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

1171820222336

Comments

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,043
    Utterly astounding.

    Yes it takes its time but I wasn't board one bit and it didn't feel its length and the film rests on Gosling and he doesn't disappoint, he's utterly superb.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    boldfinger wrote: »
    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.
    But they didn't need to address the issue that way. A tad lazy, that. I've just realized another thing about why the first Blade Runner is, in the end, a superior movie to 2049....
    Who are the bad guys in Blade Runner? I mean the really evil ones? In 2049 we get two really bad characters that are easy to identify/ hate. But in the first, the distinctions were very blurry, and that ALONE makes it a better film IMO. Or at the very least more interesting from a story telling POV. Really evil bad guys just feels a little comic-book-y to me. Plus of course, two good guys battling when they first meet over mis-perceptions... ;)
    That said, it's still a work of art.
  • Posts: 676
    chrisisall wrote: »
    But they didn't need to address the issue that way. A tad lazy, that. I've just realized another thing about why the first Blade Runner is, in the end, a superior movie to 2049....
    Who are the bad guys in Blade Runner? I mean the really evil ones? In 2049 we get two really bad characters that are easy to identify/ hate. But in the first, the distinctions were very blurry, and that ALONE makes it a better film IMO. Or at the very least more interesting from a story telling POV. Really evil bad guys just feels a little comic-book-y to me. Plus of course, two good guys battling when they first meet over mis-perceptions... ;)
    That said, it's still a work of art.
    Yes, one of the problems I had with the film as well...
    The villains were just villains. Luv was a cartoon character.

    I also agree with you that Wallace cutting open the new replicant's belly was disgusting and unnecessary. I had to close my eyes at that part.

    I had a number of issues with the movie, maybe I will discuss them once more people have seen it. But I don't want to rain on anyone's parade either. I'm glad lots of BR fans are loving the new movie.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 684
    Saw it this afternoon.

    I thought I would enjoy it, but it exceeded expectations.

    As someone who is not devoted to the original (though I do think it's a good enough film), this is (tentatively) the top film of the year so far. I loved seeing DUNKIRK in 15 perf IMAX but if I separate the theater experience and the film, BR2049 would, I think, come out on top (its certainly an experience in its own right, simply different).

    I shall have to revisit the original once more (seen it twice, but it's been a few years). Just on initial impressions, however, I have to say 2049 comes away more favorably. Admittedly this may be because I saw it on the big screen, whereas I've only seen the original on a television. Be that as it may, I think 2049 not only expands the discourse of the original but also allows it the room to continue expanding throughout the film. No ideas were shortchanged here, and the film is all the better for its length.

    The presentation of everything is at the very least on par with the original, to boot, if it does not likewise surpass it — thanks to Villeneuve, Deakins, and in large part Gassner.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Just got back. It was good. Perhaps not quite as incredible as I was lead to believe, but still enjoyable. It will definitely take some time to formulate my thoughts.

    In the end, given the potential for disaster in making a sequel 35 years after the original classic (remember how worried we were?), it was handled well. Will post a more in depth review later.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited October 2017 Posts: 17,687
    @Strog it IS an amazing piece of work. I didn't think it was possible myself. But here it is. And like its predecessor, it will flop initially. Too deep. But it will generate profits for years to come. Slowly. Sequel? Possible but it depends upon SONY's ability to see profit tides moving towards shore slowly and steadily...
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 684
    @chrisisall It certainly will be interesting in the coming weeks to see how the public respond. So far this year the studio films I've found most interesting (BABY DRIVER, mother!, DUNKIRK in relation to Nolan's other films, and now BR2049) have all been relatively low on buzz (in the U.S., at least). They're also the ones I've most wanted to see do well, in order to encourage Hollywood to produce more like them, instead of its usual fare.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    AND, on a less positive note here...
    MORE obsessive thoughts on Blade Runner 2049. Sorry, but the original IS one of my top favourite films of all time... and again, MASSIVE spoilers here.
    V
    V
    V
    V
    There is something vaguely misogynistic about the willingness to show Deckard as an older Harrison Ford but to want or need to not have Rachel in the film as an older Sean Young.
    If they had seen fit to tell the tale as a reunion of Deckard, Rachel AND their daughter in the story, mostly as written, I'd be all like, THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!! Sadly this is not the case. Having her character die in childbirth in the past was a convenient way of skirting the issue of whether she was 'special' or not and whether Gaff was right when he said "Too bad she won't live.." And also a way of preserving her stunning & youthful beauty from the first film. Not cool IMO. :( Without Rachel, this sequel is merely an exercise in extremely artistic sci-fi storytelling without the real heart to back it up... no matter Ford's onscreen tears at hearing her voice in the records. Sorry. It needed Sean IMHO...
    b4a079f4-a3ea-b36c-51e54caa18c4d818.jpg

    Okay, shoot at me for this.
  • Posts: 676
    chrisisall wrote:
    Okay, shoot at me for this.
    No, I pretty much agree.
    If they didn't want to bring back Rachel, fine, whatever. But having her come back only as some fantasy young version of herself was... gross. In my opinion anyway.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Milovy wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote:
    Okay, shoot at me for this.
    No, I pretty much agree.
    If they didn't want to bring back Rachel, fine, whatever. But having her come back only as some fantasy young version of herself was... gross. In my opinion anyway.

    Yep.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm not sure I agree.
    They certainly didn't need to bring her back and quite frankly I didn't like it,
    but not for the reasons noted. Rather, because I can't stand these digitized younger versions of actors, whether it be Michael Douglas in Ant Man, RDJ in Civil War or Carrie Fisher in Rogue One. The digitized Sean Young looked far better than those prior examples, but still not real enough, and certainly not as real as the actual 1982 Sean Young who they showed in flashback just a few seconds earlier.

    In this instance, I believe they brought her back to show the impact on Deckard. For him to make the choice. Did he reject her only because of her eyes, because she wasn't actually Rachel, or because he had his integrity and ethics and was willing to make a sacrifice? That's open to interpretation. I wish they hadn't made it about the 'eyes' but rather that he had to make the tough choice to reject her for the greater good. That would have been far more interesting imho, and that's where they copped out.

    Bottom line: The older Deckard is present because Harrison Ford is still a major star, and his presence in a film such as this elevates its box office and its marketing. Sean Young was hot stuff in the 80s but who even remembers her now? Certainly not me. It made sense that Rachel has expired in the film because she is most definitely a replicant, and so has a much shorter life span. The jury is still out on Deckard (yes, I think this film still hasn't fully answered that age old question definitively). So seeing him as an older person is understandable in his case, but not in hers.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited October 2017 Posts: 17,687
    bondjames wrote: »
    It made sense that Rachel has expired in the film because she is most definitely a replicant, and so has a much shorter life span. The jury is still out on Deckard
    You really are new to this... ;)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @chrisisall, please spoiler tag my quoted comment, out of respect for the other members here. Thank you.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    @chrisisall Couldn't disagree with you more,
    I seriously doubt the writers started with "ok, how can we write Sean Young out of the movie?". As for the movie being an "exercise in sci-fi storytelling without the real heart to back it up", I thought the sequel was more emotional than the original BR, and most people seem to agree.

    @bondjames
    Umm, I thought it was very obvious Deckard did not reject her only because of her eyes. I don't think it's open to interpretation at all why he rejected her.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    @bondjames
    I did as you requested. :)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thank you @DarthDimi.

    @PanchitoPistoles
    yes, you're right that was just a throwaway line most likely. I definitely have to see this film again soon. :)

    There's a lot I didn't quite catch and it raises quite a few new questions (just like the first one) which is what makes it a worthy sequel.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,119
    @BondJames I had the opportunity to see "Blade Runner 2049" yesterday. And....My. God. What a movie it was. A good story, pretty surprising and at times Biblical story to me, packed in a visual world that looked both atmospheric and disturbing. Wonderful cast as well. A lot of critics are raving about Cuban actress Ana de Armas. And yes, she really played a lovely, smart and kind
    hologram
    .

    But for me it was the replicant from the same Wallace-corporation that really blew me away. Luv, played by Dutch actress Sylvia Hoeks. Just wonderful how she switches so fast from being a wonderfully stylish businesswoman/assistant and a true killer henchwoman. The way she showed off her evil killer side was especially fantastic in the scene with Robin Wright, who plays the LAPD-chief. Nothing short of stunning. Hoeks could be shortlisted here for an award.

    As I said, I found actress Robin Wright equally impressive. A cool, in-control, dominant boss, who doesn't shy away to mildly belittle the heritage of K/Joe.

    It's Obvious that Roger Deakins gets as much praise as he got for "Skyfall", What a stunning visual artist he is. But let's not forget the incredible production design from Bond-designer Dennis Gassner. I think he really is the 'Ken Adam' of our time now. It also helps that Deakins and Gassner worked so closely together on "Skyfall".

    I know understand why Daniel Craig and Barbara Broccoli try to do everything in their power to 'steal' Villeneuve from other film projects he's currently working on.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    @Gustav_Graves
    I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, friend.
    I too found Ana de Armas, whom I know from KNOCK KNOCK, to be astonishingly beautiful in how she was presented.

    Deakins + Gassner + Craig + Villeneuve would currently be my favourite recipe for a Bond film too.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,119
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves
    I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, friend.
    I too found Ana de Armas, whom I know from KNOCK KNOCK, to be astonishingly beautiful in how she was presented.

    Deakins + Gassner + Craig + Villeneuve would currently be my favourite recipe for a Bond film too.

    You know.....sometimes you leave the cinema and you forget all the stuff that's happening now to Catalunya. Then you feel happy and fulfilled :-). I loved this film. Just imagine if you were alive in such a bleak dystopian LA. That's the feling it left me. And then the Biblical theme of the film, combined with stunning acting. Goosebumps!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Gaff showing up was a cool little surprise.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,119
    @bondjames ? Here's a very good interview. Not many cliche-questions. It's from cinema.nl, a bit like the Dutch Indiewire:
    https://embed.vpro.nl/player/?id=WO_VPRO_11090059&profile=default&sharing=1";
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm glad you enjoyed it @Gustav_Graves. It's an exceptionally well crafted film full of atmosphere, depth and style. It hits a lot of buttons so that lovers of various aspects of film can enjoy what they prefer, or all of it if they so desire.

    As you noted, all the actresses did a phenomenal job in the film. They were the highlight for me, and this is something Villeneuve is increasingly known for (strong female characters: which may also be why he is currently being courted for Bond).

    Gassner and Deakins are on top of their game.

    Thanks for the video as well. It was an interesting watch.

    If I had one small nitpick, it would be
    the ease with which the tracking device was planted on 'K' (aka Joe), which then conveniently allowed them to locate someone else.

    Also
    I thought one of the great strengths of the first film, apart from the noir aspect, was the texture of it. It seemed very real. Gritty. The new one is more surreal and distant. In a way it's a good thing, because it has a distinct identity separate from the original
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    bondjames wrote: »
    @chrisisall, please spoiler tag my quoted comment, out of respect for the other members here. Thank you.

    Sorry, I thought I had. My bad.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @chrisisall, please spoiler tag my quoted comment, out of respect for the other members here. Thank you.

    Sorry, I thought I had. My bad.
    No worries. It was late. It will be tricky for me to comment here for a week or so, much as I'd like to, just because I'm paranoid that I may inadvertently let something out of the bag. So I'll just exit for now.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    bondjames wrote: »
    Also
    I thought one of the great strengths of the first film, apart from the noir aspect, was the texture of it. It seemed very real. Gritty. The new one is more surreal and distant. In a way it's a good thing, because it has a distinct identity separate from the original
    I completely agree. I love 2049 but the first is by far better because of it's noir and it was very gritty.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,043
    I think the original is a masterpiece and a truly great film but I don't hold onto as much as some do, I personally think Ridley's best film is Alien still but BR would be a slightly distant 2nd.

    This is because I prefer Alien but I can understand why some would rate the original BR higher.

    That being said I think I preferred 2049 more, not taking anything away from the original but I found this slightly more compelling and save Hauer the acting was all round better.

    I don't think the original is that much an acting showcase and Ford definitely gave a better performance. Hoeks is the break out star here and maybe if DV does do Bond 25 is she a possible Irma Bunt type if they go down the route of woman villain?

    Though I thought Gosling was fantastic, the film hinged on his performance and he didn't disappoint in my view. Deakins might well have delivered his best work to date and Gassner's production design was stunning. Every frame is utterly gorgeous, if Roger doesn't finally get his Oscar for this then there should be riots.

    Zimmer and Wallfisch score like Hans Dunkirk score is hardly something I'll be tracking down to put on my turntable but it invests the film with tension and atmosphere perfectly complimenting Deakins and Gassner's work. No it's not the iconic masterpiece that is Vangelis score is but it does it's job more than capably.

    I'm still processing my experience of the film, I'm calling it film of 2017 and it has surpassed Dunkirk as my film experience of the year.

    Also and I know TDK gets a kicking from many here but it had been till yesterday afternoon my bonafide best Blockbuster experience since 2008 but I can say it's been unsurped by Denis and his team, I'm just blown away, it's a masterpiece. Also unlike TDK and some other epic running time movies I didn't feel this was over long in fact it didn't feel the running time,

    I think the film just looks like a work of art helps but DV paced this perfectly, there was a worry from the trailer that they might have made this fast paced to suit a contemporary audience but they had the convictions to go with it and while it might be at detriment to the box office, I'm sure this is built to endure and will be talked about and revered for decades to come not unlike the original.

    I am expecting the inevitable back lash though I'm sure the film will start to get it's critics once things settle down there are already those out there who plain just don't like it but that is life isn't it.

    Mark Kermode put it best when he said, it's a film that respects the original, gets it but has the courage to do something different with it and
    I also like that DV chooses to insert the ambiguiity that Ridley pretty much was saying wasn't up for debate anymore.

    5/5 10/10 Simply one of the greatest big screen experiences I've ever had and it looked and felt incredible in IMAX.
  • DrNoDrNo North Hollywood, California, USA
    Posts: 81
    Getting thrashed at the box office, unfortunately.

    I agree, this is easily the best movie I've seen all year. I can't imagine anything topping it. Exquisite production, compelling noir story line. For the first time since I can remember I sat through the end credits of a movie not in the hope of seeing some fan service stinger, but because I was just gobsmacked.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    Just under 2 hours to go.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    Enjoy, @jake24.

    As for the BO, we've always known that BR or any of its sequels has a limited target demographic. It'll earn its money back, no doubt there, but perhaps it'll have to wait for the home cinema releases before profits can be made. Either way, that doesn't matter to me. I'm grateful that they were willing to invest the dollars they have; this thing was expensive. But the money is on the screen and I bet the Oscars won't overlook BR2049, at the very least not in two or three technical departments. It'll become one of those sleeper hits. Avatar what? In 30 years from now, people will still be buying copies of BR2049, but Titanic and Avatar may very well have been forgotten, remade, outmatched by then.

    The thing with BR2049 is that it's not a film adjusted to the demands of the larger audience; instead, it's a film that requires the larger audience to adjust its demands to. But every once in while, a chosen few will discover, contemplate and then worship this film, write essays about it, take inspiration from it, pay an homage to it, reference it. Like most of Kubrick's films, it may not bring the cash in, but it will become a part of cinema history soon, and I'm happy for Villeneuve that he gets the chance to be a part of it too.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 4,599
    The original was very clever as you could take it as a straight forward futuristic shoot em up or you could see the deeper meanings/interprestation and really work out who the bad guys were and see things from that persepctive. IMHO, people spend too much time on the directors and forget it takes a good script to start with. The basic foundation of the slave/replicants knowing they would die and searching for the cure from their creators is just superb and exactly what sci-fi should be about. To me, this is the heart of the film rather than the music, direction, effects etc etc. Really good sci-fi should get the grey matter stirring and my grey matter has not really stirred re 2049. It adds nothing new from that persepctive. That does not mean it's a bad film but it could have been better.
Sign In or Register to comment.