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

1252628303136

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,985
    @00Agent, yes, I'm pretty sure when Freysa meets K for the first time, she says something about looking up and to the left (to show off her serial number, proving she's a Replicant), but she can't do it since she removed her eye.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @00Agent, yes, I'm pretty sure when Freysa meets K for the first time, she says something about looking up and to the left (to show off her serial number, proving she's a Replicant), but she can't do it since she removed her eye.

    Right, i forgot about that.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 4,617
    Re identifying replicants, Tyrell says" Im impressed " when Deckard identifies Rachael and then asks more about the procedure. This shows that the methodolgy being used was created outside of Tyrells business and that he perhaps set out to make her as near human as possible. Why else would he be impressed? (and it includes old fasioned analogue skills of the investigator rather than a binary/digital water mark). As if there is a glitch within the replicants that has been exploited by third parties and definately not something put in by Tyrell. I am just guessing that Tyrell wanted to make a replicant that was perfect and went beyond logic. There are many movies where the bad guy losses a connection with logic and becomes obsessed with a siingle end goal, (ignoring the ramifications)

    Linked to this, why did he make Rachael special re her "end of life"? another indication that he wanted to observe replicants as they aged beyond the default date.

    PS the mode of the test used in the initial original scene and with Rachael is important as it tends to recreate the scene that we would associate with a psychiatrist observing a (human) patient and, therefore, it means that the audience identify more with the replicant rather than simply swiping a bar code. The sitaution re an upturned turtle is designed to bring stress to the audience and, therefore, we sympathise with Leon as we share his perceived stress/concern. Its also important as it uses the eye as a give away and we know that this is shared with humans (we tend to place great emphasis re trust/honesty etc through the eyes)
    So from scene one, the stage is set re focussing on the key topic.
  • I just saw it. Wow. In my opinion the screenwriters deserve an Oscar merely for dreaming up the most well plotted and seamlessly integrated sequel of all time. I don't understand the cool reception on this forum. A good movie, in my opinion, is a thought provoking one. Blade Runner is sure to linger in my mind for an extended period of time. Last time I actually felt I had a cathartic experience during a movie was when I watched Mulholland Drive for the first time.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 5,767
    chrisisall wrote: »
    For anyone here who has not seen the Blade Runner workprint which predates the final theatrical release, THIS appeared in the beginning instead of the crawl they chose. (Also there was not much narration at all until Batty's death scene...)

    br_wkpt_dictionary.jpg
    How long is that shown at the beginning of the workprint? It felt like it took me 3min to grasp what´s written there.



    I just saw it. Wow. In my opinion the screenwriters deserve an Oscar merely for dreaming up the most well plotted and seamlessly integrated sequel of all time. I don't understand the cool reception on this forum. A good movie, in my opinion, is a thought provoking one. Blade Runner is sure to linger in my mind for an extended period of time. Last time I actually felt I had a cathartic experience during a movie was when I watched Mulholland Drive for the first time.
    If you look a bit through this thread, it seems like the first viewers were all enthusiastic, and then after a bit came more hesitant views. Incidentally, that´s also how my personal opinion developed so far.
  • Posts: 4,617
    I think in the short term, the stunning visuals, soundtrack etc stay with you and they certainly have the "wow" factor. But, in the medium/long term, its the story that stays with you and you start to think/consider/question the story and obvioulsy compare it to the original and IMHO, thats where the weakness is.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    boldfinger wrote: »
    How long is that shown at the beginning of the workprint? It felt like it took me 3min to grasp what´s written there.

    Long enough to read most of it. ;)
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,056
    A few days after seeing it a few doubts started to creep in that it wasn't the masterpiece I first thought it was. Technically amazing but still falling under the originals shadow.

    Looking forward to seeing it again and having a more objective view of it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Most of Philip K. Dick s work, judging from the films I have seen and the books I have read, deal with the theme "What is real".

    Both BR films, as well as the source novel, seem to deal more with "What is false" which is slightly a different philosophical matter, but still very related.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,056
    2049 didn't feel like PKD at all
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Most of Philip K. Dick s work, judging from the films I have seen and the books I have read, deal with the theme "What is real".

    Both BR films, as well as the source novel, seem to deal more with "What is false" which is slightly a different philosophical matter, but still very related.
    I haven't read any of his work, but I can see similar themes running through Total Recall, I Robot, Minority Report, The Adjustment Bureau and both BR films. Not only 'what is real' but also 'relative injustice in the legal system' and whether others should have rights. What is right and wrong etc.
  • Well, it has been a few days and my opinion remains unchanged. I don't know what could be more touching than the story about a man who gains his humanity, loses it and then regains it once more. And Deckard, there to witness it for a second time.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I saw it yesterday and nothing needs to be added to describe the beautiful images - if this isn‘t Oscar material I lose any respect for the academy.

    The film touched and reached me - I appreciate the acting, the story and the overall mood. It‘s a very, very good sequel to the classic and has high potential to become a classic as well. I will definitely see it again and buy it in 4K if I can. Love it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I saw it yesterday and nothing needs to be added to describe the beautiful images - if this isn‘t Oscar material I lose any respect for the academy.
    Surely you've already given up on them by now, given some of the choices they've made over the years.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Actually I was shocked (!) when Writings On The Wall won an award, yes. But fhe Oscars still are the Oscars and I would really like to see Deakins considered and winning.

    But I also thought Sylvester Stallone‘s performance in „Creed“ was worth the win bit unfortunately they decided against him.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BR 2049 should definitely pick up some technical awards, and I agree that Deakins is long overdue. This could be his year.

    I think the issue with chaps like Sly and the Academy is the politics of it. It's almost like they're afraid to elevate his credibility in case he turns around and does another Expendables film or something.

    It's all a big self congratulatory joke to me anyway.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited October 2017 Posts: 1,756
    patb wrote: »
    I think in the short term, the stunning visuals, soundtrack etc stay with you and they certainly have the "wow" factor. But, in the medium/long term, its the story that stays with you and you start to think/consider/question the story and obvioulsy compare it to the original and IMHO, thats where the weakness is.

    Seen it five times, will go a sixth time. Gets better every viewing.

    It's a hard thing to compare it to the original. Obviously if you grew up with the original, you are going to prefer it. Even if Villeneuve made an objectively 10/10 100% Rotten Tomatoes movie, people would still have a soft spot for the original that isn't replicable.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Seen it five times, will go a sixth time.
    Wow! Impressive. I will try to catch it again before it leaves the IMAX system (which will probably happen when Thor Ragnarok hits theatres). I'm actually really looking forward to taking it in within the comfort of home on my big screen tv.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I saw it yesterday and nothing needs to be added to describe the beautiful images - if this isn‘t Oscar material I lose any respect for the academy.

    The film touched and reached me - I appreciate the acting, the story and the overall mood. It‘s a very, very good sequel to the classic and has high potential to become a classic as well. I will definitely see it again and buy it in 4K if I can. Love it.

    Agreed, @SeanCraig. This is a deeply personal for me and hopefully it will be for you too. This film was made with so much care, with it's ability to be masterclass AND also be utterly respectful to the original just elevates it to another level for me.
  • Posts: 5,767
    patb wrote: »
    I think in the short term, the stunning visuals, soundtrack etc stay with you and they certainly have the "wow" factor. But, in the medium/long term, its the story that stays with you and you start to think/consider/question the story and obvioulsy compare it to the original and IMHO, thats where the weakness is.
    Funny, I feel more or less the opposite:
    I find the story the strongest part (which could be in fact more the storytelling than the story itself). I find it a stunningly worthy follow-up to the original.
    The visuals are executed with much craftsmanship and artistic talent, but too monotonous on the whole for me. I expanded on that elsewhere.
    The music somehow fits to the overall atmosphere, but I find its sound production lost in echoes, let alone compositional results, and quite a few times the soundtrack is very obtrusive, disturbing my viewing experience.

    That being said, I quite enjoyed the third viewing nonetheless.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Why did the film change the name of Rosen to Tyrell? Any ideas?
  • Posts: 4,617
    I got chatting to my local cinema manager who is a massive BL fan and he loved the sequal. I raised my objections the story and asked about the implanted memory intpo a Blade runner. His take was that all replicants of that era had the same memory implant put it !! I dont see that myself. Can someone post their understsanding of the story in one paragragh? (really good films have very simple plots with complex themes/backstories)
  • Posts: 5,767
    Why did the film change the name of Rosen to Tyrell? Any ideas?
    I would assume someone liked the sound of "Tyrell" better. Book and film work differently. On one of the Alien bonus documentaries one of the producers talks about how the names in Alien were all changed, because it was decided some names fly better than others.


    patb wrote: »
    I got chatting to my local cinema manager who is a massive BL fan and he loved the sequal. I raised my objections the story and asked about the implanted memory intpo a Blade runner. His take was that all replicants of that era had the same memory implant put it !! I dont see that myself. Can someone post their understsanding of the story in one paragragh? (really good films have very simple plots with complex themes/backstories)
    Not the story, but my understanding of the memories: The film (and also the original IIRC) mentions that replicants show a much more stable behaviour if they have memories. If you think about it, your identification as an individual with life and purpose builds very much on experiences and your interpretation of them. Thus without memories, it would be extremely hard to maintain focus in life, unless you´re a Terminator ;-).

  • Posts: 4,617
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Elvis and Sinatra are both in the new film. In the book, Deckard likes opera. Mozart is mentioned. And there is a scene at a Munch exhibition. The culture references are a bit more high-brow.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    PKD desribes Roy Baty as having Mongolian and brutish looks. Sounds more like Dave Bautista than Rutger Hauer.
  • Finally caught BR 2049! I haven't had the time to read through this thread and see what everybody thinks so far, so I have no idea how well my thoughts align with everyone else's. But for now, here are a few first impressions (and Lord knows how those can change on repeat viewings!):

    I liked it. It was a well-made movie that really feels of the world of Blade Runner while doing its own things and presenting its own vision. This is a Villeneuve film—no question—not an early 80s Ridley Scott film, and that perhaps is where the biggest gulf opens between the original and this 35-years-on sequel. The film was impressively made and did little (nothing?) to turn one's interest away. But it was in my opinion missing, for want of a better word, that magic that made the original so very iconic.

    Zimmer's music was respectful to Vangelis and very well suited for Villeneuve's darker and colder vision of this world, but did little to touch the soul the way the original did. Villeneuve's world is far more expansive than Scott's, trading the claustrophobic and bustling "neo-Hong Kong" streets and gorgeously designed interiors for never-ending desert- and seascapes. Again, this fits Villeneuve's vision, but none of this struck me as being anywhere near that iconic Blade Runner magic.

    Perhaps the largest and most noticeable difference, however, lies in the performances. You look at the cast of the '82 film and how seemingly effortlessly larger-than-life were everyone's performances: Ford, Hauer, Young, Hannah, Walsh, Olmos, Sanderson—everyone. In every scene, magic is happening onscreen. Not so much with 2049. Gosling is good. So was de Armas. Leto was very good. Bautista was also good for all his brevity. But there was a lot of just okay in the film too, and Ford in particular, disappointingly, evoked nothing of the character of Deckard. I saw in his performance old man Harrison Ford, not old man Deckard. It was like having Harrison Ford pop up in a Blade Runner sequel, not like getting the old Deckard back, if that makes sense. Can't say much at all about Robin Wright I'm afraid. And despite some emotional performances here and there, there was nothing I'd call iconic. Maybe you can't just make that stuff happen? It's a product of chance circumstances on a set, bringing the best out of the right actors at the right moment in time? Maybe that's how iconic films are made? Not so sure...but maybe...

    The art design and cinematography were both impressive. (Still, I couldn't help thinking while the movie was going on that Skyfall looked way, way better than this one—Deakins really knocked it out of the park with that one.)

    My favorite scene was likely when Joi embodied Mariette (love that name—Marionette anyone?) to make love to K. In fact, all of that early material between Joi and K was what I found the most interesting, the most compelling, and truly the most Blade Runner-esque in terms of recapturing and updating the themes and ideas of the original. I found it a shame that their story slid into the background as the film progressed and was ultimately "dropped" in favor of other storylines for the film's resolution. (I know you can equally validly look at Joi's destruction as contributing to K's arc; I'm just bummed Joi didn't play a larger role in the film's second half as I found her relationship to K the film's most compelling element.)

    So while I mostly focused on what disappointed me and how the film didn't live up to the original in my eyes, as I said to start out with, I genuinely did like the film. Things started to get a little wobbly with the cyclops-led underground replicant army turning up and I think I may have missed why Deckard was such an important, almost hero-status figure to them (a bit of a bothersome development, that), but for the most part, this was a very solidly and impressively made film. I look forward to viewing it again and again and unpacking and absorbing all the different threads, themes, and ideas. And the pace, which I know has been touched on here and there, did not bother me in the slightest. It was a very, very slow pace, but that's Blade Runner and I enjoyed the novelty of a 21st century film willing to take its time and develop mood—market research be damned.

    I think Villeneuve accomplished what he set out to do: he made a powerful and absorbing Villeneuve film that truly felt like it was a part of the Blade Runner world, while compromising none of his strengths or vision as a filmmaker. Was it the Blade Runner sequel I had always dreamed for? No. But it's a film I very much enjoyed and look forward to seeing again. And to be fair, I never had hoped for a sequel to begin with.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Finally caught BR 2049! I haven't had the time to read through this thread and see what everybody thinks so far, so I have no idea how well my thoughts align with everyone else's. But for now, here are a few first impressions (and Lord knows how those can change on repeat viewings!):

    I liked it. It was a well-made movie that really feels of the world of Blade Runner while doing its own things and presenting its own vision. This is a Villeneuve film—no question—not an early 80s Ridley Scott film, and that perhaps is where the biggest gulf opens between the original and this 35-years-on sequel. The film was impressively made and did little (nothing?) to turn one's interest away. But it was in my opinion missing, for want of a better word, that magic that made the original so very iconic.

    Zimmer's music was respectful to Vangelis and very well suited for Villeneuve's darker and colder vision of this world, but did little to touch the soul the way the original did. Villeneuve's world is far more expansive than Scott's, trading the claustrophobic and bustling "neo-Hong Kong" streets and gorgeously designed interiors for never-ending desert- and seascapes. Again, this fits Villeneuve's vision, but none of this struck me as being anywhere near that iconic Blade Runner magic.

    Perhaps the largest and most noticeable difference, however, lies in the performances. You look at the cast of the '82 film and how seemingly effortlessly larger-than-life were everyone's performances: Ford, Hauer, Young, Hannah, Walsh, Olmos, Sanderson—everyone. In every scene, magic is happening onscreen. Not so much with 2049. Gosling is good. So was de Armas. Leto was very good. Bautista was also good for all his brevity. But there was a lot of just okay in the film too, and Ford in particular, disappointingly, evoked nothing of the character of Deckard. I saw in his performance old man Harrison Ford, not old man Deckard. It was like having Harrison Ford pop up in a Blade Runner sequel, not like getting the old Deckard back, if that makes sense. Can't say much at all about Robin Wright I'm afraid. And despite some emotional performances here and there, there was nothing I'd call iconic. Maybe you can't just make that stuff happen? It's a product of chance circumstances on a set, bringing the best out of the right actors at the right moment in time? Maybe that's how iconic films are made? Not so sure...but maybe...

    The art design and cinematography were both impressive. (Still, I couldn't help thinking while the movie was going on that Skyfall looked way, way better than this one—Deakins really knocked it out of the park with that one.)

    My favorite scene was likely when Joi embodied Mariette (love that name—Marionette anyone?) to make love to K. In fact, all of that early material between Joi and K was what I found the most interesting, the most compelling, and truly the most Blade Runner-esque in terms of recapturing and updating the themes and ideas of the original. I found it a shame that their story slid into the background as the film progressed and was ultimately "dropped" in favor of other storylines for the film's resolution. (I know you can equally validly look at Joi's destruction as contributing to K's arc; I'm just bummed Joi didn't play a larger role in the film's second half as I found her relationship to K the film's most compelling element.)

    So while I mostly focused on what disappointed me and how the film didn't live up to the original in my eyes, as I said to start out with, I genuinely did like the film. Things started to get a little wobbly with the cyclops-led underground replicant army turning up and I think I may have missed why Deckard was such an important, almost hero-status figure to them (a bit of a bothersome development, that), but for the most part, this was a very solidly and impressively made film. I look forward to viewing it again and again and unpacking and absorbing all the different threads, themes, and ideas. And the pace, which I know has been touched on here and there, did not bother me in the slightest. It was a very, very slow pace, but that's Blade Runner and I enjoyed the novelty of a 21st century film willing to take its time and develop mood—market research be damned.

    I think Villeneuve accomplished what he set out to do: he made a powerful and absorbing Villeneuve film that truly felt like it was a part of the Blade Runner world, while compromising none of his strengths or vision as a filmmaker. Was it the Blade Runner sequel I had always dreamed for? No. But it's a film I very much enjoyed and look forward to seeing again. And to be fair, I never had hoped for a sequel to begin with.

    IMO this review is 100% spot on. Well done, sir!
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Finally caught BR 2049! I haven't had the time to read through this thread and see what everybody thinks so far, so I have no idea how well my thoughts align with everyone else's. But for now, here are a few first impressions (and Lord knows how those can change on repeat viewings!):

    I liked it. It was a well-made movie that really feels of the world of Blade Runner while doing its own things and presenting its own vision. This is a Villeneuve film—no question—not an early 80s Ridley Scott film, and that perhaps is where the biggest gulf opens between the original and this 35-years-on sequel. The film was impressively made and did little (nothing?) to turn one's interest away. But it was in my opinion missing, for want of a better word, that magic that made the original so very iconic.

    Zimmer's music was respectful to Vangelis and very well suited for Villeneuve's darker and colder vision of this world, but did little to touch the soul the way the original did. Villeneuve's world is far more expansive than Scott's, trading the claustrophobic and bustling "neo-Hong Kong" streets and gorgeously designed interiors for never-ending desert- and seascapes. Again, this fits Villeneuve's vision, but none of this struck me as being anywhere near that iconic Blade Runner magic.

    Perhaps the largest and most noticeable difference, however, lies in the performances. You look at the cast of the '82 film and how seemingly effortlessly larger-than-life were everyone's performances: Ford, Hauer, Young, Hannah, Walsh, Olmos, Sanderson—everyone. In every scene, magic is happening onscreen. Not so much with 2049. Gosling is good. So was de Armas. Leto was very good. Bautista was also good for all his brevity. But there was a lot of just okay in the film too, and Ford in particular, disappointingly, evoked nothing of the character of Deckard. I saw in his performance old man Harrison Ford, not old man Deckard. It was like having Harrison Ford pop up in a Blade Runner sequel, not like getting the old Deckard back, if that makes sense. Can't say much at all about Robin Wright I'm afraid. And despite some emotional performances here and there, there was nothing I'd call iconic. Maybe you can't just make that stuff happen? It's a product of chance circumstances on a set, bringing the best out of the right actors at the right moment in time? Maybe that's how iconic films are made? Not so sure...but maybe...

    The art design and cinematography were both impressive. (Still, I couldn't help thinking while the movie was going on that Skyfall looked way, way better than this one—Deakins really knocked it out of the park with that one.)

    My favorite scene was likely when Joi embodied Mariette (love that name—Marionette anyone?) to make love to K. In fact, all of that early material between Joi and K was what I found the most interesting, the most compelling, and truly the most Blade Runner-esque in terms of recapturing and updating the themes and ideas of the original. I found it a shame that their story slid into the background as the film progressed and was ultimately "dropped" in favor of other storylines for the film's resolution. (I know you can equally validly look at Joi's destruction as contributing to K's arc; I'm just bummed Joi didn't play a larger role in the film's second half as I found her relationship to K the film's most compelling element.)

    So while I mostly focused on what disappointed me and how the film didn't live up to the original in my eyes, as I said to start out with, I genuinely did like the film. Things started to get a little wobbly with the cyclops-led underground replicant army turning up and I think I may have missed why Deckard was such an important, almost hero-status figure to them (a bit of a bothersome development, that), but for the most part, this was a very solidly and impressively made film. I look forward to viewing it again and again and unpacking and absorbing all the different threads, themes, and ideas. And the pace, which I know has been touched on here and there, did not bother me in the slightest. It was a very, very slow pace, but that's Blade Runner and I enjoyed the novelty of a 21st century film willing to take its time and develop mood—market research be damned.

    I think Villeneuve accomplished what he set out to do: he made a powerful and absorbing Villeneuve film that truly felt like it was a part of the Blade Runner world, while compromising none of his strengths or vision as a filmmaker. Was it the Blade Runner sequel I had always dreamed for? No. But it's a film I very much enjoyed and look forward to seeing again. And to be fair, I never had hoped for a sequel to begin with.

    IMO this review is 100% spot on. Well done, sir!

    Why thank you! I'm just glad I was able to pull the bulk of my thoughts together and get them down into a coherent post—doesn't always happen!
  • There's one other thought that had occurred to me that I failed to mention...

    The original Blade Runner is a very special sort of film in that there are layers of depth, of meaning, of philosophy, of symbolism that can be absorbed and analyzed, meticulously studied. But at the same time, it's a film that you can throw on late at night with a whiskey in your hand and rain pattering upon the roof and just let the pure art of the visuals and the music and the emotions wash over you and allow you to reflect upon whatever or just sit there and enjoy the beauty of it all. I honestly don't think BR 2049 will offer the same experience when it arrives on Blu-ray.
Sign In or Register to comment.