
This doesn't sound like good idea either!
(http://quotes.lifehack.org/media/quotes/quote-Mark-Twain-civilization-is-the-limitless-multiplication-of-unnecessary-100624_1.png)
Im actually looking forward to blade runner 2 more i read about it! Surely better than a remake/reboot? :)
New title fit this film is Blade Runner 2049
I don't know about this.
I think the original was the sort of film that didn't need a sequel and wasn't designed for one.
I love the original film and was horrified when a sequel was announced but I really liked Denis Villeneuves films like Sicario and Prisoners so I'm starting to feel a little more optimistic...i'll give it a chance at least..
Quote from: Goaty on 06 October, 2016, 07:49:34 PM
New title fit this film is Blade Runner 2049
As long as it doesn't turn into Blade Zimmer Frame 2049.
Takes place nine years after Bubblegum Crisis Tokyo 2040, so that's cool.
It is bold to make a sequel to Blade Runner, curious to see it. It'll officially answer the ol' debated ending anyway.
Quote from: Mute77 on 06 October, 2016, 09:15:52 PM
I love the original film and was horrified when a sequel was announced but I really liked Denis Villeneuves films like Sicario and Prisoners so I'm starting to feel a little more optimistic...i'll give it a chance at least..
It also helps that his director of photography on Blade Runner 2049 is Roger Deakins, who is a fooking genius!
Quitely optimistic about this you know!
Even though I think the original is as close to perfect as any film is likely to get, I am looking forward to this. If it's good, excellent. If it's not, I'll just watch it once then forget it ever happened. (There were NO sequels to Jaws, for example.)
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 October, 2016, 12:51:32 AM
Even though I think the original is as close to perfect as any film is likely to get, I am looking forward to this. If it's good, excellent. If it's not, I'll just watch it once then forget it ever happened. (There were NO sequels to Jaws, for example.)
Put on your 3d glasses now :P
If Harrison Ford is back for this he'll probably be partnered by, or be in competition with a younger Blade Runner who could be his replacement in sequels since Harrison is pushing 70 years old. Ryan Goslings name was mentioned a while back but I've heard no more since about which actor it could be. Who'dye think could be a good Blade Runner? Ben Mckenzie [ Jim Gordon from Gotham] would be my pick.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 08 October, 2016, 09:14:06 AM
If Harrison Ford is back for this he'll probably be partnered by, or be in competition with a younger Blade Runner who could be his replacement in sequels since Harrison is pushing 70 years old. Ryan Goslings name was mentioned a while back but I've heard no more since about which actor it could be. Who'dye think could be a good Blade Runner? Ben Mckenzie [ Jim Gordon from Gotham] would be my pick.
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/blade-runner.jpg)
Blimey that is quite a picture. This is getting better. :D
Is it me or Harrison get young?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 October, 2016, 12:51:32 AM
(There were NO sequels to Jaws, for example.)
I quite like Jaws 2!
You can't bit a bit of prime Roy Scheider!
Jaws 2 vastly underrated in my opinion. Roy Scheider was too for me in his later career. Still put in great performances in the likes of 'The Punisher' 'Sea-quest Dsv' etc. Would watch that guy in anything. Was meant to be a lovely bloke in real life too. :)
Yes, he was brilliant - but there were NO sequels to Jaws, you hear me? NONE!! Grraaaghhhh....
:lol:
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 09 October, 2016, 01:57:34 PMthere were NO sequels to Jaws, you hear me? NONE!! Grraaaghhhh....
Best not mention THE FISHERMAN (http://scriptshadow.net/screenplay-review-the-fisherman/) by Will Dunn . . .
Oops.
First trailer to land sometime next week - https://trailer-track.com/2016/12/14/in-the-pipeline-first-blade-runner-2049-teaser-trailer-rated-and-coming-soon/
New teaser trailer...
https://youtu.be/GDscTTE-P-k (https://youtu.be/GDscTTE-P-k)
I'd forgotten this movie had its own thread...! The teaser looks great, and Arrival has made me quietly hopeful that Villeneuve can deliver something as challenging and contemplative as the original, although perhaps with enough action so that the film actually makes some money...
I hope this one does well. Arrival was great and if this is as good, then maybe Villeneuve could give us a half-way decent rendition of Dune.
Now that is one tasty teaser. Nowt I didn't like about that.
Oh, yeah! I like that!
Lovely Vangelis inflected score for the trailer too-hope that's the sound of things to come! :)
Doesn't give much away thankfully but the images sure had that Bladerunner vibe about them so fingers crossed for this one.
Looks good from that, despite my internal voice screaming that there will never be a sequel. It'll be interesting how it feels, and whether – for that matter – it needs to feel like the original. Blade Runner was a noir, which tends to confuse people expecting a high-octane action thriller. I hope the sequel doesn't overdo the pace and make for a frenetic and mad two hours. I also hope there's some vagueness left about everything. Scott's insistence Deckard was a Replicant always sat badly with me anyway. The point of the original short as I read it was that the Replicants were more human than the humans by this point, and people like Deckard had lost their humanity. Providing a sense of ambiguity and unexplainable weirdness into Blade Runner is pleasing, but when Scott keeps yelling DECKARD IS A REPLICANT, I'm not so interested any more.
It's okay. It's only Ridley Scott's opinion.
I like the fact Ridley Scott introduced the unicorn dream to suggest Deckard is a replicant, but I like the fact it was left ambiguous and could be argued either way.
In the end though, even whenh the director himself states something definitively, I wouldn't take that as concrete unless it is proven on screen. And it really isn't in this case, although it is strongly implied.
I can't see how its ambiguous really......doesn't the directors cut show that the other blade runner knows that deckard dreams about unicorns, implying that the memories/dreams that deckard has are implants?
Quote from: SIP on 20 December, 2016, 10:18:08 PM
I can't see how its ambiguous really......doesn't the directors cut show that the other blade runner knows that deckard dreams about unicorns, implying that the memories/dreams that deckard has are implants?
You can read it that way, sure.
[spoiler]We don't know for sure that Gaff knew Deckard's dream. We just know that he left an origami unicorn on the floor outside Deckard's apartment. There's a strong implication there that he knows, since he chose that animal, but it could be a coincidence. Maybe he had even left that particular figure behind before for Deckard's benefit and Deckard's subconscious latched onto it causing the dream.
I'm not saying I believe that. I just meant there is no definitive proof, so I think it's still subject to interpretation.[/spoiler]
I follow your point that there is still wriggle room to argue that he might not be a replicant, but surely from a directorial/narrative point of view the only real reason to include the unicorn dream and subsequent unicorn origami scene is to signpost the fact that they do know deckards thoughts, ie that he is a replicant?
Or maybe that Gaff (an earlier model?) and Deckard share the same memory implant.
The Tyrell slogan "more human than human" has me wondering whether replicants aren't just developing emotions but superior emotions - hence killer Batty's ultimate show of mercy.
Or maybe I'm full of sh*t.
Quote from: SIP on 20 December, 2016, 10:18:08 PM
I can't see how its ambiguous really......doesn't the directors cut show that the other blade runner knows that deckard dreams about unicorns, implying that the memories/dreams that deckard has are implants?
I don't know whether Ridley Scott thinks Deckard being a Replicant is a deep/clever plot twist or not - it isn't - but if you choose to favour a different cut like the Theatrical or Workprint - best version - it certainly isn't set-in-stone. The screenwriter never saw it that way nor did the author of the novel.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 December, 2016, 12:51:34 AM
Quote from: SIP on 20 December, 2016, 10:18:08 PM
I can't see how its ambiguous really......doesn't the directors cut show that the other blade runner knows that deckard dreams about unicorns, implying that the memories/dreams that deckard has are implants?
I don't know whether Ridley Scott thinks Deckard being a Replicant is a deep/clever plot twist or not - it isn't - but if you choose to favour a different cut like the Theatrical or Workprint - best version - it certainly isn't set-in-stone. The screenwriter never saw it that way nor did the author of the novel.
If you disregard the directors cut then the unicorn dream disappears and the origami at the end only serves to show that gaff had beaten him to the apartment but had taken no action. Therefore there is no inference that deckard is a replicant. But the directors cut is apparently what Scott really envisioned and so I would have to lean towards that as the "real" version of the film.
I'm not sure you can compare back to the original Dick story as the film has almost no resemblance to it.
Quote from: SIP on 21 December, 2016, 06:43:44 AMBut the directors cut is apparently what Scott really envisioned and so I would have to lean towards that as the "real" version of the film.
Or so he says. it's a matter of personal choice since we have multiple versions to choose from - the work print being the original cut without narration or unicorn - and going from recent statements by Denis Villeneuve, he may not want to answer it either, and for good reason -
"(Denis Villeneuve) says it was very important to him not to break the tension of the mystery that lingers around Scott's original movie, or solve all its riddles. You might think that because Nexus 6 replicants only have a four-year lifespan, that the return of Ford in Blade Runner 2049 as Deckard answers the question regarding his humanity, but Villeneuve says "not necessarily."http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/12/07/denis-villeneuve-suggests-blade-runner-2049-may-not-tell-us-if-deckards-a-r
QuoteI'm not sure you can compare back to the original Dick story as the film has almost no resemblance to it.
Fancher stripped it down to the basic plot of Deckard, Rachel and the Replicants while dumping the wife, Mercerism, the Replicant police station and the focus on animals, but the intention of a story about a human android hunter hunting synthetic humans in a run-down city remains in the original scripts and the idea of whether he was a Replicant or not seemed to be in or out depending on the draft - and really only in VO narration from an alternate ending never shot (Scott says he never wanted narration either). It doesn't seem to be in the shooting script so I'm not sure I believe the 'It's what I always intended' bit. It's a bit like the revisionism of the Prequels and Greedo shooting first.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 December, 2016, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: SIP on 21 December, 2016, 06:43:44 AMBut the directors cut is apparently what Scott really envisioned and so I would have to lean towards that as the "real" version of the film.
Or so he says. it's a matter of personal choice since we have multiple versions to choose from - the work print being the original cut without narration or unicorn - and going from recent statements by Denis Villeneuve, he may not want to answer it either, and for good reason -
"(Denis Villeneuve) says it was very important to him not to break the tension of the mystery that lingers around Scott's original movie, or solve all its riddles. You might think that because Nexus 6 replicants only have a four-year lifespan, that the return of Ford in Blade Runner 2049 as Deckard answers the question regarding his humanity, but Villeneuve says "not necessarily."
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/12/07/denis-villeneuve-suggests-blade-runner-2049-may-not-tell-us-if-deckards-a-r
This makes me happy, as one of the reasons I'm a bit iffy about a sequel existing is that I don't want definitive answer to that. Not sure how they can duck around it without giving some sort of explanation though, but we'll see.
If I end up not liking it I can probably happily pretend it never happened, like The Thing prequel. Of all the things I dislike about that prequel (and boy, there's a lot I dislike about that) the worst is that [spoiler]adding the 'no metal fillings/piercings' to the creature's set-up actually answers the question of whether or not Childs is human at the end of the original film.[/spoiler] I don't think they set out to do that, it just seems like it never even crossed their minds, and that grinds my gears somewhat.
Deckard has dropped his Art Deco duds for casual catalogue wear.
(https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/000245423.jpg?w=669)
(https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/000245429.jpg?w=669)
(https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/000245426.jpg?w=669)
(https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/000245425.jpg?w=669)
(https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/000245424.jpg?w=669)
'Blade Runner 2049' Helmer Denis Villeneuve Eyed to Direct 'Dune' (http://variety.com/2016/film/news/denis-villeneuve-dune-reboot-legendary-pictures-1201929280/)
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 December, 2016, 10:10:11 PM
'Blade Runner 2049' Helmer Denis Villeneuve Eyed to Direct 'Dune' (http://variety.com/2016/film/news/denis-villeneuve-dune-reboot-legendary-pictures-1201929280/)
That's amazing news. DUNE, IMHO is almost unfilmable due to the bonkers Drugs/Revolution/Superman/Eco-transformation message so it will be trimmed down to a Star Wars type movie. Unlucky aristocrat Paul Atreides is betrayed and overthrown by his evil Uncle Baron Harkonan and gets stoned so he can seek revenge! Donald Trump on acid I guess.
Im happy to keep the directors cut as the definitive version of the film and i like to think of Deckard as a replicant. Saying that, though i never thought id accept a sequel, the calibre of the director and the new trailer suggest i should at least give it a chance...the trailer looked pretty good.
Quote from: Mute77 on 22 December, 2016, 12:38:00 PM
Im happy to keep the directors cut as the definitive version of the film and i like to think of Deckard as a replicant. Saying that, though i never thought id accept a sequel, the calibre of the director and the new trailer suggest i should at least give it a chance...the trailer looked pretty good.
I feel exactly the same. Also feel better knowing Scott isn't directing this one after the disappointment in the sequel to his other great sci-fi film. Every time I watch Prometheus I seem find more things I dont like.
Teaser for Monday's trailer (https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=oToRhZUFXTs&ebc=ANyPxKq5O4t1EebrbawwO2MPO_8wCTYOiRrZcEjKGNmpUre-SgVaHZcAeVnyb4r-LGYquv3rPrTOFBuRjcqW0pq6kqVrMzgTZg)
Really looking forwatd to this film. Can't wait for the trailer.
6 more seconds of Blade Runner 2049 goodness!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JIO0khLLFA8
Looks like this new cut of BLADE RUNNER includes the story – instead of avoiding it.
BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Official Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4)
Well having viewed it a few times I can say it left a favorable impression on me. Liked the 'disposable workforce' quote and the tone of the Movie seems very similar to the dour, neon hell of the original. The massive Atari logo certainly brought back some 80's CyberPunk nostalgia but a memory, as Philip K Dick knew can be a fickle thing. Remember all the excitement about Ridley Scott's Prometheus? That didn't turn out too well in the end as I recall.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 08 May, 2017, 09:12:55 PM
Remember all the excitement about Ridley Scott's Prometheus? That didn't turn out too well in the end as I recall.
Neither did a lot Ridley's films before Prometheus so it wasn't that much of a surprise but Denis Villeneuve is doing much better than the average so far.
That looks and sounds gorgeous, has a great cast, and good writer director combo. So I'm in.
But why does the trailer go to such lengths [spoiler]to make you think Gosling is a replicant from the get-go.[/spoiler]?
The 2 teasers for the full trailer didn't fill me with much enthusiasm at all, but there's a lot to like in this release.
I still have concerns though - mostly about how Ridley has shaped this. And BR was such a unique film in a lot of ways, that this new instalment does look like a generic Sci-fi film at times.
Time will tell.
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 09 May, 2017, 12:34:01 PM
But why does the trailer go to such lengths [spoiler]to make you think Gosling is a replicant from the get-go.[/spoiler]?
Probably to get it out of the way. No point having that old chestnut be the 'twist' of the film. It doesn't even work as a twist in Ridley's redux of the original.
TRAILER 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOaI_Fn5o4)
It looks very pretty – and the inclusion of the deleted farm scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37pQKgwsF94) from the original suggests [spoiler]Bautista won't be in it much past the opening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_nCDvo7P7c)[/spoiler].
All looks lovely but still don't see the point of it all.
Hollywood, right after stopping doing those character poster thingies, need to track down and DESTROY and the people who write those taglines in trailers.
NO ONE
CAN OUT RUN
The fact that make naff all sense really and basically all sound a little silly when you say them in your head.
Quote from: JLC on 17 July, 2017, 07:58:42 PM
All looks lovely but still don't see the point of it all.
I think the point is to tell a story, provide entertainment and perhaps provide some food for thought.
Looks great, can't wait.
Quote from: SIP on 17 July, 2017, 10:14:15 PM
Quote from: JLC on 17 July, 2017, 07:58:42 PM
All looks lovely but still don't see the point of it all.
I think the point is to tell a story, provide entertainment and perhaps provide some food for thought.
Looks great, can't wait.
Haha, very clever. You know full well what I mean!
It seems like more pointless nostalgia, just like the terrible new Alien movies. C'mon Hollywood more new stuff please!
Quote from: JLC on 17 July, 2017, 10:26:39 PM
Quote from: SIP on 17 July, 2017, 10:14:15 PM
Quote from: JLC on 17 July, 2017, 07:58:42 PM
All looks lovely but still don't see the point of it all.
I think the point is to tell a story, provide entertainment and perhaps provide some food for thought.
Looks great, can't wait.
Haha, very clever. You know full well what I mean!
It seems like more pointless nostalgia, just like the terrible new Alien movies. C'mon Hollywood more new stuff please!
This film has a really excellent director currently at the top of his game and a first class cast. It also looks undeniably beautiful. I suspect this will not emulate the recent disappointing Alien films.
I have a very positive feeling that it will be worthwhile. At the very least it gives me another Harrison Ford outing and for that alone I'm happy.
Much as I love Harrison Ford, I do struggle to think of a genuinely great film that he's been in since about 1990.
But this looks grand.
I thought he was genuinely excellent in Robert Zemeckis' 2000 film, What Lies Beneath and he gave a far more committed performance in The Force Awakens than he did in Return Of The Jedi, where he just appeared bored by the whole thing.
Lets hope the revival of some of his big franchises has reinvigorated him.
After some initial misgivings - not all of them dispelled - I am warming to this more and more. The latest trailer is pretty darn good, though, as is the rule nowadays with promotion, we are seeing a far too big a chunk of the film. Time to stop watching these. Soon be October...
Yeah, I only watch 1 trailer per film these days, if that.
The short film "Nexus: 2036" takes place in the year 2036 and revolves around Jared Leto's character, Niander Wallace. In this short, directed by Luke Scott (Morgan), Wallace introduces a new line of "perfected" replicants called the Nexus 9, seeking to get the prohibition on replicants repealed. This no doubt has serious ramifications that will be crucial to the plot of Blade Runner 2049.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn-csFKhQCg
Must have seen the trailer for this at least 7 times in the last 2 weeks at the cinema and the line that always gets me is;
"I used to do your job, and I was good at it" (paraphrase)
No he wasn't. He was shite at it. In the book and the original film.
Still, I will be one of the first in the queue to see it.
Roll on October.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 August, 2017, 05:46:34 PM
The short film "Nexus: 2036" takes place in the year 2036 and revolves around Jared Leto's character, Niander Wallace. In this short, directed by Luke Scott (Morgan), Wallace introduces a new line of "perfected" replicants called the Nexus 9, seeking to get the prohibition on replicants repealed. This no doubt has serious ramifications that will be crucial to the plot of Blade Runner 2049.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn-csFKhQCg
FFS is ths now becoming a thing? We have to watch crappy little prequel mini-movies on YouTube to fully understand the plot of a theatrical release?
Quote from: JLC on 29 August, 2017, 10:17:28 PMWe have to watch crappy little prequel mini-movies on YouTube to fully understand the plot of a theatrical release?
Doubt it.
You're on the internet browsing through YouTube when all of a sudden you look down, and you see a mini-movie, apparently connected to an upcoming blockbuster. You reach down, and click on the thumbnail. The video sits open in your browser, its slick visuals and spoilerific insights flicking past, deperately trying to increase its social media profile.
But it can't, not without your 'likes'.
But you're not watching.
Why is that?
What do you mean, "I'm not watching"?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 August, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
What do you mean, "I'm not watching"?
I'm not watching either. Blade Runner is overrated.
I watched it :-)
Quote from: JLC on 01 September, 2017, 01:03:52 PM
Blade Runner is overrated.
Do you make up these opinions, Mr. JLC, or do they write them down for you?
I'd much rather studios did small prequel-stories as trailers rather than a big spoileriffic trailer containing all the film's best bits.
Quote from: JLC on 01 September, 2017, 01:03:52 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 August, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
What do you mean, "I'm not watching"?
I'm not watching either. Blade Runner is overrated.
Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about Blade Runner.
Blade Runner? Let me tell you about Blade Runner...
B'dam!
Quote from: Pyroxian on 01 September, 2017, 02:50:19 PM
I'd much rather studios did small prequel-stories as trailers rather than a big spoileriffic trailer containing all the film's best bits.
The problem I have with that approach is they can be just as spoilery by revealing information you're not supposed to have going in - the Alien Covenant* prequel short for example showed you [spoiler]the events of David arriving at the planet, and watching the movie it's pretty clear that's supposed to be a reveal late-on, when it's then told in flashback and people realize what he's done. All the mystery of what happened on the planet was out the window because we'd seen it already, and any shock that those later reveals might have had were negated massively.[/spoiler]
*I can already hear the 'yeah but Alien Covenant is crap' responses, whether it is or isn't doesn't change the fact the prequel was a spoiler!
'Blade Runner 2049' First Clip — "Bigger Than You" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS2nmg4ZH6Y)
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 10 September, 2017, 04:55:23 AM
'Blade Runner 2049' First Clip — "Bigger Than You" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS2nmg4ZH6Y)
The brief view of the decaying buildings outside reminded me more of the 'Kipple' PKD referred to in his book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Interesting, [spoiler]some slave factory or Junk Industry where orphans/clones work till they die/get sold on perhaps?[/spoiler] Liked the broken down look of it and the stammered warning that Ryan Goslings Cop was messing with things 'bigger' than himself.
Third 2049 prequel short:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TieEBM7wumc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TieEBM7wumc)
It getting great reviews! As not been to cinema this year so this film a must be!
I'm stupidly excited about it. Tickets already booked for opening night. Watching the original in 4k tonight 😊
Quote from: Goaty on 29 September, 2017, 02:17:01 PM
It getting great reviews! As not been to cinema this year so this film a must be!
I've visited the cinema 26 times this year and I'm looking forward to this.
Flatliners will be my 27th visit in 2017 tomorrow.
I really wasn't bothered* but having read the review in the Evening Standard last night which said it was as good as the original, and the feature on Harrison Ford in today's Telegraph, it now sounds like a must see.
*Generally the only films I feel are compulsory to see in the cinema these days are Star Wars and Star Trek ones (and GoTG, but number 2 was a big disappointment).
I might actually have to go and see this now. And there was me thinking I wouldn't be going to the cinema till Star Wars came out...
Just saw a Facebook ad with the review scores on it and flipping heck, this has been raking in the 5 stars! As in, literally every single publication have been giving it full marks and I'm seeing a lot of variations on 'may be/is better than the original' flying around.
I'm not saying I put a ton of weight in review scores because they don't always reflect my own tastes, but for something that I was really unsure about on announcement and didn't expect could ever live up to the original, this is really surprising and a very good sign.
Tickets booked for Saturday and I've now gone from 'will probably be a bit meh but I'm curious to see it anyway' to 'can't bloody wait'.
Quote from: Keef Monkey on 03 October, 2017, 09:48:11 AM
I'm not saying I put a ton of weight in review scores because they don't always reflect my own tastes...
I've seen some real duds at the cinema after reading positive reviews (thanks Guardian) but having read a review of Blade Runner 2 in the Evening Standard, which gave it five out of five stars, I'll definitely be booking tickets to see it.
I'm torn about seeing it, because I love everything this director (Villeneuve) has done, but I find the original Blade Runner, despite being very impressive on a technical level, a total snoozefest to actually watch.
Not me. Tickets booked for Friday afternoon.
Saw it tonight and it was excellent. Won't say any more as don't want to spoil it for others.
It's better than a sequel to, what I consider a classic, has any right to be, but it's far from perfect.
Roger Deakins should rack up the awards for his director of photography role though if there's any justice in the world.
And spot the Dredd actor for extra brownie points! :)
Saw it last night. Brilliant film in every way. Loved how it managed to expand on smaller details in the first one. For example the replicants thing for eyes, with the bar codes in theirs. I also liked how the narrative felt fitting K's personality. For example [spoiler]the on going replicant revolution not being important to K,
or when he speaks about the child whom he believes himself to be.[/spoiler].
Can't wait to see it again this Sunday. Will probably watch the first one right before it :)
Quote from: dweezil2 on 05 October, 2017, 11:38:16 PM
It's better than a sequel to, what I consider a classic, has any right to be, but it's far from perfect.
Roger Deakins should rack up the awards for his director of photography role though if there's any justice in the world.
And spot the Dredd actor for extra brownie points! :)
Yeah, going to have to completely disagree. I think it was pretty damned near perfect to be fair. Blade runner was a triumph of groundbreaking visuals, mood and futurism but as a narrative is fairly thin and emotionally disconnected. This was a better film.
The visuals are amongst the best I've ever seen, the sound was fantastic, the cast all brought their A game, it has some incredible scenes (in fact a LOT of incredible scenes) and the characters were more complex and interesting. It was a better film than blade runner.
Quote from: SIP on 06 October, 2017, 07:25:23 PM
Quote from: dweezil2 on 05 October, 2017, 11:38:16 PM
It's better than a sequel to, what I consider a classic, has any right to be, but it's far from perfect.
Roger Deakins should rack up the awards for his director of photography role though if there's any justice in the world.
And spot the Dredd actor for extra brownie points! :)
Yeah, going to have to completely disagree. I think it was pretty damned near perfect to be fair. Blade runner was a triumph of groundbreaking visuals, mood and futurism but as a narrative is fairly thin and emotionally disconnected. This was a better film.
The visuals are amongst the best I've ever seen, the sound was fantastic, the cast all brought their A game, it has some incredible scenes (in fact a LOT of incredible scenes) and the characters were more complex and interesting. It was a better film than blade runner.
More complex than Roy Batty?
I think not.
That was the one thing the film really lacked-a compelling antagonist.
The pacing was inconsistent for me and Jared Leto was no Joe Turkel.
The visual and sound design was indeed remarkable and there were some fantastic scenes in isolation-just not sure it all hung together as a whole as well as the original film did, also no
Vangelis was a serious blow.
That's not to say the film was bad-it's one of the best this year.
No, I don't particularly see Roy Batty as a complex character to be honest. K in this was infinitely more so I thought.
Quote from: dweezil2 on 06 October, 2017, 10:21:35 PM
no Vangelis was a serious blow.
It's remarkable that in this day and age most of the scenes in such a gargantuan budgeted film have no
muzak soundtrack at all and that it really works. The 'big' music is kept for the more panoramic passages/montages and for punctuating revelatory moments. The general theme stuff, especially the end-title music, does feel uninspired and in need of the
Vangelis treatment but for the most part the film has a superior sense of sound design. It says these are people who know what they're doing and had enough confidence in the work to use silence and ambience rather than leaning on the ubiquitous mood music –
no saxaphone themes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWxKsxaKQLo&t=1m25s) this time.It's a different film than the original and whereas the first feels more an evocation of a future scenario with dense music and tableaus, the second has a stripped-down aesthetic, but with more meat in terms of portraying the implication of that scenario. In many ways the sequel has a lot the original lacked and a more active,
noirish investigation.
As a drama, BR2049 is better written and directed than the first and apart from a prolonged end-fight and the inclusion of a certain element in the final sequences that might've been better served as something purely hinted at than seen [spoiler]– underground replicant army for another film –[/spoiler] I think it works brilliantly as a reflection on and conclusion to the
Rick Deckard story.
Yup, can agree with all the Joe. The sound throughout the whole film I found quite brilliant. Going to see it again next week.
Agreed. Blade Runner 2049 is a brilliant film. It did something that doesn't happen very often with a sequel. It built upon the foundations of the first film without being a clone.
The visuals were stunning and the sound was ear bleedingly good. There are parallel themes between the two films, but that's to be expected. It probably helped immensely that Hampton Fancher, who co-wrote the screenplay for Blade Runner, co-wrote this screenplay.
This story is worthy of being written by Dick himself. I'll be seeing it again next week, and I'm really looking forward to it.
I forgot to ask, [spoiler]was anyone else shocked by the drinking and cursing of Princess Buttercup? It has given me the strange idea that the Blade Runner universe is what happens when Princess Buttercup does marry Humperdink and Wesley actually dies in The Princess Bride.[/spoiler]
Cineworld will likely be the determining factor in my (not) seeing this at the flicks, so how much of the original's nocturnality permeates 2049?
Quote from: von Boom on 07 October, 2017, 11:33:29 AMThis story is worthy of being written by Dick himself.
To be honest, 2049 feels like legit William Gibson story for me, it's more like Bridge Trillogy, especially thanks to Joi.
Quote from: jacob g on 07 October, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
Quote from: von Boom on 07 October, 2017, 11:33:29 AMThis story is worthy of being written by Dick himself.
To be honest, 2049 feels like legit William Gibson story for me, it's more like Bridge Trillogy, especially thanks to Joi.
That's a good observation. While I was watching the film, I thought this team (Fancher/Green/Villeneuve/Scott) could probably do a worthy version of Neuromancer.
Well I think that was way better than the first, i actually managed to stay awake through this one the first movie while i admit it is very good on certain levels it does always put me to sleep, this had my interest right through it 2 hour 40 minutes. As mentioned spectacular looking and the sound was earbleedingly good too.
Two thumbs up.
CU Radbacker
Just saw it last night.
I thought it was very pretty- some great ideas-and interesting world-building, and I'm fond of a slow, slow pace but nonethess I was really bothered by a couple of elements. I saw it alone, and none of my friends have seen it yet so I hope nobody minds me turning up here out of the blue to rant. I have three nit-picky-niggles and one major point.
1[spoiler] The Tyrell-replacement villain was just awful. What was he doing with his face and his voice and his eyes and his body- and why didn't they re-shoot all of his scenes with a different actor after they saw what they looked like on film? (I wasn't impressed) [/spoiler]
2[spoiler] Harrison Ford is gone a bit ould to be swingin' digs at people; one or two old-man uppercuts would be tolerable, but the 'action hero' punchy-punch stuff in this seemed a bit much, for my tastes.It reminded me of crystal skull.
I do not cherish the memory of crystal skull.[/spoiler]
3[spoiler] They made Deckard/ Rachel's romance so central to the big story.
I say 'Nay' .
'Nay' I say!
For- when you cast your mind back, Deckard and Rachel weren't exactly the 'love-at-first-sight' star-crossed couple retroactively depicted in this story.
Is it just me or does the repeated audio of VK test seems to be regarded as the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet in this universe? That aint right I tellsya! Think back!--
Their one 'love scene' in the original fillum is spectacularly awkward, and, quite frankly, a bit 'rapey' (which makes a kind of sense if you're of the belief that Deckard himself is a recently-created emotionally-underdeveloped machine- a notion completely dispensed with by this story btw- which means now it's just 'rapey' again).
I reckon this is important because; In the original film Deckard and Rachel just seemed like small, emotionally stunted, unimportant cogs in a vastly bigger dystopic system; they were just small- fry that Gaff could, on a whim, afford to let go: But in this universe they are the parents of the 'star-child'* equivalent (*from 1983 V miniseries on 'telly). This is a shift and I hate this. I really do.
It grinds my personal gearbox because it really seems to me as if just because Blade Runner (from relatively humble beginnings) became an important film in history and culture,--then the characters in Blade Runner must correspondingly become unbelievably important characters in their universe, and I hate when that happens.
Am I alone in this or does anyone else also feel that by turning the VK test into foreplay and then making Mr and Mrs Deckard's resulting offspring the possible progenitor of a new species this script has done something over-blown and bombastic and unnecessary and contrary to the atmosphere and themes created first-time 'round?. (and that that's a real pity because otherwise it's really quite good) [/spoiler]
4 [spoiler] Also there's maybe three too many scenes illuminated by light reflected off water. It's cool but it's overdone[/spoiler]
Quote from: darnmarr on 07 October, 2017, 05:58:59 PM
1[spoiler] The Tyrell-replacement villain was just awful. What was he doing with his face and his voice and his eyes and his body- and why didn't they re-shoot all of his scenes with a different actor after they saw what they looked like on film? (I wasn't impressed) [/spoiler]
I thought Leto was miscast; they intended the role for Bowie so you can see what they were thinking of.
Quote from: darnmarr on 07 October, 2017, 05:58:59 PM2[spoiler]
3[spoiler] They made Deckard/ Rachel's romance so central to the big story.
I say 'Nay' .
'Nay' I say!
For- when you cast your mind back, Deckard and Rachel weren't exactly the 'love-at-first-sight' star-crossed couple retroactively depicted in this story.
Is it just me or does the repeated audio of VK test seems to be regarded as the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet in this universe? That aint right I tellsya! Think back!--
In a world where people can perpetually obsess over apparently recorded intentions and emotions isn't revisionism part of the subtext? But having said that, Tyrell, being a patron of replicant evolution, admittedly by his own design put Rachael forward for the VK test because of her 'specialness' and attractiveness for the very purpose of subverting Deckard's bias
– she's literally manufactured to play the role of the Gitanes smoking femme fatale in black opposite the cynical gumshoe – so based on that tropish bit of seductive theatre, the conclusions drawn by Wallace's character in 2049 as to Tyrell's motivations aren't too much of an extrapolation, even if it's just mental provocation aimed at Deckard during the coercion to extract information, which Wallace seems to imply.
QuoteTheir one 'love scene' in the original fillum is spectacularly awkward, and, quite frankly, a bit 'rapey' (which makes a kind of sense if you're of the belief that Deckard himself is a recently-created emotionally-underdeveloped machine- a notion completely dispensed with by this story btw- which means now it's just 'rapey' again).
It's still a bit rapey either way you interpret it. From the original film I gleaned that Deckard was a profoundly dehumanised individual because of the years he spent making his living from killing what he believed were supposedly artificial 'subhumans' rather than he himself being literally, a new-born replicant, and that his only default positions when dealing with replicants is either interrogation or violence. His resultant awkwardness is due to regaining his feels from the very thing he hunts.
QuoteIn the original film Deckard and Rachel just seemed like small, emotionally stunted, unimportant cogs in a vastly bigger dystopic system; they were just small- fry that Gaff could, on a whim, afford to let go: [spoiler]But in this universe they are the parents of the 'star-child'* equivalent (*from 1983 V miniseries on 'telly). This is a shift and I hate this. I really do[/spoiler]
There's always a certain amount of
buy in to any fantasy film and a lot of people could never buy into the blurry concept of replicants in the original, [spoiler]but the idea of Deckard and Rachael, and the vagueness of her 'specialness' as the centre-piece of this specific segment of the 2049 world, isn't that far-fetched when it's a conflict played out between a egomaniacal industrialist and his/Tyrell's historically rebellious product[/spoiler].
Wow. Bowie, oh how very much better that would have been.!
Fair points, and there really is much to love in this version. I s'pose the element I found OTT... [spoiler]Deckard and Rache become adam-and-eve of new replihuman age[/spoiler]... it just reminded me a bit of the way Darth Vader changed from film to film (starting first as some sort of brutal imperial underling on a 'leash' and increasing in importance until by prequel stage he becomes the alpha and omega of everything in the history of the 'verse) it's like.. just because he is central to 'us', the audience, he must end up being the centre of this entire world...
(Not sure if I'm explaining myself properly here);
It just reminds me of comic-book fillums where the Fate Of The Universe is always at stake,- for some reason those scenarios don't interest me as much as, say, a kid with a over-optioned spidey-suit (he cant control) foiling a scrap-metal thief. Or a futuristic cop and rookie trapped in a building taking on overwhelming odds floor-by-floor...
I spose what i'm trying to say ..when a film reaches for too much in one bite, it feels, for me a bit prometheusy? prometheusque? promethean (not in the sense of being rebelliously creative and innovative but more in the sense of being like 'Prometheus', the fillum. Which I did not care for and don't think was either).
Sound and vision, the look and feel, the 'style' of the original Blade Runner were so faithfully echoed and expanded upon, (and the story-telling was frankly improved upon in no small measure) but when the story becomes a story of [spoiler]the most important people EVER (not just on nine planets but the whole universe, mind you)[/spoiler] something thematic and fundamental,... something of 'the substance' is broken with.
I thought was a pity. Doesn't seem to be bothering anyone else mind you so perhaps I'm being just a bit silly.
QuoteI s'pose the element I found OTT... [spoiler] Deckard and Rache become adam-and-eve of new replihuman age..[/spoiler]. it just reminded me a bit of the way Darth Vader changed from film to film
It's definitely a salient point but both films are allegories about creation in life and art. The original film had strong biblical overtones too: Sebastian and his Methuselah syndrome, Roy Batty ascending a pyramid asking for more life from his father/creator and paraphrasing lines from William Blake's
America: A Prophecy about fallen angels etc. so I suppose amongst the primitive culture of replicants and their masters Deckard & Rachael would be seen as mythical after a period of time.
Quotebut when the story becomes a story of [spoiler]the most important people EVER (not just on nine planets but the whole universe, mind you)[/spoiler] something thematic and fundamental,... something of 'the substance' is broken with.
For those particular characters it probably would be that important but maybe not not to the fella in the pawn shop.
Not a patch on the original for me, totally agree with your comments darnmarr.
There were some gorgeous shots, especially the Las Vegas stuff. Was a bit disappointed with the interiors though, I can see that they went for a less cluttered look to the first, I just found that they weren't convincing. They looked like sets, small ones too and the lighting was a bit bland. The street level stuff didn't seem quite as real either.
Performances were good though, Leto was bad but not as bad as I'd feared! I liked K's baseline test. The music was ok in parts but not that memorable.
The plot was ok and the central mystery kept me hooked but the revelation was a bit naff.
I don't think all the ott reviews helped, I really didn't find it to be mind blowing insightful/intelligent Sci fi!
I'll give it another go but it just seemed to miss the point of the original for me.
Quote from: SIP on 06 October, 2017, 10:44:35 PM
No, I don't particularly see Roy Batty as a complex character to be honest. K in this was infinitely more so I thought.
K is so much more complex it's not even close.
For me it was miles better than the original.
It had the heart of the first film x 10 plus such gorgeous scenes. So gorgeous I nearly wept.
This is a step above the step up of the original.
I fucking loved it and joint best film of the year along with mother!
There is so much to adore about this film. So very, very much and I'm surprised at some of the comments from people that love a cinematic science fiction comic. This is pretty much 2000 AD realised on screen in my opinion.
Desperately wanted to like this. Didn't. At all. I mean, it looks amazing, is very clever, but fundamentally, I just didn't care about any of it. The best part of three hours is a long time to sit in a chair not really giving a shit about anything that's happening. Not only not the best film I've seen this year, not even the best film I've seen this week.
Terribly disappointing.
Same here Jim. Reminds me a bit of those Sam Mendes Bond films. Massive amounts of talent making an incredibly slick and well made film but just not that engaging or memorable in the end.
Saw Blade Runner 2019 and 2049 (seems what they'v gone for naming the latest film as well as shorts) back to back this morning. Just as good as the first time I saw 2049. Both films really sings beautifully together in my head.
One thing that it really does well in my book is how sutble the fan service is. For example [spoiler]K dying in the snow. Mirroring Roy in the rain.[/spoiler]. For me it works really well as a nod to the original, as well as it's own thing. Fantastic that.
Btw. Anyone who figured out the deal with [spoiler]K's memory. Was he implanted with it in order to make a decoy, or did Ana do it in hopes of seeing her father again?[/spoiler]
Just back from seeing this ... visually stunning but probably just a bit too long. It was definitely a worthy sequel though imo.
[spoiler] We know that a male replicant was created from Ana's DNA (or with the same DNA) so I assume her memories were implanted in him to make him seem like Blade Runner Jesus. Anyone who did manage to figure it out might think he was the child of Rachel / Deckard and leave it at that. [/spoiler]
Quote from: dyl on 08 October, 2017, 07:03:05 PMMassive amounts of talent making an incredibly slick and well made film but just not that engaging or memorable in the end.
That's interesting because that was the general gist of the criticism levelled at the original film back in 1982.
"Ford says he originally signed on for "Blade Runner" because he found such questions intriguing. For director Ridley Scott, however the greater challenge seemed to be creating that future world. Scott is a master of production design, of imagining other worlds of the future ("Alien") and the past ("The Duellists").
He seems more concerned with creating his film worlds than populating them with plausible characters, and that's the trouble this time. "Blade Runner" is a stunningly interesting visual achievement, but a failure as a story.
The movie's weakness, however, is that it allows the special effects technology to overwhelm its story. Ford is tough and low-key in the central role, and Rutger Hauer and Sean Young are effective as two of the replicants, but the movie isn't really interested in these people -- or creatures.
The obligatory love affair is pro forma, the villains are standard issue, and the climax is yet one more of those cliffhangers, with Ford dangling over an abyss by his fingertips. The movie has the same trouble as the replicants: Instead of flesh and blood, its dreams are of mechanical men." – Roger Eberthttp://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blade-runner-1982-1
Doubt this new one will be remembered as ground breaking and influential in 35 yrs though!
I never felt that way about the first one and it's still my favourite film. The new one just didn't grab me like the original.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 08 October, 2017, 10:12:12 PM
That's interesting because that was the general gist of the criticism levelled at the original film back in 1982.
It's not unfair. I've been trying to put my finger on why, despite my definite desire to do so, I just didn't connect with BR2049.
I think it's twofold.
1) For all that Scott's painterly eye is cold and dispassionate, Blade Runner showed us something we had
never seen before. The future had
never looked like this. BR2049 just didn't do that. As someone commented upthread, great swathes of it felt like a William Gibson adaption... and Blade Runner's influence on Gibson is well-documented. Consequently, Villeneuve's film feels incremental, rather than revolutionary. That's outside Villeneuve's control, but you position your film in that line of succession, and you set yoursekf up for the comparison.
2) Blade Runner is animated by Rutger Hauer's fiery performance. Whilst Ford's Deckard is subsumed into cypher by Scott's coldness, Batty finds much-needed heat. At the same time, the use of so many lived-in faces of character actors for Bryant, Tyrell, Sebastian, Gaff, et al, at least hints at a depth that the rather plastic supporting cast of BR2049 (Bautista notably excepted) just don't seem to have...
What Jim said! Plus I just didn't find the script as elegant and minimal as the original. Too much explaining. Bautista's have you ever seen a miracle line, most of Robin Wright Penn's lines and of course all of Leto's stuff.
Quote from: dyl on 08 October, 2017, 10:41:56 PM
Doubt this new one will be remembered as ground breaking and influential in 35 yrs though!
I don't think the new film's intention is to break ground but mostly be a continuation and reflection on the original.
Blade Runner is groundbreaking in terms of vision, style and in the
matter of factness of how it presents its subject matter, but the story work in the belly of the film I find is lacking in its 2 hour runtime, especially concerning the replicants. I'm all for a slow-burn but there's minimalism and then there's lack of substance.
This is the only time I've ever thought that when taken as one story I think both films together may improve the viewing of each for me.
The other thing was that the score was nowhere near as good as Vangelis's. The score is a massive part of why I love the original so much, the way it's seamlessly woven into the film becoming part of the sound design at times. The new one had some good bits but a lot of it just seemed atonal bwaaaarrm, I'm guessing Zimmer had to turn it around quickly as johansen was let go quite late on.
Anyway I'll stop going on, just feels like a safe place to vent here!
I think we can't ignore that 2049 is sum of many influences like BR was. While there's still noir, detective story in there, 2049 "is" cyberpunk how we understand the genre today with all that came after original (and original BR is not a "cyberpunk" per se). From mirrorshades, Mike Pondsmith games, japanese manga, to system shock etc. Damn, there are some things in this movie that echoes Jeter s Blade Runner books.
BR was small story in different enviroment than you'd expect from typical noir genre movie, and whole "message" of the movie was just reinterpretation of "broken, washed up detective" trope. 2049 is trying to match story to this huge world around. I kind of admire that. In some ways 2049 feels like Fletecher studied from stories that previously learned almost everything from Blade Runner.
Quotefeels like a safe place to vent here!
;)
Having let the whole thing 'percolate' in my brain a little, i reckon I probbly haven't been vocal enough about all the really positive aspects to this brave and, well-realised project and that maybe I haven't acknowledged the lovely- immersive experience I had while watching it. I have been recommending it. I have.
I do honestly think that it's both a genuine heartfelt tribute and an innovative and creative expansion at the same time. Gobsmacking. I know I'll watch it again.
But... as lot's of people continue to beam out the positivity, and this does seem like an excellent place to trash out personal niggles...
here's two more:
A [spoiler]
Rachel's secret-magic-Tyrell-implanted ovaries.
The tech exists to make sophisticated* replicants and yet, only Tyrell could figure out this next step of adding a reproductive system? Really? Just that one guy that one time? For no good reason?
- that ability died with him, and in 30 years of scientific endevour it seems universally accepted that nobody else has/could/or ever will? Whatever the mechanism is for creating and amending replicants, it's not a 'magic' thing is it?- or is this another thing explained away by being a religious allegory?
*(so sophisticated that they are differentiated from humans not by a blood-sample/x-ray or swab but only by an 'empathy' test)This means also Deckard's no longer even possibly a replicant,
or else Tyrell fitted him with a set of equally rare and magic repli-gonads with no conceivable motive for doing so.[/spoiler]
B[spoiler]Voice operated interaction with visual display . It's a certainly more 'cinematic' than using
a mouse, or a keyboard or a touch-screen but not practical. One time, for one system is a nice callback to a memorable scene in the first movie (
made in 1982 when even computer mouse was rare) but used as often as it was here, it felt like silly fan-service, to me.[/spoiler]
Also I kinda concur with Ebert's ghost; fair criticism.
Quote from: von Boom on 07 October, 2017, 12:02:33 PM
I forgot to ask, [spoiler]was anyone else shocked by the drinking and cursing of Princess Buttercup? It has given me the strange idea that the Blade Runner universe is what happens when Princess Buttercup does marry Humperdink and Wesley actually dies in The Princess Bride.[/spoiler]
Robin Wright for Cheif Judge Mc Gruder!
(https://i.imgur.com/lknVYlt.jpg)
Quote from: darnmarr on 09 October, 2017, 01:18:46 PM
A [spoiler]Rachel's secret-magic-Tyrell-implanted ovaries.
The tech exists to make sophisticated* replicants and yet, only Tyrell could figure out this next step of adding a reproductive system? Really? Just that one guy that one time? For no good reason?
- that ability died with him, and in 30 years of scientific endevour it seems universally accepted that nobody else has/could/or ever will? Whatever the mechanism is for creating and amending replicants, it's not a 'magic' thing is it?- or is this another thing explained away by being a religious allegory?
*(so sophisticated that they are differentiated from humans not by a blood-sample/x-ray or swab but only by an 'empathy' test)
This means also Deckard's no longer even possibly a replicant, or else Tyrell fitted him with a set of equally rare and magic repli-gonads with no conceivable motive for doing so.[/spoiler]
If there's more pointers to support
Deckard not being a robbit that's fine by me but as far as replicant [spoiler]procreation[/spoiler] is concerned I think it's following the same form as the original in actually being purposely vague in defining what the hell a replicant is supposed to be and how such a thing functions: an organic robot which is not a human clone or human; has some kind of DNA/genetic sequencing apparently and didn't originally have emotions but after some evolution at the lab, did?
The 'science' doesn't make any sense because there never was much science in it; it's an elastic metaphor in service to a master/slave – creator/creation story.
Well yes it was an elastic metaphor in the 1982 fillum; but [spoiler]now, in this story it's more central and concrete because it explicitly provides motivation for the actions of central characters[/spoiler], ¿no?
EDIT: Just re-read your post and realised that by 'the science' you probably meant 'all of the science' and not 'the science[spoiler] of procreation'[/spoiler] and Now i feel silly.
Yeah; to me the idea of replicants somehow developing 'emotions' was the motivational crux turning inside all characters in the original so adding [spoiler]procreation[/spoiler] to that doesn't seem too much a dramatic stretch.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 08 October, 2017, 10:12:12 PM
Quote from: dyl on 08 October, 2017, 07:03:05 PMMassive amounts of talent making an incredibly slick and well made film but just not that engaging or memorable in the end.
He seems more concerned with creating his film worlds than populating them with plausible characters, and that's the trouble this time. "Blade Runner" is a stunningly interesting visual achievement, but a failure as a story.
I'd level that complaint at Scott's entire career. I don't think he cares as much about solid scripts as he does imagining how to bring these worlds and eras to life. Even with the movies he's made I don't like, let's say Kingdom Of Heaven or Prometheus for example, there's always something interesting, sometimes utterly breathtaking, to
look at. That's the stuff that gets his juices flowing. The scripts, the characters... ehhh, not so much.
Saw 2049 on saturday. I quite enjoyed it on the whole, but felt that it was massively overlong, to the point where I was getting quite bored at times. In all honesty, with the story as slight as it was I felt that they could have easily cut an entire hour from the running time and had a much tighter, more engaging end product. Having now seen the movie, I'm not at all surprised that it's bombing hard - I can imagine the vast majority of viewers being bored to tears - a friend I was with fell asleep for a good half hour chunk.
I also found the occasional line of dialogue a little ropey, and that it veered uncomfortably into hack cliches from time to time - such as the Dr Evil villain 'I'm just going to leave you here and assume you're dead' trope, which happens TWICE in the space of 15 minutes. The villains in general were a little overwrought and cartoony compared to the rest of the movie.
Conversely, despite my gripes with the running time, I actually appreciated the pacing of the film - it was nice to see a big budget spectacle movie that was confident enough to give itself time to breathe, and really immerse the viewer in its world, and didn't have the obnoxious, whiplash-inducing pacing of most modern blockbusters where you feel as if you're watching an extended trailer rather than an actual movie.
Yeah, I didn't mind the pacing, would have actually liked more mooching about and less talking!
Let me retract my earlier keenness to see this. No chance am I sitting in a cinema for almost three hours.
Quote from: SuperSurfer on 09 October, 2017, 05:45:13 PM
Let me retract my earlier keenness to see this. No chance am I sitting in a cinema for almost three hours.
Had I known beforehand, I probably wouldn't have gone to see it either.
Issues with the script / pacing / time it's still well worth going to see on the big screen.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 09 October, 2017, 07:46:18 PM
Issues with the script / pacing / time it's still well worth going to see on the big screen.
this can be said of both the old and the new; and I agree in both instances.
QuoteI also found the occasional line of dialogue a little ropey, and that it veered uncomfortably into hack cliches from time to time - such as the Dr Evil villain
well.......whaddta think of this dialogue?
ahem!
"You could learn from this guy Gaff, he's a god-damn one man slaughterhouse".
or my personal favourite"Talk about beauty and the beast
— she's both."
(point being; BR was many things, but often not exactly Shakespeare)
Bryant obviously didn't fully understand English because he was a replicant...
I wasn't sure who directed it but half way through I realised it couldn't be Ridley Scott because it was too good.
Just realised that Denis Villeneuve also directed 'Enemy' which is well worth a watch if you haven't seen it already.
I'm seriously considering going to see BR2049 again ...
Quote from: darnmarr on 09 October, 2017, 09:20:17 PM
QuoteI also found the occasional line of dialogue a little ropey, and that it veered uncomfortably into hack cliches from time to time - such as the Dr Evil villain
well.......whaddta think of this dialogue?
ahem!
"You could learn from this guy Gaff, he's a god-damn one man slaughterhouse".
or my personal favourite
"Talk about beauty and the beast
— she's both."
(point being; BR was many things, but often not exactly Shakespeare)
Fair point, though the original had some truly beautiful dialogue too - 'time to die' may have been a throwaway macho line from Leon, but Roy's callback to it was truly moving and haunting (even if Rutger Hauer did just make it up himself). I couldn't help feeling that the new one lacked some of that.
Also, I loved the revelation of what Roy's mission was in the original one - [spoiler]he was never going to kill Deckard at all; he just wanted him to share a replicant's sense of imminent mortality[/spoiler]. The new one was far less original plotwise; in fact something similar happened in a story set 2017 years ago.
And, like Jim said, it's not as fresh as the first one - we know this rainy, smoggy world already (and I've owned at least three see-through umbrellas in my time).
But I liked 2049, all in all, the visuals and soundtrack alone were worth the asking price; and the storyline did justice to the old film. The radioactive zone where [spoiler]Deckard now lives[/spoiler] is a thing of beauty, as is the giant dam. Though I'll still take the first one, every time.
Quotewell.......whaddta think of this dialogue?
ahem!
"You could learn from this guy Gaff, he's a god-damn one man slaughterhouse".
or my personal favourite
"Talk about beauty and the beast
— she's both."
(point being; BR was many things, but often not exactly Shakespeare)
Where did I say that I was comparing it unfavourably to the first movie? I don't even like the first movie.
My apologies, I just saw the comment about dialogue and instantly some of Bryant's cheesier lines popped into my head.
I'd watch it but I havent seen the other 2,047 films yet....
I reet liked it.
Went to see it again and enjoyed it a lot more. There's still bits I'm not keen on but I was able to filter them out and enjoy all the good stuff.
It was just so good.....not sure where people are finding fault. The original is a masterpiece of design, visuals, atmosphere and sound, but completely lacks in emotional connection and dialogue (for the most part). I feel like 2049 manages to tick those same positives but largely avoids the negatives.
Incredible film in my opinion.
Quote from: SIP on 11 October, 2017, 09:18:36 AM
.....not sure where people are finding fault.
Technically, it's superb, but (again, and nothing to do with either the running time or the pacing) I just
didn't care about any of it. Also found its attitude to women somewhat troubling, to the point of being distasteful, something I suppose it shares with the original, if I'm honest.
I have tickets booked for Friday, so I'm only skimming this thread like a hungry barracuda nibbling at a whale, but I have to agree with Jim about attitudes to women in the first one at least.
Watched it (the original) with my 11 year old this week, and sheesh, the things you don't remember! Felt the need to gloss it for him by pointing out that Deckard is basically a 21st C slave catcher killing runaways for slaveowners, and his shitty behaviour and that of his contemporaries should be seen in that light. But even so, it's hard going, when it comes to Rachel, Zhora and Priss.
Still a bloody great film though: the look and feel of it haven't aged a day. Aside from the absence of mobile phones even the tech feels right.
Actually, now that you mention it, Deckard only kills the women. Rachel kills Leon and Batty bests him, then dies of 'old age'...
Quotenot sure where people are finding fault.
Because it's ridiculously overlong.
There's simply no need for this film to have a running time approaching
three hours. What was released in the cinema should have been the director's cut.
Quote from: radiator on 11 October, 2017, 06:04:28 PM
Quotenot sure where people are finding fault.
Because it's ridiculously overlong.
Is it?
I loved it and would not cut a second from it if it was mine.
I dunno, people with their 5 second memories ;)
Seriously though I applaud a cinematic experience that makes you literally live it. I think it's as near as perfect as could be.
Quote...not sure where people are finding fault.
Clearly folks are enthusiastic with their opinions on it- one way or another- and that , in and of itself, is a good sign; I, personally, found fault - not in the pacing ( I found Avalon enjoyable) but this film, regarded as it will be, in comparison to the original, contains narrative elements that undermine the world and themes suggested by the first.
A lot of it will come down to taste; you could be a star wars fan who utterly enjoyed 'the force awakens' or you could be a star wars fan who considered it the equivalent of an Abba-fans night at an Australian Abaa gig; the film we call Blade Runner is not a good story told well- It's loved for other reasons. BR2049 is a good story told well. The appeal of the 1st is, really, the music and the world building and the combination of the simultaneously fascinating and ambiguous.
I find fault with a plot that nails down, and makes banal, ambiguities that- intentional or otherwise- gave the original depth. I find fault with [spoiler]Mr Leto's performance[/spoiler], and I find fault with multiple [spoiler]'enhance, enhance' voice-operated graphics interfaces[/spoiler], an I find fault with[spoiler] too many scenes lit by water reflected light.[/spoiler]
Which is not to say I didn't enjoy meself, but I spose analysis is often a fault-finding exercise.
Quote from: Mattofthespurs on 11 October, 2017, 06:11:19 PM
Quote from: radiator on 11 October, 2017, 06:04:28 PM
Quotenot sure where people are finding fault.
Because it's ridiculously overlong.
Is it?
I loved it and would not cut a second from it if it was mine.
I dunno, people with their 5 second memories ;)
Seriously though I applaud a cinematic experience that makes you literally live it. I think it's as near as perfect as could be.
Finding a near three hour long movie to be too long hardly indicates a 'five second memory' (attention span?), and a film doesn't have to be long to feel immersive or atmospheric.
As I said, this cut should have been saved for an 'extended cut' rerelease, and they should have cut it down to under two hours for theatrical release. As it stands, I think the running time alone will doom this film's chances at any kind of box office success (or the chances of any casual fans, like me, ever wanting to rewatch it).
While in general I liked the slowish pacing, I tend to find slow pacing works better in a film with a shorter overall running time. In this case it just led to fatigue. There were a number of
very long scenes that didn't really add anything to the story or themes, and many times where I knew exactly where a scene was going, then had to wait for five minutes of (admittedly beautifully shot) footage of Ryan Gosling walking slowly down a dark corridor for it to get to the point.
Quote from: radiator on 11 October, 2017, 06:04:28 PM
Quotenot sure where people are finding fault.
Because it's ridiculously overlong.
There's simply no need for this film to have a running time approaching three hours. What was released in the cinema should have been the director's cut.
According to the director it is his final cut.
I wouldn't say it's ridiculously overlong. I'd cut the last action scene down to a clip since it feels out of place as an attempt to add a tense, end-of-film climax when the film feels past that, and maybe try and conflate some narrative bits that are required to make the story still work – but to decide to snip things out solely for time in order to reduce it by 40 minutes to an hour or so would mean a lot of that pacing which some of us apparently appreciate, will be gone, because that's where most of the extra run-time is coming from: the mass accumulation of shots and reactions held for more than 3 seconds.
Quote from: radiator on 11 October, 2017, 06:04:28 PM
Quotenot sure where people are finding fault.
Because it's ridiculously overlong.
There's simply no need for this film to have a running time approaching three hours. What was released in the cinema should have been the director's cut.
For me it absolutely flew by, and I would have been happy for it to have been even longer!
Fair enough, each to their own. Glad others loved it as much as they did.
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], also the [spoiler] replicant rebellion scene could have been tightened up, 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] and the [spoiler]final fight between Love and K - I feel like we have seen this fight, that could have been shortened[/spoiler].
Also regarding the [spoiler]child that Rachel and Deckard had[/spoiler], was this alluded to in the first movie?
Yeah, I get why people wouldn't want to sit in a cinema for that long, but personally I found the pace so perfectly absorbing that I could happily have watched another hour.
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.
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.
QuoteLengthy 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.
Yeah, that's just it. I find it hard to find enough free time to watch an average-length movie at home these days, let alone one that is longer than two hours, especially when an episode of a premium TV show like Game of Thrones or The Deuce on average delivers more bang for your buck in a much more digestible format.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
Not read any of this (or watched any trailers.). 3D or not 3d?
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.)
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).
Saw it. ADORED it. Going to watch again tonight. 'Nuff said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also saw it a second time in the past few days. As the previous poster said - incredible. You almost cry when Transformer-style movies make big money at the box office - and 2049 is struggling.
Been working on Deckard's blaster in the past few days. This one started as a water pistol (of all things). Very happy with the result.
(https://i.imgur.com/tYS6ie8l.jpg)
Well I thought it was pretty damn excellent, its images, ideas and puzzles have been bubbling around in my head since seeing it a fortnight ago. In fact I only really feel ready to comment on it now.
Obviously it both looked and sounded incredible - although the similarity of some of the soundtrack to Arrival was occasionally distracting (there are worse things).
I have to agree that some sequences were too drawn-out, not in themselves necessarily, but in the context of a long running time. The Las Vegas scenes, the second furnace-room scene, the punch-up in the water: these could all have been trimmed down with no real impact. But overall, it didn't feel overlong.
There were some particular treasures in there: Joi was superb, both as concept and in Ana de Armas' execution,[spoiler] her final moment the emotional heart of the movie[/spoiler]; Bautista's Sapper was brilliant, an apparent throwaway character that he somehow rendered memorable so that every time the plot drew us back to his role and location, he was instantly present in my head: that shot with him fumbling his glasses, wow. Rapidly becoming one of my favourite actors.
My only real niggle with the experience (apart from the small bladders of many of our co-patrons) was my inability to shake the idea that it was [spoiler]an android re-run of Children of Men[/spoiler], something not really helped by the final scene.
Greatly looking forward to seeing it again, at my own pace.
Quote from: Mardroid on 27 October, 2017, 06:17:59 PMI agree that the film is rather sad
For what it's worth, I wasn't referring to any particular moment in the film, but essentially to all of it. The whole thing feels like an ongoing emotional gut-punch, looking at a toxic society in which nothing is 'real', in which the Earth itself is essentially dead, and where those few people who do scrabble about in the neon-and-dust ruins are subject to a kind of end-game capitalism combined with a totally dominant patriarchy. It's
in model for the universe (even if said universe is very clearly 100 per cent male gaze), hence probably why my wife found the film fine too (again, unlike Skyfall), but it all felt rather icky to us nonetheless.
So I'd say the original was a great but (in hindsight) flawed sci-fi classic; this one's a good but flawed worthy follow-up. I can't imagine I'll watch it a second time, but I'm glad I saw it at the cinema.
Can't disagree with most of that, IP. It was one of the very few evenings out alone together for the missus and I (the previous one was July 2016 to see Tarzan!) and we were in high spirits going in, distinctly subdued coming out. Despite being explicitly the future of Bladerunner, rather than the future of 2017, it felt disturbingly like the inevitable husk of our world, and utterly without hope: nothing had changed, time had just run out. Joi's story even subverted the idea that while humanity had shat the global bed, the replicants' world was only beginning - since the very same issues appeared to be duplicated in her kind's situation.
None of this is to say that I didn't enjoy it, just that the thoughts provoked were far from positive ones.
Sound familiar. The last film we saw together was even longer ago than that. Something with the X-Men. Mini-IP at that point wasn't actually here yet, but made her presence known by going super-punchy when the movie's bass kicked in. So: it was a cinema trip! Oh my! 10:10 in the morning, but still.
We emerged into a drab Saturday lunchtime kind of going: well, then. Certainly a lot to think and talk about; not remotely uplifting. (Not that we were necessarily expecting it to be jolly, obviously. But Blade Runner was a noir with a bit more range, not least in terms of performances and conclusions.)
As I've said, 'enjoy' is a very loaded word. I think in hindsight I appreciated the film more than I actively enjoyed watching it.
I thought it was brilliant. There's still plenty more they could do with that franchise. Can't understand why it hasn't done better at the box office.
Quote from: Richard on 28 October, 2017, 07:58:11 PM
Can't understand why it hasn't done better at the box office.
Like the original, it doesn't appeal to most people and it's niche, so it won't earn its money in one or 2 weeks. A box-office of $200 million –so far– doesn't sound like a disappointment or wrong estimate for such a slow-paced, internalised drama, even if it does have flying cars.
It's earned more than other sci-fi films like Looper and will soon surpass District 9 at the box-office. Problem is BR2049 cost a lot more to make than those films; if it didn't, its box-office wouldn't be an issue.
Again, it goes back to the first film: they can't expect a film like this to make all its money in a few weeks. Like the original, it'll make its money over a longer period.
Quote from: TordelBack on 28 October, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
Bautista's Sapper was brilliant...that shot with him fumbling his glasses, wow.
It's the one thing that keeps playing in my head when I think of that character. So 'human'.
Yes, a great character. I particularly liked the prequel short based around him.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 07 October, 2017, 07:51:39 PM
they intended the role for Bowie so you can see what they were thinking of.
"Let's cast a moderately adequate actor simply because he's David Bowie and hope his otherwordliness does the trick like it didn't do in LABYRINTH and THE PRESTIGE."
Quote from: Eric Plumrose on 09 November, 2017, 09:11:28 PM
"Let's cast a moderately adequate actor simply because he's David Bowie and hope his otherwordliness does the trick like it didn't do in LABYRINTH and THE PRESTIGE."
I've never been impressed by Bowie's film performances, but I would've been intrigued to see an older
– albeit dying – Bowie in the world of BR. The idea seems to fit; even if he was just playing himself. Certainly be more interested in that than watching Leto's attempts to chew the sets.
He had a very interesting turn in Fire Walk With me.... One of the most surreal things I've seen in a film, I think.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 09 November, 2017, 10:27:51 PM
I've never been impressed by Bowie's film performances, but I would've been intrigued to see an older – albeit dying – Bowie in the world of BR. The idea seems to fit; even if he was just playing himself. Certainly be more interested in that than watching Leto's attempts to chew the sets.
I think the only time I was impressed by Bowie the actor was in DREAM ON ("I . . . don't.
Care!").
I agree Bowie's being terminally ill would have been plaintive and therefore effective but is that why he was even considered for the role?
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 October, 2017, 12:59:33 AM
Quote from: TordelBack on 28 October, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
Bautista's Sapper was brilliant...that shot with him fumbling his glasses, wow.
It's the one thing that keeps playing in my head when I think of that character. So 'human'.
Before I get sidetracked, HELL, yes.
Quote from: Eric Plumrose on 09 November, 2017, 10:53:07 PM
I agree Bowie's being terminally ill would have been plaintive and therefore effective but is that why he was even considered for the role?
They didn't even know he was sick when he refused the offer. It was only when he died they found out the reason for his refusal. Same with Twin Peaks.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 09 November, 2017, 11:16:39 PM
They didn't even know he was sick when he refused the offer. It was only when he died they found out the reason for his refusal. Same with Twin Peaks.
So basically they wanted to cast him because he was Bowie.
Yep. Maybe his stunt-casting would've worked, for once. All down to the context.
Bowie was solid in Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 10 November, 2017, 11:04:49 AM
Bowie was solid in Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence.
He was perfectly fine. As he was in everything I've seen him but Bowie the actor wasn't ever good enough to make me forget I was watching someone other than David Bowie.
Smarter people than me will have had their say and most of what I thought has already been covered in this thread. I thought it was a brilliant movie, sound and cinematography were both top end, everything was excellent. Fantastic sequel that built on rather than retread the original. Denis Villeneuve keeps killing it, after this, Arrival and Sicario I can't wait to see his Dune movie. Loved the novel, wasn't too keen on the previous adaptation.
Hope this isn't off topic, but has anyone read Dick's The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch?
I've seen in book shops. Any good?
...wait, there's going to be a new Dune?
Quote from: Apestrife on 14 November, 2017, 11:38:23 AM
Hope this isn't off topic, but has anyone read Dick's The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch?
I've seen in book shops. Any good?
It's not one of the absolute classics, but all late period PKD is worth reading.
Finally got round to seeing this last night. After originally being keen having read the Evening Standard review I was put off by other more negative reviews and the running time. I had resigned myself to waiting a couple of years for it to come on to Channel 4 or Netflix, when my brother asked me on Sunday if I still wanted to see it, having originally suggested it.
Yes it was a bit too long, but right from the start I thought this was a worthy sequel and not in anyway even slightly "rubbish" in a way a lot of sequels can be (GoTG 2 I'm thinking of you - sadly).
There was a comment earlier on this thread that it didn't break new ground, in the way the original did. Well it wasn't supposed to. The first film pretty much defined what I am going to call the "sci-fi noir look". This film could never redefine that - its job was to be consist with that, and in that regard I don't think it could have done better.
Ryan Gosling did such a great job I didn't miss Harrison Ford for the, what, two hours (?) before he showed up.
I think the film raised some interesting questions (but didn't provide any answers) about what is real / what does it mean to be human versus an artificial human versus an AI.
Overall very thought provoking. I think it was right that they did not categorically confirm whether Deckard is a replicant or not. I know there are attempts to piece clues together up thread, but for me any answer 35 years later is going to feel made up on the spot and not intended all along.
The one weak point for me, is Wallace / Luv's motivation for wanting to kill K seems a bit, well weak (or maybe I just didn't understand it :lol:).
As per another up thread comment, yes it did feel very 2000AD. Indeed it made me think of Indigo Prime (the strip not the boarder) and how that series could learn a thing or two from movies like this in terms of how to make the narrative easier to follow, whilst still having loads of ideas to add into the mix.