It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It's NOT about info. It's about ambiance & tone noir.
But.... it's NOT crucial.... it's retro ham-fisting. ;)
Robin Wright's there I guess, but she really only did The Princess Bride in '87... I wonder if Jackie Chan would have worked in a role.
I cant wait to buy this one on blu ray and watch it again.
Glad you came away from it with positive thoughts, @JamesBondKenya, I'm quite jealous.
As for those questions about the different cuts and why things in the film happen as they do, we could spend days laboring over it. Some of it is up to interpretation, some of it (to me) is bonkers and senseless, and other things are more clear cut.
I can link you to my analysis/review/first impressions on the film to see if my thoughts find a way towards answering some of your questions, as we had the same curiosities after seeing it.
@chrisisall, I'm utterly fascinated to see how they've written themselves in or out of the replicant theory.
I wanna see how they treat Rachael's character in this. It will be the difference between me hating or loving the movie.
@chrisisall, I have a feeling you'll be disappointed. I hate to have more spoilers for this movie thrown at me (I have closed my ears and eyes to so many unskippable ads this week for the film), but has the actress who played Rachel even been confirmed or even rumored to appear? I've heard nothing.
I'm more concerned with how the writers are going to deal with the whole "Deckard is alive still" reveal. He's all alone, which makes me think that Rachel did live out her last days long before as a replicant would, and that sent him into hiding again. Gosling seems to be a more "modern" Blade Runner in comparison to Deckard's time, so when he goes to find him you wonder if it's to track him as a replicant and bring him to his client (more unlikely) or team up with him as he knows how good a Runner Deckard was (he was a legend in his day, and his legend must've only grown after he quietly left following Roy's death). If it's the former it makes no sense why Gosling's character wouldn't just kill Deckard right there, and since they seem to be fighting the same enemies as a team I think it has to be the latter. But if Gosling has sought out Deckard as a teammate, the only one who can aid him in his fight with replicants, that really hurts the credibility of the film for me too. Deckard mentions in the trailer that he used to be good as a Runner, but from the first movie I see a very incompetent, ditzy and altogether bad Blade Runner. I guess we're to assume that Deckard was good in the old days with weaker replicants, but Roy and his more advanced team were a match for him and that's why it looks so hard for him to stack up? Hard to say, but the movie doesn't do a great job of making Deckard seem good at his job on any level.
How they write Deckard and what they reveal about him in 2049 will make or break the film in some ways, and affect the last one intensely from a ret-con perspective. If he's not a replicant, that means that his old department was illogically using human beings to find and kill what were basically superhuman replicants, and if he is a replicant he also illogically shouldn't be alive because replicants would never be made to last that long under any circumstances. If Deckard is a replicant I feel that it altogether makes his journey in the first film less interesting as it's far more impactful to view the narrative as a human experiencing the short life of a replicant (namely Roy) and learning how to appreciate what they can't have in his own mortal life as opposed to a replicant learning the truth of himself to service a pretty weak twist right before the closing credits.
I just don't want the script to do any logic gymnastics, or ret-con to insane levels. I don't want Deckard to be revealed as a secret and more advanced replicant that can live longer because he was created to be even better than Roy and his team, but I could totally see that being revealed as true. The department Deckard was part of could've made a deal with Tyrell to avoid liabilities with any reckless or rogue replicants and so the commissioner and city mayor funded a secret project for Tyrell and had him create a bunch of men like Deckard who had the abilities of replicants and a longer life to fight them as strong Blade Runners. In this way Tyrell would have a team to stop any of his bad creations and the cops would have advanced men on their side to protect the city instead of a bunch of regular humans with only a gun to defend themselves with. But if this were true there's still an issue as we never perceive that Deckard has any great abilities or advanced "powers" in the original film; he's portrayed as human all throughout, and that's part of what makes the replicant twist so insanely out of place and illogical because you know that he wasn't written to be what Ridley Scott later made him seem to be.
I don't think Ridley really thought about what he was doing when he tweaked the meaning of the ending in the final cut, and simply wanted to act all sophisticated and pretentious with his twist despite nothing in the film backing up the twist. With how he's similarly mucked up his Alien universe with too much pretentious meddling, we see a common theme in his career where he never leaves enough alone and doesn't think through his narratives when connecting them or retconning past events decades after the fact. I know why people were happy that he wasn't directing the 2049 film, as I don't think he has the stuff to continue Blade Runner if his original ideas were so weak and ill-supported. He's undoubtedly a great visionary, but not a grand storyteller.
The real issue the movie has is that the writers of 2049 who are returning from the original disagree vehemently with Ridley's vision for the Deckard character, but Ridley is involved on the project too and is passionately tied to his final cut replicant twist, so how exactly can those two groups compromise? It's a mess and I hope they've found a way to salvage a story from the original plot and the retcon that actually makes a lick of sense.
I know quite a few directors have said this in the past about films that didn't turn out great but DV's track record speaks for itself and I don't think he'd have got on board if they hadn't have been able to make this work.
Also the tweets that say this hasn't been tailored for a modern audience making it action heavy etc. this a detective story through and through, I'm still extremely excited to see this next Saturday in IMAX.
I hope so, @Shardlake. Regardless, I feel the film is in better hands with Dennis than Ridley, so I'm not as concerned as I would be.
Ah, there could be hope then. With the original writers attached, Rachel has to be addressed in some way, as that was how we left Deckard. His return can't be explained without going into what his life was like after the events of the first film. You would think.
First reviews are coming out, only one I saw so far is IGN's review, giving BR2049 a score of 9.7/10:
''Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel that never should have happened, but it’s defied all odds to become one of the best ever.''
"This film’s scale is extraordinary. It places the acid tab of cinema-pleasure on your tongue."
''#BladeRunner2049 was one of the most mind-blowing films I've seen. It's breathtaking and transportive. Denis Villeneuve has a masterpiece.''
''Blade Runner 2049 is phenomenal. Visually mind-blowing sci-fi w/ noir roots shining through in a tight, twisty mystery. Best of 2017 so far''
"Astonishing... More than just a visual wonder, it's a groundbreaking science fiction masterpiece."
''Even if you have no interest in the film, the breathtaking Cinematography by Roger Deakins is worth the price of admission. He’s a God.''
I just wish the marketing had been better. I've encountered unskippable ads that are only 12 to 30 seconds, yet I feel I know so much about the film that I never should've. So many moments that would've been interesting to see dry, now perfectly transparent and ones I'll be able to spot a mile away if I end up seeing it in the theater. It's the way trailers and TV spots are now, but it's depressing when you can't avoid them and when a movie is spoiled in them for no good reason.
Gotta get you that Adblock, or at least avoid sites like YouTube when it's not an option.
I told you to only board the hype train on special occasions. ;)