› ›

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

1…2021232526…36

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Going for my second viewing tonight :-).
    I'm hoping to catch it again this weekend. Definitely can't hold off seeing it again until the Blu-ray.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    This is shaping up to be the definition of a 'cult' film. The general audience for the most part stays away, and those who've actually seen it go back again and again. Fascinating. I wonder how many people actually see it once the double (or triple) viewers are stripped out.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Just got back, a little deaf from how loud that IMAX showing was. Yet another one that'll take a while to formulate thoughts on, but HOLY HELL, that's the greatest film I've seen in years. While I don't think it trumps the original (and that's simply because the original is the hallmark of sci-fi in my opinion - the one that can't be topped), I never in a million years thought that a sequel to that would be created with so much love and care. What a film, from start to finish, simply firing on all cylinders and saying a lot at times by showcasing so little. I found the most powerful moments to be the quietest, softest scenes. 10/10. Do yourself a favor and catch it in IMAX. I'm just blown away.

    79fa4998e0ac325ad66983b7d1e57994.png
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    I have a question for all of you who have recently actively participated in this thread, including @Creasy47, @chrisisall, @Gustav_Graves, @bondjames, @boldfinger, @jake24, @DaltonCraig007, @mattjoes, @SharkBait, @barryt007, @LeonardPine, @ForYourEyesOnly, @patb, @noSolaceleft, @QsAssistant, @Thunderfinger, @ColonelSun, @PanchitoPistoles, @DrNo, @Thunderpussy, @thelivingroyale, @Milovy, @Strog, @pachazo, @StirredNotShaken, @Fire_and_Ice_Returns, @TR007, @RogueAgent

    if it would be okay for us to now drop the spoiler tags (except in the thread's title) and dive into some debate, including

    - have you watched the three prelude shorts?
    - is the Deckard is / isn't a replicant matter now settled?
    - who really is K?
    - ...

    I want the democratic vote on this before I set my artificial owls on the loose and spoil this thing rotten. ;-) I hope you appreciate that. Thank you.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    I'm okay with it @DarthDimi tri ;-)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm ok to do that with a clear spoiler tag in the heading @DarthDimi.

    RE: The shorts: I've only seen 2048: Nowhere to Run. I have to watch the others sometime today.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I'd be totally fine with that. Although we should make it clear to those outside the thread that spoilers are being discussed.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Go ahead.

    I too have also only seen one prelude. Don t know the title.
  • StrogStrog
    Posts: 684
    Fire away! I have not seen the preludes but I've been meaning to have a watch.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I'll always have you to thank for that, Dimi!

    Works for me. I saw the two prequels with Bautista and Leto - never caught the third.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'll always have you to thank for that, Dimi!

    Works for me. I saw the two prequels with Bautista and Leto - never caught the third.
    Same. I haven't seen the animated one yet.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Okay, folks. Thank you for the comments.

    Let's see what we can start with. How about the very controversial hypothesis that Deckard is himself a replicant. Some say BR2049 actually confirms that... If you recall; Scott wanted us to think it, Ford absolutely did not. Any ideas regarding the new film and potential hits to the contrary?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    My buddy I saw it with said this new one "confirmed" it, but I didn't buy it, mainly because it didn't seem that concrete, plus I want to believe that Deckard is real - which makes his child (human/replicant hybrid) that much more interesting.

    I think towards the end, Wallace was attempting to trick Deckard by convincing him that he was a Replicant (and trying to push him over the edge by bringing Rachel back to him), but as he said: he knows what's real.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I didn't gather that Deckard was replicant. I believe they left the question up to interpretation deliberately, and I like it that way. It lets the mystery live on. That said, I don't think he is.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    There were a couple little plot points and moments that were left open-ended (what'll happen with Wallace, the Replicant missing an eye who vowed war on the humans), which I loved: gives them something to explore if they had the balls to do a third, but if not, the film feels like a complete story to me still.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Deckard isn t a replicant. He isn t in the book, so why assume he is in the film? There is nothing to suggest it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Deckard isn t a replicant. He isn t in the book, so why assume he is in the film? There is nothing to suggest it.

    Because we're all replicants.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Deckard isn t a replicant. He isn t in the book, so why assume he is in the film? There is nothing to suggest it.
    The movie is a very loose adaptation of the book, so just because he isn't one in the novel that doesn't mean he can't be one in the movie. Scott has always said Deckard was a replicant, and that Gaff knew about Deckard's dream supports Scott's view. Having said that, I always believed Deckard was human.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    About a week ago I read an article where Denis Villeneuve, the director, said he didn't want to answer the question if Deckard was a replicant or not. He only wanted to bring up the question. So that right there confirms that it isn't confirmed in the film.
    Personally I don't think he is. Even though Ridley Scott says you're a moron if you don't get that he is, but Harrison Ford said that Deckard isn't, and Phillip K. Dick (the writer of the book the film is based off of) I believe said that it doesn't really matter if he is or isn't because at the end of the story it doesn't matter.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Maybe Gaff is the Devil.
  • StrogStrog
    Posts: 684
    I personally prefer to think he is not, but regardless I think the film is very good about not answering the question. This was in fact something I liked very much about it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    For those who want to hear a fine podcast discussing the film and the Deckard is / isn't a replicant debate, click here. It's well worth your time!
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    I've seen two out of three shorts. The only one I have not seen is the one with Bautista. I'll watch it before I see the movie for a second time.

    I don't recall the movie outright saying whether Deckard is or is not replicant.

    The version I own, the directors cut somewhat implies that he is a replicant. I have not made of my mind which Deckard I'd prefer; a human or replicant.

    Btw, what did everyone think of the cgi Rachael?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    SharkBait wrote: »
    Btw, what did everyone think of the cgi Rachael?
    I didn't have a problem with that because it really wasn't Rachel... but yeah, it looked ... imperfect...
    And Deckard is not a replicant. Pleasure model Pris literally wiped the floor with him. He's be AT LEAST as strong as she was. ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    I must admit that CGI Rachael looked great. Was Sean Young present on the set of this film, because she looks nothing like her former self today - which isn't me being insulting or anything, we all age. They did shoot new material with Joanna Cassidy for one of the later releases of BR, I recall.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 40,976
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I must admit that CGI Rachael looked great. Was Sean Young present on the set of this film, because she looks nothing like her former self today - which isn't me being insulting or anything, we all age. They did shoot new material with Joanna Cassidy for one of the later releases of BR, I recall.

    I had yet to look it up, but I surmised Young had returned to "shoot" the scene, and they went back with computers to do the digital de-aging. If not, perhaps they just utilized a woman with a much similar build and went from there.

    So many shots and beats and moments from the film are still burned into my mind. Can't stop thinking about this movie - would love to get the chance to catch it in theaters again.
  • StrogStrog
    edited October 2017 Posts: 684
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I must admit that CGI Rachael looked great. Was Sean Young present on the set of this film, because she looks nothing like her former self today - which isn't me being insulting or anything, we all age. They did shoot new material with Joanna Cassidy for one of the later releases of BR, I recall.
    I thought it looked good too. Better than the ROGUE ONE stuff, but I even thought that looked good at the time.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I must admit that CGI Rachael looked great. Was Sean Young present on the set of this film, because she looks nothing like her former self today - which isn't me being insulting or anything, we all age. They did shoot new material with Joanna Cassidy for one of the later releases of BR, I recall.

    I had yet to look it up, but I surmised Young had returned to "shoot" the scene, and they went back with computers to do the digital de-aging. If not, perhaps they just utilized a woman with a much similar build and went from there.

    So many shots and beats and moments from the film are still burned into my mind. Can't stop thinking about this movie - would love to get the chance to catch it in theaters again.

    I think she was on set. I'll try to find where I read it.

    EDIT: She was on set (or at least involved in the production) but not in front of the camera. Interesting read:

    https://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-blade-runner-2049-resurrected-that-character-f/1100-6453912/
    Like Harrison Ford's character Rick Deckard as he sat in Niander Wallace's water-logged office, Blade Runner 2049 viewers got a shock when Sean Young's character from the original 1982 movie, Rachael the replicant, appeared in the just-released sequel looking fresh as a fabricated daisy.

    In the movie itself, the character is confirmed to be long dead. More importantly, in real life the actress Sean Young has aged more than 30 years since the original Blade Runner's release. In Blade Runner 2049, Jared Leto's Wallace goes to presumably painstaking effort to recreate the replicant Rachael--to the best of his abilities, at least. The process of recreating Sean Young's appearance in the film, director Denis Villeneuve told GameSpot, was just as intense.

    They started by casting a lookalike actress with the same height, skin tone, and general appearance as Sean Young in the original Blade Runner. Then they brought in Young herself, who's fully credited as an actress in the film, to coach the lookalike on exactly how to move. Rachael's elegant gait is pretty distinctive, after all, and it had to look believable when she walked in the room.

    Once it was all shot, Villeneuve handed it to a VFX company that worked full time for an entire year to make Rachael look like Rachael. The director said he was especially worried about this process thanks to some other recent examples that looked less than stellar, including Carrie Fisher's Princess Leia and Peter Cushing's Tarkin being recreated in the Star Wars movie Rogue One.

    "When we were doing the process I saw Rogue One, and I went back to the editing room, and I said guys--I didn't like it at all," Villeneuve said. "I have a lot of respect for that director, and that movie I thought was great, but it took me out of the movie." Villeneuve told the VFX artists that if the director's mother didn't buy it, it wasn't good enough.

    "I want my mother to say, 'Oh, you found someone who looks really like her!'" he said. "I didn't want people to think it's a synthetic performance."

    What about Sean Young's voice? How did they get Blade Runner 2049's new Rachael to sound like the classic?

    "Sean's voice is different, very different," Villeneuve said. "So we put samples from the first movie, where the character is in the same kind of emotion, then we worked with several actresses in order to find the closest thing that sounds like Sean Young, as close as possible. It was a long process to find the right one."

    The computer-generated Sean Young that appears in Blade Runner 2049 may be the best example yet of CGI being used to resurrected deceased or aged actors for new roles. It will likely be viewed as a high-water mark for future attempts. But Villeneuve thinks we're still far away from this becoming common practice. He said the problem with Rogue One's CGI characters might have been simply a lack of time on the filmmakers' parts.

    "It [takes] very long to do. That's the thing that maybe saved my ass--is that I limited the amount of shots [with CGI Sean Young in them]," Villeneuve said. "It's tough to find the unique computer artists that will have the sensibility of a director. I was talking to them like I direct an actor. My VFX supervisor, they were like a pit bull. They didn't let it go. They worked seven days a week for months, pushing, pushing, pushing."

    "If I was a SAG [Screen Actors Guild] member I would not worry, because it's so difficult," he continued. In other words, real actors shouldn't worry about being replaced by CGI any time soon.

    Fortunately the effect in Blade Runner 2049 is far less uncanny valley than in Rogue One. Villeneuve, too, is happy with the results.

    "For me it's mesmerizing," he said. "You see her coming, and Deckard's looking at her, and I want myself to believe. We did it. We worked on it until we felt that she looks real, that I was emotionally involved like the other characters."
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Anyone hear that wholeheartedly enjoyed the soundtrack? It seemed to be the only consistent "weak" point that I've garnered from reviews now, but I loved it. Made for some haunting and impactful moments throughout; perhaps it's not as good as Vangelis' work, but again, nothing would've been.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The score was great, no complaints here.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I must admit that CGI Rachael looked great. Was Sean Young present on the set of this film, because she looks nothing like her former self today - which isn't me being insulting or anything, we all age. They did shoot new material with Joanna Cassidy for one of the later releases of BR, I recall.

    I had yet to look it up, but I surmised Young had returned to "shoot" the scene, and they went back with computers to do the digital de-aging. If not, perhaps they just utilized a woman with a much similar build and went from there.

    So many shots and beats and moments from the film are still burned into my mind. Can't stop thinking about this movie - would love to get the chance to catch it in theaters again.

    I agree with @DarthDimi here. The CGI-version of Rachel was nothing short of stunning. This is how I like CGI to be used.........in a way that you can't make out the difference anymore between reality and CGI. Which was absolutely the case here. The only real reason that you know Rachel is CGI, is simply because we know that the actress who played her in 1982 looks older as of 2017.

    In "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" they did the same thing with Grand Moff Tarkin (the late Peter Cushing). But I think in "Blade Runner 2049" they again improved on this.
Sign In or Register to comment.