Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Blade Runner 2  (Read 16151 times)

Eric Plumrose

  • Member
  • Evil Cyborg
  • ****
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #210 on: 09 November, 2017, 11:48:41 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.
Not sure if pervert or cheesecake expert.

JOE SOAP

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14685
    • View Profile
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #211 on: 09 November, 2017, 11:59:06 pm »
Yep. Maybe his stunt-casting would've worked, for once. All down to the context.

IndigoPrime

  • Administrator
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7496
    • View Profile
    • http://www.craiggrannell.com
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #212 on: 10 November, 2017, 11:04:49 am »
Bowie was solid in Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence.

Eric Plumrose

  • Member
  • Evil Cyborg
  • ****
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #213 on: 11 November, 2017, 10:33:34 pm »
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.
Not sure if pervert or cheesecake expert.

Juan De La Karite

  • Mek-Quakes Leftovers
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #214 on: 14 November, 2017, 10:22:47 am »
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.

Apestrife

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #215 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?

Richard

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1819
    • View Profile
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #216 on: 14 November, 2017, 11:04:42 pm »
...wait, there's going to be a new Dune?

I, Cosh

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9051
    • View Profile
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #217 on: 14 November, 2017, 11:46:29 pm »
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.
We never really die.

Magnetica

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
Re: Blade Runner 2
« Reply #218 on: 05 December, 2017, 11:19:47 pm »
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.