› ›

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

1…2122242627…36

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    See, the technology can be done well, but it absolutely didn't cut it for me in Rogue One (which is what you meant, GG). Something with the eyes they didn't get right, looked hollow and lifeless to me. It probably helps BR2049's case further that Rachel exited as soon as she entered, and the CGI didn't overstay its welcome.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Vangelis' work is better but the soundtrack in 2049 was great.

    As for CGI Rachel she looked great... but then again I think Tarkin in Rogue One looks great too, not Leia though.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    *checks calendar*

    Is the movie available on blu-ray yet?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    The score was excellent IMO; it flowed well with the images and sounds.

    And yes, Rachael's CGI looks so much better than the Cushing / Fisher clones in RO.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I could be misremembering since I only saw it the one time so far, but I think there's a shot of the massive floodgates surrounding LA, and the score that hits when we first see a section of it open up and begin to release water really floored me. I was hooked.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    The car fight is where the music came off as pure genius to me, as if it was mimicking water waves in the most effective of ways possible. Blast after blast of powerful synth, creating a "massive scope" effect in the narrow confines of a single car, while bright light and water give the scenery an unusual, dramatic power. I had my jaws on the floor.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The car fight is where the music came off as pure genius to me, as if it was mimicking water waves in the most effective of ways possible. Blast after blast of powerful synth, creating a "massive scope" effect in the narrow confines of a single car, while bright light and water give the scenery an unusual, dramatic power. I had my jaws on the floor.
    I was simply mesmerized watching this scene.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The car fight is where the music came off as pure genius to me, as if it was mimicking water waves in the most effective of ways possible. Blast after blast of powerful synth, creating a "massive scope" effect in the narrow confines of a single car, while bright light and water give the scenery an unusual, dramatic power. I had my jaws on the floor.

    Beautiful description, and I couldn't agree more.

    Though I will say that the audio effects/soundtrack were almost TOO loud in the IMAX showing to the point that it was impossible to make out what was said at times. Perhaps that led to some confusion and questions I had once the film ended - eager to give it a rewatch in a few months time with subtitles on, see what I missed.

    Was anyone else a little upset that Bautista came and went in the first few minutes? In fact, both he and Barkhad Abdi had fairly quick appearances.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 10,591
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The car fight is where the music came off as pure genius to me, as if it was mimicking water waves in the most effective of ways possible. Blast after blast of powerful synth, creating a "massive scope" effect in the narrow confines of a single car, while bright light and water give the scenery an unusual, dramatic power. I had my jaws on the floor.

    Beautiful description, and I couldn't agree more.

    Though I will say that the audio effects/soundtrack were almost TOO loud in the IMAX showing to the point that it was impossible to make out what was said at times. Perhaps that led to some confusion and questions I had once the film ended - eager to give it a rewatch in a few months time with subtitles on, see what I missed.

    Was anyone else a little upset that Bautista came and went in the first few minutes? In fact, both he and Barkhad Abdi had fairly quick appearances.
    I definitely thought Bautista would be more implemented than he was, so it did take me by surpirse. But he was used very well nevertheless.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    Really great film although you can't top BR. Great work Villeneuve!

    - Deckard can't be a replicant (he smashes K's face... with no effect).

    - Mesmerizing Sean Young: it looks so much better than Carrie in Rogue One.

    - What a great work by Ana de Armas (instant Bond Girl?)

    - Not Vangelis (by far), but Elvis is great in any form and in any time :)
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,107
    I thought he would have a bit larger role. Like Brion James as Leon in the original. Thought he was hired to play muscle for the bad guys.

    And I was taken out of the movie for a bit when CGI Rachael came into the light.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    First I will say that the story in both films work better if Deckard is human and not a replicant, which I prefer anyway. BUT just because Deckard isn't as strong as other replicants doesn't mean he's not one himself.
    Roy and Pris were Nexus 6 models and were strong with a life span of four years. Rachel (and maybe Deckard?) is the Nexus 7 model, which was a prototype. I think she (they?) are supposed to be human in every way. Then the replicants went back to being tougher with the Nexus 8 model, which was Sapper Morton. K and Luv are Nexus 9 models.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    QsAssistant wrote: »
    Vangelis' work is better but the soundtrack in 2049 was great.
    I was VERY impressed by the soundtrack (including the musical effects). I was hoping they wouldn't just badly ape Vangelis' work, and they did not. It was fresh, and familiar at the same time- not an easy accomplishment IMO.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 10,591
    The soundtrack is fantastic in its own right. Much like the film itself, it does its own thing without standing on the legs of old tropes/nostalgia.

    My favorite track from the Zimmer/Wallfisch:

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,043
    I like to believe that Deckard is human and not a replicant although DV says he wanting it to be ambiguious, I took from 2049 that it was saying he's not a replicant.

    As for the score while it doesn't approach the iconic masterpiece that is Vangelis I thought Hans & Ben did a fine job, to me it's like the Dunkirk score I'm hardly going to track it down on vinyl but as accompanying the film it does the job more than admirably.

    If Zimmer did get Bond and with DV in the frame this looks like a possibilty unless Denis wanted JJ back again I'd hope we'd get something more melodic, Bond would notwork with the score both 2049 & Dunkirk has.

    The CGI Rachel looked very impressive if a little off. Maybe Niander thought showing Deckard the version he first met would seduce him not really understanding the connection between the 2 of them.

    I got the impression that Wallace really didn't understand the power of love or he wouldn't have tried such a cheap trick.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    QsAssistant wrote: »
    Rachel (and maybe Deckard?) is the Nexus 7 model, which was a prototype. I think she (they?) are supposed to be human in every way.
    Doesn't the Nexus 7 have a finite limited lifespan, or was that never touched on anywhere?

    Regarding Deckard being a replicant, I agree with those who think it's left ambiguous and for our interpretation. I like to think he isn't one.

    I thought CGI Rachael was done better than any of the other characters we've seen in the Disney/Marvel efforts but 'it' was still not up to the acceptable standard for me and took me out of the proceedings momentarily. I honestly wish they hadn't done it, because up till that point I was really moved by the tape of the original first meeting between Rachael/Deckard, the flashback of the 'real' Rachel, and Harrison's acting.

    I have no problems with the score. Zimmer is renown for tailoring his work to fit what takes place on the screen and he did it perfectly once again. Nowhere up to Vangelis's standards (and not up to the quality of his wonderful work for Interstellar), but certainly good enough for me and very moody/atmospheric. As I've noted elsewhere, if he gets Bond, I'm quite certain he will deliver a more melodic effort, as he did with Sherlock.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    The way I see it with regards to CG Rachael, she was never meant to look like the real thing. With Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing, the believability was lost because we as an audience were expected to believe that they were the real characters as they appeared decades ago. CG Rachael wasn't supposed to be the real thing, and Deckard addresses this himself.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    The way I see it with regards to CG Rachael, she was never meant to look like the real thing. With Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing, the believability was lost because we as an audience were expected to believe that they were the real characters as they appeared decades ago. CG Rachael wasn't supposed to be the real thing, and Deckard addresses this himself.
    That's a good way of looking at it and taking that perspective will help me to enjoy that sequence more on my next viewing.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    bondjames wrote: »
    QsAssistant wrote: »
    Rachel (and maybe Deckard?) is the Nexus 7 model, which was a prototype. I think she (they?) are supposed to be human in every way.
    Doesn't the Nexus 7 have a finite limited lifespan, or was that never touched on anywhere?

    I don't think it was ever answered and we never got to find out for sure because Rachel died in childbirth before her possible four years were up. Although if Deckard is a replicant he would be a Nexus 7 and we would have our answer, as he is old now. Again, I don't think Deckard is a replicant which would mean Rachel was probably the first and only Nexus 7.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    QsAssistant wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    QsAssistant wrote: »
    Rachel (and maybe Deckard?) is the Nexus 7 model, which was a prototype. I think she (they?) are supposed to be human in every way.
    Doesn't the Nexus 7 have a finite limited lifespan, or was that never touched on anywhere?

    I don't think it was ever answered and we never got to find out for sure because Rachel died in childbirth before her possible four years were up. Although if Deckard is a replicant he would be a Nexus 7 and we would have our answer, as he is old now. Again, I don't think Deckard is a replicant which would mean Rachel was probably the first and only Nexus 7.
    Thanks. This is how I see it as well.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    On another discussion site I posted this:

    I feel that Blade Runner 2049 is a film that didn't need to be made. However, I also feel that they did the impossible here. They made a sequel that should have failed miserably, and somehow made it work better than it had any right to. It's a masterpiece of film-making, BUT that doesn't mean the FILM ITSELF is a masterpiece. I've seen it once, and in all likelihood I will never see it again. It's like a grand experiment in fan fiction to me. If the original team had made a sequel in, say, the 90's, it *might* have been closer to the original in terms of valid continuation and quality... but the time for that passed. Let the reasonably invested fans love it front to back, SUPER invested fans such as myself cannot/may not see this as anything more than a loving and well crafted tribute. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    chrisisall wrote: »
    On another discussion site I posted this:

    I feel that Blade Runner 2049 is a film that didn't need to be made. However, I also feel that they did the impossible here. They made a sequel that should have failed miserably, and somehow made it work better than it had any right to. It's a masterpiece of film-making, BUT that doesn't mean the FILM ITSELF is a masterpiece. I've seen it once, and in all likelihood I will never see it again. It's like a grand experiment in fan fiction to me. If the original team had made a sequel in, say, the 90's, it *might* have been closer to the original in terms of valid continuation and quality... but the time for that passed. Let the reasonably invested fans love it front to back, SUPER invested fans such as myself cannot/may not see this as anything more than a loving and well crafted tribute. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

    I got this feeling from the film as well.
  • josiahjosiah
    Posts: 1,386
    I preferred the more economical storytelling of the original.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    On another discussion site I posted this:

    I feel that Blade Runner 2049 is a film that didn't need to be made. However, I also feel that they did the impossible here. They made a sequel that should have failed miserably, and somehow made it work better than it had any right to. It's a masterpiece of film-making, BUT that doesn't mean the FILM ITSELF is a masterpiece. I've seen it once, and in all likelihood I will never see it again. It's like a grand experiment in fan fiction to me. If the original team had made a sequel in, say, the 90's, it *might* have been closer to the original in terms of valid continuation and quality... but the time for that passed. Let the reasonably invested fans love it front to back, SUPER invested fans such as myself cannot/may not see this as anything more than a loving and well crafted tribute. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

    @chrisisall I felt the same way. I doubt I will feel an irrepressible desire to watch Blade Runner 2049 again and again like I get with Blade Runner.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    @chrisisall, you summed up my feelings perfectly, except that I probably will watch it again.

    At some point I'd love to watch both of them back to back, if I could ever find the time. I want to see how well they flow together.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    chrisisall wrote: »
    SUPER invested fans such as myself cannot/may not see this as anything more than a loving and well crafted tribute.
    I'm a SUPER invested fan. BR has been one of my 5 favourite movies for about 15 years, and I believe this sequel is so much more than just a well crafted tribute. And no, Scott never would have been able to make a sequel this great.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    ggl007 wrote: »
    Really great film although you can't top BR. Great work Villeneuve!

    - Deckard can't be a replicant (he smashes K's face... with no effect).

    - Mesmerizing Sean Young: it looks so much better than Carrie in Rogue One.

    - What a great work by Ana de Armas (instant Bond Girl?)

    - Not Vangelis (by far), but Elvis is great in any form and in any time :)

    - What about Sylvia Hoeks? Instant bad-ass Bond-girl?
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    @Gustav_Graves Sylvia Hoeks was great in the film, but come on! The only reason you keep metioning her is that she is Dutch. I never knew you were this attached to your nationality. :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Sylvia Hoeks was brilliant. Best henchwoman since Gazelle in Kingsman. However, she's already played the role now (even if it appears that very few will sadly see her doing it). So while I'd have no problems with her being in a Bond film, I'd rather it wasn't in the same capacity.

    I googled her after viewing the film and was quite surprised by how different she looks normally compared to how she appears in BR2049. So she could definitely be in a future Bond effort (even as a baddie) and people won't necessarily be reminded about her character here.

    "WHERE IS HE?!!!!!"
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    She was great, but so we're many others. In fact, I was overall very pleased with the cast. :-)
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves Sylvia Hoeks was great in the film, but come on! The only reason you keep metioning her is that she is Dutch. I never knew you were this attached to your nationality. :D

    One has to do something if another big football tournament isn't available for Royaume Uni des Pays Bas / United Kingdom of The Netherlands :-P
Sign In or Register to comment.