Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

Sad Professor

I forget about that error. Was that fixed in the final cut?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sad Professor

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, didn't K watch the recording of her eye from the Voight-Kampff test?

mrcheez

garra wrote: »

F12 in screen 10 for BL2049

Went for F18, nice n central. To be honest any closer than E and you'd probably go blind.

Wow second time is so rewarding, I was humming the theme tune all the way home. Any questions left unanswered the first time round were well and truly answered on the second viewing. I was able to get important pieces in the dialog that i missed first time round, either cuz i was marvelling at the visuals or was distracted with a bag of popcorn in my face.

I thought the movie was excellent first time, now i think I'm in love

siblers

I only watched the 2036-Nexus Dawn short now and to be honest, I found this short to be much more interesting than Jared Leto's scenes in the actual film.

In the film, why did Wallace kill his "angel" (where he cut her stomach open? Is it because she couldn't reproduce?

homerun_homer

Regarding Rachael's eyes, when K got to hear the interview with Deckard and her was he shown a video of her eyeball during the interrogation? My immediate thought was that he was but not sure now. If he was shown it then surely they can't have balked up her eye colour.

Useful.Idiot

siblers wrote: »

In the film, why did Wallace kill his "angel" (where he cut her stomach open? Is it because she couldn't reproduce?

Yep exactly that. He was using those flying drone things to examine her womb probably. Spoiler tags no longer needed btw.

Also agree Leto in the short was probably one of his best moments.

lolo62

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

3D is a gimmick - skip it.

I saw it in 2D 4k and was amazed by it ... it's enough!

Thank you!

mrcheez

lolo62 wrote: »

Thank you!

Though if you can, see it in IMAX 3D where the effect literally draws you into the world like VR

peteeeed

mrcheez wrote: »

Though if you can, see it in IMAX 3D where the effect literally draws you into the world like VR

agree . the 3D is quite good in this movie which is a rarity in the modern lazy cash grab era

spr1nt3r

I don't remember the original and not a huge fan so not biased. Found movie to be meh in terms of the story. The cinematics and storytelling (not story itself) was quite amazing though, followed by strong sound (not loudness wise obviously).
But yeah, story is definitely on the meh side, anyone could have patched a number of holes and made it way better. Not sure what were they smoking.

mrcheez

This guy has looped arguably the highlight moment in the soundtrack if you want to get it out of your system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_OWy6k4Pss

I think it might be a bit overkill :pac:


I'd be curious how Daft Punk could have tackled the soundtrack considering how well they did on Tron Legacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRUfcp8Ba6g

AMKC

So I went and seen this today and have to say it was very interesting I can,t say I understood it all because I never seen the original one but I think I have some idea of what happened in that one. It was a thousand times better than the last film I seen in the cinema not to say that film was bad it just was not my type of film.
I loved the sound in it some people say they found it annoying I loved it it made the film more awesome. I liked that there was a twist in the story but could see it coming. I loved the cars and the noise they made too and how they had there own little drone attached. I did not like the boss looking like Jesus or how he behaved like he was a god as all he was is a psycho. However I did think the fight at the end between Joe and your one sorry don't know her name was a little dragged out.

I give it an 8 out of 10 for now.

micks_address

Watched tonight. A serious amount or style over substance.. really enjoyed blade runner the final cut..only watched the other evening. Everything moves very slowly in 2049. Lad I was with summed it up. Lady went to the bathroom for five minutes and only missed two lines of dialogue.. I didn't hate it but someone please explain to me how it could be a masterpiece? Visually stunning..

Outlaw Pete

Seen it tonight also and had heard it was slow paced and was happy about that as mindless non stop action bores the bejaysus out of me, but this bored me at times for just not being engaging enough. You can see aspects of the story coming a mile off too. Found myself loving chunks of it and then being irritated by chunks of it. Liked it but didn't like it, all at the same time.

Certainly didn't seem like it had anything close to rewatchability factor of the first one, that's for sure but I seen it in 2D so I might go and see it in Imax, see how it feels with a second viewing.

RasTa

I was worried about Gosling being a plank of wood but he was good in this. Leto was terrible but thankfully not in it too much.

However I loved it and the time flew by imo. We seen it in isense(2D) in the point village, sound was incredible. I refuse to watch a movie in 3D

Kermodes review would echo my thoughts.

9/10

brevity

I surprised as there has been such little interest in this movie. Even the post count on this thread is quite low.

It's an absolutely magnificent sci fi movie and it's predecessor laid the groundwork for so many movies.

joe123

A week on since seeing the film and Im still thinking about it. Been listening to the soundtrack all week.

Seen a post on twitter were a feminist was giving out about the scene where Joi froze in the rain when the call came through.

She said this scene was put in for the comedic element and that it was to show K can just turn her off whenever he is bored of her. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Surely that scene was to demonstrate K's longing for something real, wanting it to be real but it was a crashing reminder that its not. The whole premise of the film is about him searching for something real/a soul.

dulux99

I don't want to read through this thread for fear of spoilers so I apologise if this question has been asked repeatedly, but I have very little knowledge of the original and obviously haven't seen it - would the 2049 be lost on me? Or would it be OK to go see as a standalone film.

Shred

brevity wrote: »

I surprised as there has been such little interest in this movie. Even the post count on this thread is quite low.

It's an absolutely magnificent sci fi movie and it's predecessor laid the groundwork for so many movies.

I've seen more than one article over the past week to the effect of "why did Bladerunner bomb at the box office" - it was barely out a few days when I saw the first one ffs. I can imagine that'll be enough to put doubt in the minds of some.

Shred

dulux99 wrote: »

I don't want to read through this thread for fear of spoilers so I apologise if this question has been asked repeatedly, but I have very little knowledge of the original and obviously haven't seen it - would the 2049 be lost on me? Or would it be OK to go see as a standalone film.

Personally I would say this movie will have more impact if you've seen the first, there is a brief origins synopsis at the beginning and it's more in relation to what replicants are, who created them etc. but nothing character related iirc.

gmisk

dulux99 wrote: »

I don't want to read through this thread for fear of spoilers so I apologise if this question has been asked repeatedly, but I have very little knowledge of the original and obviously haven't seen it - would the 2049 be lost on me? Or would it be OK to go see as a standalone film.

I went to see it with my partner who has never seen the original...he loved it and didn't find it confusing, but you definitely get a wee bit more out of it if you have seen the first one.

Keyzer

Went to see this last night. On reflection, I should have watched the original before hand to get me in the mood and remind me of the tone of the original.

I thought the movie was long, with too many unnecessary drawn out scenes.

Visually stunning, sound was fantastic. Good performances all round. I just dont know if I'm sold on the story yet.

Frank Bullitt

Saw this one last night and it ticked the box well.

Really delighted it turned out well, a fantastic sequel.

Outlaw Pete

joe123 wrote: »

Seen a post on twitter were a feminist was giving out about the scene where Joi froze in the rain when the call came through.

She said this scene was put in for the comedic element and that it was to show K can just turn her off whenever he is bored of her.

Nowt stranger than a third wave feminists pov.

I remember when Rouge One came out Una Mullally suggested the only reason they had a female lead was to divert attention away from the fact the rest of the cast was all-male.

You couldn't make it up:


https://twitter.com/UnaMullally/status/810541447556583425

brianregan09

The Story really didn't need to be about Deckard at all

micks_address

brianregan09 wrote: »

The Story really didn't need to be about Deckard at all

Well I suppose the big idea was is or will be replicants being able to procreate thereby freeing themselves from slavery... Tyrell cracked it with deckard and Rachel..so he was kinda key to the storyline.. more could be argued that k was sort of irelevant

readyletsgo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nowt stranger than a third wave feminists pov.

I remember when Rouge One came out Una Mullally suggested the only reason they had a female lead was to divert attention away from the fact the rest of the cast was all-male.

You couldn't make it up:


https://twitter.com/UnaMullally/status/810541447556583425

ARGH! Yeah I got the same idea as you..

Anyway, saw it tonight. Enjoyed it very much. Love the original so I thought it was amazing as a sequel.

Pity it hasn't done too well, manly because it's not Marvel. Pity. I hope we get the final Blade Runner.

KerranJast

joe123 wrote: »

A week on since seeing the film and Im still thinking about it. Been listening to the soundtrack all week.

Seen a post on twitter were a feminist was giving out about the scene where Joi froze in the rain when the call came through.

She said this scene was put in for the comedic element and that it was to show K can just turn her off whenever he is bored of her. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Surely that scene was to demonstrate K's longing for something real, wanting it to be real but it was a crashing reminder that its not. The whole premise of the film is about him searching for something real/a soul.

Did she even watch the film? It was fairly clear to me that Joi is the next iteration of "humanity" in the world of Blade Runner. The next evolution from replicants.

Much as robots and synthetics were the 80s future-vision of a challenge to what it means to be human, AI is our modern worry/concept of what a new form of life could be.

The relationship between K & Joi seemed to be one of the most "real" in the film as in it was difficult to know if her programming was that good or if it's a case that she was adapting over time through learned experience and was effectively "alive".

CalamariFritti

Watched it last night and I liked it. Very atmospheric, excellent visuals and bombastic soundtrack. Picks up the mood from the first one very well. A well crafted sci-fi universe that stays with you. Overall a worthy sequel.
But like many have said the story falls a bit flat. I guess we walk into a film these days expecting the bested twist, the unthinkable conspiracy all the time. Which is unrealistic, but still, there wasn't really a moment where I went wow and couldn't wait to see what happens next.

The idea of him being the child was too obvious from the start to be true. And it would have been too much like Angel Heart anyway. And after that there wasn't really much left in this. In the end it was your one the memory maker but so what? She never really entered as a character and did anyone care at that point?

Also when I went to Wiki after and read the plot I must admit half the stuff I didn't cop while watching.

micks_address

KerranJast wrote: »

Did she even watch the film? It was fairly clear to me that Joi is the next iteration of "humanity" in the world of Blade Runner. The next evolution from replicants.

Much as robots and synthetics were the 80s future-vision of a challenge to what it means to be human, AI is our modern worry/concept of what a new form of life could be.

The relationship between K & Joi seemed to be one of the most "real" in the film as in it was difficult to know if her programming was that good or if it's a case that she was adapting over time through learned experience and was effectively "alive".

I dunno, Joi is still virtual or at best augmented reality.. I wonder was ks boss a replicant? She obviously wanted to get it on with k in his appartment when she asked what would happen if she finished the bottle.. The scene where leto is examining the new model replicant...what was the point of that? Oh look she's cool but can't have baby replicants so I'll cut her open?

TerrorFirmer

Very bothered that it's tanking at the box office because it is an excellent sequel and a superb film. Captures the atmosphere of the first film perfectly and like the 1982 original it's just so unsettling in its bleak portrayal of a world gone somewhat wrong. It's not overstated or flashy, visually it's almost subtle compared to most modern sci-fi and there's just a solid, natural flow between both movies.

Ryan Gosling is exceptionally good - in fact, the entire cast is almost flawless, with the exception of Jared Leto, not sure if it's the scripting for his scenes or the man himself (or both) but I felt he was noticeably over-acting and he was the only weak link in the film.

Surprised at the number of people saying you don't have to have seen the first film to watch this one. You don't, in the same sense that you can watch Empire Strikes Back without watching A New Hope and enjoy it at surface level but for the full and intended experience you really need to have seen the original film.

Anyway, for me Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequels ever made, and most definitely up there for top film of 2017. Really magnificent film. Please go and watch it if you liked the 1982 film!

Useful.Idiot

micks_address wrote: »

I dunno, Joi is still virtual or at best augmented reality.. I wonder was ks boss a replicant? She obviously wanted to get it on with k in his appartment when she asked what would happen if she finished the bottle.. The scene where leto is examining the new model replicant...what was the point of that? Oh look she's cool but can't have baby replicants so I'll cut her open?

Joi is very advanced AI so it's the films way of posing an ethical question that will be very important in the near future; "Does artificial intelligent life have the same meaning as real life? If there is AI that can think and feel things like humans do, are they really any different?".

K's boss seemed to be quite human. She refers to K as having no soul. Don't think the fact that she was a replicant or not would influence her attraction to him.

Wallace was trying to develop replicants capable of child birth. Each one would probably just be a "tester" and if they can't reproduce then there's no point of mass-producing so they would be no use to him. This scene also shows how little regard he has for his creations individually.

peteeeed

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Very bothered that it's tanking at the box office because it is an excellent sequel and a superb film. Captures the atmosphere of the first film perfectly and like the 1982 original it's just so unsettling in its bleak portrayal of a world gone somewhat wrong. It's not overstated or flashy, visually it's almost subtle compared to most modern sci-fi and there's just a solid, natural flow between both movies.

Ryan Gosling is exceptionally good - in fact, the entire cast is almost flawless, with the exception of Jared Leto, not sure if it's the scripting for his scenes or the man himself (or both) but I felt he was noticeably over-acting and he was the only weak link in the film.

Surprised at the number of people saying you don't have to have seen the first film to watch this one. You don't, in the same sense that you can watch Empire Strikes Back without watching A New Hope and enjoy it at surface level but for the full and intended experience you really need to have seen the original film.

Anyway, for me Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequels ever made, and most definitely up there for top film of 2017. Really magnificent film. Please go and watch it if you liked the 1982 film!

why are you surprised? , the u-25 market were never going to flock to see blade runner . its a niche film on a massive scale but a niche film

Tar.Aldarion

Saw it again last night with somebody who hadn't seen it, they want to see it again :pac:

Loved it again. My friend had seen the first one the day before, perfect way to go into it.


Was in savoy screen one this time for €7, was going to go to IMAX but at €20 they can **** off. Was wondering how much the people with unlimited cards have to pay extra to see it in IMAX?

Isn't it curious that this is tanking in the Box Office? Surely it means it's a true sequel to the original movie, which also tanked. It's going to become a cult classic.

I absolutely loved it - as someone who has never seen the original and knows very little about the world it is set in, I was just.. blown away.

The visual landscape, the soundscape (there were so many moments where I just shut my eyes and let the music flow over me like a rushing river - I felt tingles up and down my body), the visual effects - the fight between Ford and Gosling in the theatre is absolutely one of the most stunning and stark things I've ever seen. The scene with Joi and the hooker was absolutely mind bending. In a world where we have dinosaurs and robots and everything being possible, it's so amazing to feel still blown away.

The runtime might have been a barrier for many, but (as someone who has a short attention span) I was constantly gripped throughout and felt myself smiling on a movie that worked on almost every level.

Villeneuve is a true master.

keith_sixteen

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't it curious that this is tanking in the Box Office? Surely it means it's a true sequel to the original movie, which also tanked. It's going to become a cult classic.

I absolutely loved it - as someone who has never seen the original and knows very little about the world it is set in, I was just.. blown away.

The visual landscape, the soundscape (there were so many moments where I just shut my eyes and let the music flow over me like a rushing river - I felt tingles up and down my body), the visual effects - the fight between Ford and Gosling in the theatre is absolutely one of the most stunning and stark things I've ever seen. The scene with Joi and the hooker was absolutely mind bending. In a world where we have dinosaurs and robots and everything being possible, it's so amazing to feel still blown away.

The runtime might have been a barrier for many, but (as someone who has a short attention span) I was constantly gripped throughout and felt myself smiling on a movie that worked on almost every level.

Villeneuve is a true master.

Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. I tend to agree with all of this. The cinematography was materful

Riddle101

Watched it yesterday and I didn't like it very much. It was too long, too boring, and the music was irritating and loud. Just not my cup of tea.

gebbel

Just out from my second viewing in IMAX 3D and I’m as buzzing and even more enthralled than I was on Sunday night when I saw it first. Like a previous poster I can’t get some of the images and soundtrack out of my head! Looking at some of the trailers pre-movie of all that superhero stuff that’s coming up, as much as I’ve enjoyed some of it in the past it just looked boring today.

I don’t think I’ve ever been as satisfied with a movie at the cinema. Marvellous stuff.

hmmm

"Sumptuous" is the word I would use to describe this. Has to be seen on a big screen. Just sit there and soak in the glorious cinematography.

HandsomeBob

joe123 wrote: »

A week on since seeing the film and Im still thinking about it. Been listening to the soundtrack all week.

Seen a post on twitter were a feminist was giving out about the scene where Joi froze in the rain when the call came through.

She said this scene was put in for the comedic element and that it was to show K can just turn her off whenever he is bored of her. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Surely that scene was to demonstrate K's longing for something real, wanting it to be real but it was a crashing reminder that its not. The whole premise of the film is about him searching for something real/a soul.

That's what I took from the scene as well, taken out of a special moment by the cruelty of his reality and purpose to serve.

As someone said to me during the week it's best just to ignore social media. Anyone can take anything these days and twist it to suit themselves.

I thought the female cast was brilliant for what it's worth. Joi, Luv, Joshi and Ana are characters who were integral to the plot and each respective actress did not fail in any way; they excelled.

henryporter

Blade Runner (1982 release) is by far my favourite movie of all time (and by that I mean original cinematic release, not the Directors cut or any of that nonsense). It was perfect in every sense of the word...

This (2049) on the other hand is nothing short of a travesty. The plot to quote Maud Lebowski is 'ludicrous', Gosling actually appears at times to have fallen asleep with his eyes open, Ford looks like he's marginally reprising the cameo from The Force Awakens, Leto - abysmal, Hoeks was as menacing as a Guinness fart, Wright as wooden as always, and both De Amas and Davis left wandering around wondering what do to with themselves.

This is the mother of Emperors New Clothes of a movie - consider some of the more absurd moments eg:

K finding and dispatching Luv and her henchmen with the greatest of ease, the Deus ex Machina effort of Luv bombarding the dump to save K, did Wallace really give up that easy at the end - surely he had a shed load of Luv's to send forward, the complete nonsense of the core plot itself - Tyrell creating self replicating replicants, as well as the fact that replicants were banned, but now only some are.

Then there's the terrible layering of CGI, combined with some hammy sets and some even hammier scenes (eg

when Deckard stops punching K as his favourite Elvis song is playing, or when Joi declares K's new name to be Joe, or both the silly Joi/Mariette sex scene and the silly Gaff in the old folks home visitation. As for why poor Stringer Bell ended up in the movie looking a bit like Gaff thirty years ago

?!

Anyway - didn't enjoy at all. The only thing that could make cinema worse than this is if they declared that a Big Lebowski sequel was on the way :-(

kerplun k

henryporter wrote: »

Blade Runner (1982 release) is by far my favourite movie of all time (and by that I mean original cinematic release, not the Directors cut or any of that nonsense). It was perfect in every sense of the word...

This (2049) on the other hand is nothing short of a travesty. The plot to quote Maud Lebowski is 'ludicrous', Gosling actually appears at times to have fallen asleep with his eyes open, Ford looks like he's marginally reprising the cameo from The Force Awakens, Leto - abysmal, Hoeks was as menacing as a Guinness fart, Wright as wooden as always, and both De Amas and Davis left wandering around wondering what do to with themselves.

This is the mother of Emperors New Clothes of a movie - consider some of the more absurd moments eg:

K finding and dispatching Luv and her henchmen with the greatest of ease, the Deus ex Machina effort of Luv bombarding the dump to save K, did Wallace really give up that easy at the end - surely he had a shed load of Luv's to send forward, the complete nonsense of the core plot itself - Tyrell creating self replicating replicants, as well as the fact that replicants were banned, but now only some are.

Then there's the terrible layering of CGI, combined with some hammy sets and some even hammier scenes (eg

when Deckard stops punching K as his favourite Elvis song is playing, or when Joi declares K's new name to be Joe, or both the silly Joi/Mariette sex scene and the silly Gaff in the old folks home visitation. As for why poor Stringer Bell ended up in the movie looking a bit like Gaff thirty years ago

?!

Anyway - didn't enjoy at all. The only thing that could make cinema worse than this is if they declared that a Big Lebowski sequel was on the way :-(

Booooooooooooooo.

Also, no spoiler tags needed

Dempsey

I think Villeneuve nailed this as best anyone could have done

Blade runner was far from perfect but it was also a film that didnt need a sequel. Its cult status had set a very high bar and rightly so imo.The continuation of visuals, themes and mystery needed to be on the money and it was.

It looks like its going to emulate the original for all its initial failures which makes me smile

Sad Professor

Not criticisms per se, but a few things I missed from the original film:

- No noisy, seedy, overpopulated street scenes which were one of the most memorable things about the original but are almost totally absent here. I think there are three street scenes in the whole film but maybe people just don't go out much because of the pollution.
- Lack of cultural diversity in the city. The Asian influence is still evident in the production design but where are the Asian people?
- No expressionism whatsover in the lighting, which I assume was a deliberate choice with the hiring of Deakins, but a really weird one and an almost a 180 degree turn from the noir-inspired cinematography of the original.

Decuc500

I saw it last night and it completely bowled me over. This type of big ideas, big spectacle sci-fi is a rarity these days. An instant classic for me.

nix

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Saw it again last night with somebody who hadn't seen it, they want to see it again :pac:

Loved it again. My friend had seen the first one the day before, perfect way to go into it.


Was in savoy screen one this time for €7, was going to go to IMAX but at €20 they can **** off. Was wondering how much the people with unlimited cards have to pay extra to see it in IMAX?

It used to be €5, now its like €7, im cancelling my sub with them at the end of the year. Figure ill wait until i get star wars in, they just keep hiking up the prices (not just tickets, food/drinks etc) while their services decline. They cant even fix their escalators, busted for months now, Cowboys :pac:

KerranJast

henryporter wrote: »

Blade Runner (1982 release) is by far my favourite movie of all time (and by that I mean original cinematic release, not the Directors cut or any of that nonsense). It was perfect in every sense of the word...

This (2049) on the other hand is nothing short of a travesty. The plot to quote Maud Lebowski is 'ludicrous', Gosling actually appears at times to have fallen asleep with his eyes open, Ford looks like he's marginally reprising the cameo from The Force Awakens, Leto - abysmal, Hoeks was as menacing as a Guinness fart, Wright as wooden as always, and both De Amas and Davis left wandering around wondering what do to with themselves.

1) "perfect in every sense of the word..." you need to watch more films :pac: Blade Runner is one in a long list of my favourite films and is one of the most influential films ever made. It is what we now imagine the future to look like.
BUT! that + Rudger Hauer's fantastic performance aside, its plot is paper thin and Ford's off screen battles with Ridley Scott really seem to influence the his performance negatively.
Also you prefer the original release with that godawful monologue? Woah. To each his own

2) Gosling is playing a replicant the bit in the film where he thinks he's the chosen one and freaks out is one of best most human parts of the film. It pays off all the build up of his closed down personality from the start of the film.
Go watch "The Nice Guys" to see him play the complete opposite of this if that's what you want. He's great in that too.

3) This is easily Harrison Fords best performance since (looks up IMDB) Clear and Present Danger in 19'fing 94. Jesus. I was worried what he was going to be like but he knocked it out of the park.

4) Ana De Armas was a revelation. How anyone could not feel a combination of pain and rage when she "left" would mystify me. Even Mackenzie Davis for the minor role she had was memorable.

Loved it. I want to see again already because I feel I missed some bits.

Why exactly did Gosling's boss let him go free? He said he took care of the problem. He didn't expand on that nor did she ask. Seemed a bit thin there.

Didn't think Ford was great. I laughed a bit at him stuck in the flooding car looking around like he had dementia.

Gosling went mad at him when they first met. Something like "I didn't think you'd be a bull****er" or something like that. Why? Did he know who he was straight away?

Loved the dog and Ford saying "why don't you ask him yourself" replying to if he was real. Arguably very blatant when the evil replicant woman said to Gosling "bad dog" a few scenes later.

HandsomeBob

I think Joshi wanted to believe him, that's why she let him go. She seemed to have a conflicted attitude towards him; in one sense she reinforced the master/slave dynamic, in the other she yearned for a deeper understanding of K. It was done beautifully.