Blade Runner 2049/Blade Runner 2099 Live-Action Sequel Series Discussion

1161719212236

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Just bought IMAX tickets for this, and I can't frickin' wait. I'm a big fan of the original Blade Runner having just seen it for the first time this week.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,551
    Intermission

    I have to be quick.
    @StirredNotShaken, I'm so thrilled to read your enthusiasm for BR2049! I'm halfway through the film now and boy, the photography, the design, the sounds, ... less noir than BR, geometrically more sterile, with vibrant colours and ear piercing synth sounds... I'm all juiced up for specific scenes yet to come, scenes that have been haunting me since Wednesday. I agree with @DaltonCraig007 by the way, that about 20 minutes in, the film reaches a visual height I'm destined to worship the rest of my life.

    Villeneuve may have outsmarted Scott...

    Al right, I'm ready for part 2. Talk to you guys in about 80 minutes!
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 5,767
    Just came back from the cinema. Right now I am angry at Villeneuve for letting Zimmer and Wallfisch stain this masterpiece. The film as such is that, a masterpiece, I dare say that much. But the music, apart from the source music, is a replicant with a severe DNA failure. Vangelis´ score for the original was at times erratic and uneven, but it had tons of character, it was a film character on its own. BR 2049´s score obviously aims at emulating Vangelis, yet it has zero character, it is like an opulent yet cheap frame trying to steal the show from the picture it´s supposed to compliment and be part of. On the upside, there are long passages without music.
    I don´t believe a word if Villeneuve claims he wanted the film to sound closer to Vangelis and hence let Johannson go. That is utter **. If it were like that, then why didn´t he make the film in the first place look more like a Ridley Scott film? It´s absolutely fantastic how much liberty Villeneuve and Deakins took in giving this film such a different look from the original. In fact, that is one major reason for the film turning out so absolutely fantastic. All the more so is it a massive shame that the soundtrack department wasn´t allowed similar freedom. And talent.
  • Posts: 4,619
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Right now I am angry at Villeneuve for letting Zimmer and Wallfisch stain this masterpiece.
    I haven't seen the movie yet (watching it tomorrow), but if I won't like the score, I will blame Johannsson. He dropped the ball, did not deliver and for that reason Villeneuve had to find a last minute replacement. Zimmer & Wallfish did not have the time they would have had had they been the composers from the beginning to compose an outstanding score. If the score is subpar, it's on Johannsson.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 2,107
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Intermission

    I have to be quick.
    @StirredNotShaken, I'm so thrilled to read your enthusiasm for BR2049! I'm halfway through the film now and boy, the photography, the design, the sounds, ... less noir than BR, geometrically more sterile, with vibrant colours and ear piercing synth sounds... I'm all juiced up for specific scenes yet to come, scenes that have been haunting me since Wednesday. I agree with @DaltonCraig007 by the way, that about 20 minutes in, the film reaches a visual height I'm destined to worship the rest of my life.

    Villeneuve may have outsmarted Scott...

    Al right, I'm ready for part 2. Talk to you guys in about 80 minutes!

    They still have intermissions where you live in?

    I've never witnessed intermission in my life! (30+ years now)
  • Posts: 2,400
    Deakins, yes, has done career-best work with this film.

    In fact nearly everyone involved (Gosling, Villeneuve, maybe even Ford?) I think has turned out perhaps the best stuff they've ever done.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 2,107
    Am I the only one who thinks Villeneuve is not right for Bond , but was right for BR 2049?

    Look, I love Blade Runner 2049, but Bond is a wholly different beast. Not better, not by a long shot, just different. I'm afraid we'd get another art house Bond.

    I really don't think director that make movies like BR 2049, or the original, is right for Bond which is basically your average popcorn entertaiment , which both BR movies certainly are not.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    SharkBait wrote: »
    Am I the only one who thinks Villeneuve is not right for Bond , but was right for BR 2049?

    Look, I love Blade Runner 2049, but Bond is a wholly different beast. Not better, not by a long shot, just different. I'm afraid we'd get another art house Bond.

    I really don't think director that make movies like BR 2049, or the original, is right for Bond which is basically your average popcorn entertaiment , which both BR movies certainly are not.
    Bond films should be way more complex (aesthetics included) than your average popcorn entertainment.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 2,107
    Yes, but we've had someone more famous for art house films in two(okay, three) movies in a row now .

    Let's get someone, who's experienceced in action/thriller.

    You know, make it more fun (not camp).
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Right now I am angry at Villeneuve for letting Zimmer and Wallfisch stain this masterpiece.
    I haven't seen the movie yet (watching it tomorrow), but if I won't like the score, I will blame Johannsson. He dropped the ball, did not deliver and for that reason Villeneuve had to find a last minute replacement. Zimmer & Wallfish did not have the time they would have had had they been the composers from the beginning to compose an outstanding score. If the score is subpar, it's on Johannsson.
    I doubt that. Especially with Villeneuve claiming he wanted it to sound more like Vangelis. Makes no sense.


    SharkBait wrote: »
    Am I the only one who thinks Villeneuve is not right for Bond , but was right for BR 2049?

    Look, I love Blade Runner 2049, but Bond is a wholly different beast. Not better, not by a long shot, just different. I'm afraid we'd get another art house Bond.

    I really don't think director that make movies like BR 2049, or the original, is right for Bond which is basically your average popcorn entertaiment , which both BR movies certainly are not.
    Having seen Prisoners, Sicario, Arrival, and now BR 2049, I think Villeneuve has made some brilliant films but is totally wrong for Bond. I agree with you totally that Bond is different.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Just got back.

    Does it live up to the hype? Well, in a word, 'YES'.

    I went in preparing to be disappointed and harsh and came out highly impressed. It's surreal, dark, existential, deep, atmospheric, meaningful and thought provoking. Most impressively, it's highly engrossing during the very long run time (without an intermission in my case).

    In case there was ever any doubt, Roger Deakins is a genius.

    Denis Villeneuve must be congratulated for taking on a masterpiece and giving us a worthy sequel. Does it surpass the original? That's a matter of taste and opinion. I'll say this much: I wouldn't blame anyone who thinks it does. I wasn't impressed with Arrival but this certainly restores Villeneuve's credibility in my eyes. As I expected (and as is typical with him) there is a moral quandary facing a character at the centre of it. That's what I expect for B25 should he get that entry, and I'm quite certain that is why Craig is seeking him for it.

    I've read comments about this being Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford's best performances. I wouldn't go that far, although they are both very good here. I've seen both of them far better in other films although there's nothing to complain about.

    The actresses are who really give this film its heart and who impressed me the most. One in particular.

    I was reasonably impressed with Zimmer's effort on this film. It doesn't match Vangelis, but then again I didn't expect it to. It works with the film and evokes the 1982 effort, which is what I expected.

    Go see it. Soon. In the best theatre you can afford. Ideally in IMAX. It's well worth your time.
  • Posts: 4,600
    When can we have an open discussion? do we need a seperate thread?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    There is a spoiler option
  • Posts: 4,600
    Thoughts with possible spoilers
    I can't disagree with all of the plus points so I won't go into that. But the weekness IMHO was the lack of emotional connection with the characters. At the end, I did not really care about what happened. I had no emotional connection. Compare this with the tragic, iconic speech by Batty in the original. Its wonderful cinema. Not because of the effects or the music etc,,,but because you feel for him. It's pure theatre at a human level (ironically as he's not which is the exact pivotal narative of the whole movie) and, rightly, one of the highlights (if not the highlight) of the movie.
    If you watch 2049, there is no one moment (for me a least) where you are just totally immersed in that character, their feelings and their dialogue.
    There is so much to discuss (as with all good sci fi.) This is going to be a long and interesting thread /spoiler]
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    I just got back from it. Without spoiling it I have two quick reviews.
    Objective: This film is pretty much flawless. Go see it.
    Subjective: This is not the story I would have written. But it was so well done I still say you should go see it.
    And now....
    Okay, it's clearly a sequel to The Final Cut, not the narrated version as Rachel obviously succumbed to her time limit. In the narrated version she was created limit-less, and as the narrated version is my fave, her quick demise bothers me a lot. But as a sequel to The Final Cut it IS pretty much flawless.
    This movie is so visually amazing that it's hard to effectively use an overworked word like 'awesome', but it is. And I fully appreciated some of the practical effects they managed to do.
    Bottom line: if you love BR: The Final Cut you will love this movie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    patb wrote: »
    Thoughts with possible spoilers
    I can't disagree with all of the plus points so I won't go into that. But the weekness IMHO was the lack of emotional connection with the characters. At the end, I did not really care about what happened. I had no emotional connection. Compare this with the tragic, iconic speech by Batty in the original. Its wonderful cinema. Not because of the effects or the music etc,,,but because you feel for him. It's pure theatre at a human level (ironically as he's not which is the exact pivotal narative of the whole movie) and, rightly, one of the highlights (if not the highlight) of the movie.
    If you watch 2049, there is no one moment (for me a least) where you are just totally immersed in that character, their feelings and their dialogue.
    There is so much to discuss (as with all good sci fi.) This is going to be a long and interesting thread /spoiler]
    I connected with Ford a couple of times... but the film didn't have the character relate-ability of the first one, yeah. It was a bit more clinical that way.
  • Posts: 4,600
    Batty was a great character as his dramatic posturing (not sure if thats the right word) contrasted with the internalised character of Deckard. Batty had some of the best lines and he is central IMHO to the success of the movie. With 2049, all the characters seem to be internalised with no opportunity for the pure expressed drama that we get with Batty. What it has done is made me realise just how good the original is. It's around 2 hours long but so so much to enjoy and consider. It really does have everything you could want from a sci fi movie
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,551
    I think that in a week or so, when most of us, die hards, have seen the film, we can spoil this thing up the wazoo and I'll have a spoiler warning in the title. ;-) Spoiler-free reviews and discussions can then be dropped in the Movies thread. All in favour? Or shall we hold the spoilers off a bit longer?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    We Blade Runner mega-fans will all see it within a week I think.
  • Posts: 676
    Just saw it... Eh. Not bowled over.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Milovy wrote: »
    Just saw it... Eh. Not bowled over.
    Curious, are you a fan of the original? And if so, narrated or not?
  • Posts: 676
    @chrisisall, yes fan of the original, have only seen the Final Cut.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Milovy wrote: »
    @chrisisall, yes fan of the original, have only seen the Final Cut.

    Hmmm, perplexing... did you feel the new one was too serious? Too brutal? Too clinical?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Bottom line now that a couple of hours has gone by... the original is a classic- this one is merely a good sci-fi movie.
  • Posts: 676
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    @chrisisall, yes fan of the original, have only seen the Final Cut.

    Hmmm, perplexing... did you feel the new one was too serious? Too brutal? Too clinical?
    Not sure. It was what it was. I just didn't enjoy it all that much.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Well, standing aside from my RIDICULOUS love of the first film I'd say this is pretty frakin' amazing.
    But I'd have left out
    the cutting of the new 'born' replicant- it was kind of needlessly horrifying and disgusting IMO.
  • Posts: 5,767
    chrisisall wrote: »
    And now....
    Okay, it's clearly a sequel to The Final Cut, not the narrated version as Rachel obviously succumbed to her time limit. In the narrated version she was created limit-less, and as the narrated version is my fave, her quick demise bothers me a lot. But as a sequel to The Final Cut it IS pretty much flawless.
    If I understood it correctly,
    Rachel died from difficult child birth, not from limited time limit.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    That is correct.

    This is film of the year for me. It just about edges out the last Apes film as best cinematic experience so far.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    @SharkBait
    We have them almost all the time, except when a film is really short, say under 90 minutes. A visit to the men's room, or to the concessions stand if your cup needs a refill, can be paid during the intermission. I've come to appreciate the opportunity to be honest.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Tomorrow. 6pm. IMAX. Excited as hell.
Sign In or Register to comment.