Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

henryporter

KerranJast wrote: »

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.

I disagree on every point you've made - at least the 1982 film had a plot, the sequel has none. Taken in context Blade Runner in 1982 was bold, inventive and clever. Again the rehash is none of those things. I know contextually there are far better films overall, eg 1979's Alien (again directed by you know who), but Blade Runner brought the future to Earth in 1982 like no film has done since (there have been plenty of copies of course).

As for Goslings performance I know he's a replicant, I know he is meant to display certain idiosyncrasies related to being non-human, d'oh, but I don't expect him to look like he's having a brain fart several times during the movie. As for "The Nice Guys " (another turgid steaming pile of manure :-D) well...

I cannot express clearly enough the cringe I had during Ford's performances, luckily there wasn't too much of it in the film, certainly not enough to suggest it was his best performance since anything. The Elvis scene along merits most cringeworthy moment of all time in a movie.

In order to feel anything for characters being hurt or killed in a movie you must feel something for them beforehand - I wasn't given anything like that for any of the characters (maybe I'm a replicant ). De Armas or Davis both ticked the Weinstein eye candy boxes, including the inevitable almost mandatory subordinating to the lead male roles. To say that de Armas was a revelation, I'd have to refer you back to one of your comments: "you need to watch more films :pac:"

What was wrong with the elvis scene

henryporter

Deleted User wrote: »

What was wrong with the elvis scene

It bordered on pantomime - Deckard fighting for his life against some replicant who show's up unannounced suddenly decides to call a timeout on the basis that an Elvis number randomly shows up - had he been facing Roy Batty (and how did he know he wasn't at that point in time) it would have been the last song he ever heard.

TerrorFirmer

henryporter wrote: »

It bordered on pantomime - Deckard fighting for his life against some replicant who show's up unannounced suddenly decides to call a timeout on the basis that an Elvis number randomly shows up - had he been facing Roy Batty (and how did he know he wasn't at that point in time) it would have been the last song he ever heard.

Contextually it's entirely and completely different. K in this scene isn't even attempting to fight back and Deckard eventually gives up when he realizes that his fist-fighting attempts are ultimately leading nowhere.

I find your criticisms quite illogical - Blade Runner 1982 has a plot but Blade Runner 2049 doesn't?

I love both films but the original movie is style and tone over substance and it's plot is as thin as tracing paper.

The sequel isn't much different broadly speaking but it is definitely more plot heavy and develops far more characters as well as the world they exist in.

And in fairness, for someone to literally critique every single performance in a film widely lauded for those very performances (apart from perhaps Leto who admittedly irritated me with his over-acting), is very much swimming against a very strong tide.

Obviously every opinion is valid but it seems a little odd to me for someone who considers the original a classic (speaking of - really, the theatrical version is the perfect version? ) to label BR2049 as a crap film full of crap performances.

henryporter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Contextually it's entirely and completely different. K in this scene isn't even attempting to fight back and Deckard eventually gives up when he realizes that his fist-fighting attempts are ultimately leading nowhere.

I find your criticisms quite illogical - Blade Runner 1982 has a plot but Blade Runner 2049 doesn't?

I love both films but the original movie is style and tone over substance and it's plot is as thin as tracing paper.

The sequel isn't much different broadly speaking but it is definitely more plot heavy and develops far more characters as well as the world they exist in.

And in fairness, for someone to literally critique every single performance in a film widely lauded for those very performances (apart from perhaps Leto who admittedly irritated me with his over-acting), is very much swimming against a very strong tide.

Obviously every opinion is valid but it seems a little odd to me for someone who considers the original a classic (speaking of - really, the theatrical version is the perfect version? ) to label BR2049 as a crap film full of crap performances.

BR (2019) 1982 Plot: A bunch of outlawed replicants find their way back to earth to find their maker in order to reverse or undo their built in kill switches. A Blade Runner is dispatched to find and retire them post haste.

BR 2049 Plot: A new Blade Runner tracks down a replicant and the ensuing investigation reveals that a replicant had reproduction abilities so the hunt in on for the offspring.

While the former according to some is paper thing, the latter is just plain dumb, and is even more transparent. On that basis the entire movie could have been played out in about 45 minutes, which indicates two hours of bloat, which some are determined to label as explorations of different themes (read horse manure).

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine - I wanted to like this movie but it has no substance.

Just as a matter of interest did you watch BR 2019 in 1982 in the cinema?

henryporter

henryporter wrote: »

BR (2019) 1982 Plot: A bunch of outlawed replicants find their way back to earth to find their maker in order to reverse or undo their built in kill switches. A Blade Runner is dispatched to find and retire them post haste.

BR 2049 Plot: A new Blade Runner tracks down a replicant and the ensuing investigation reveals that a replicant had reproduction abilities so the hunt in on for the offspring.

While the former according to some is paper thing, the latter is just plain dumb, and is even more transparent. On that basis the entire movie could have been played out in about 45 minutes, which indicates two hours of bloat, which some are determined to label as explorations of different themes (read horse manure).

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine - I wanted to like this movie but it has no substance.

Just as a matter of interest did you watch BR 2019 in 1982 in the cinema?

I don't fully get your criticisms. I think your blinded by your love for the original. Everything you criticise about 2049 could be said about the original.

How is the plot simply plain dumb?

I saw the original for the first time a few years ago if that makes a difference.

TerrorFirmer

The concept and plot of Blade Runner are perfectly sound but they are extremely thin, but the film was never meant to be a narrative heavy film. Blade Runner 2049 is more of the same in that the 1982 movie could conceivably be a 45 minute episode while BR2049 could easily have been a 90 minute movie if one was to strip away the 'bloat' you refer to. But that would entirely defeat what both movies are really about.

You can't possibly argue that the 2017 film is bloated while the 1982 is not - some would argue both have excessive run times relative to the actual narrative content, but in the case of BR2049 it directly correlates to a much heavier narrative as well as a number of subplots compared to its predecessor. Arguably, the original film is even more 'bloated' - I hate using that term as contextually it's a core aspect of both films and not bloat at all - as it has a far more linear narrative to follow.

Basically, as partyjungle said above, everything you're criticizing can (and has) been said about the original as well (putting your opinion on the acting aside).

BR2049 is a much more complex and plot driven film. That doesn't mean it's automatically better, that all of the subplots are necessary, that it's plot or concept is better than the original film or that preferring the original isn't an entirely valid opinion either. I could certainly see why people would have that very opinion. But it's somewhat bizarre to claim the original is a perfect piece of film making while the sequel is bloated and plot absent.

I first saw Blade Runner about 15 years ago, it would have been the original version which I liked at the time but I much prefer The Final Cut. Blade Runner 2049 exceeded all my expectations and then some - I would never have dared hope for a movie as astoundingly good as it is. In many ways, I'm totally shocked that it was green-lit for production with that concept and on that budget, it was never going to be a mega blockbuster.

micks_address

henryporter wrote: »

BR (2019) 1982 Plot: A bunch of outlawed replicants find their way back to earth to find their maker in order to reverse or undo their built in kill switches. A Blade Runner is dispatched to find and retire them post haste.

BR 2049 Plot: A new Blade Runner tracks down a replicant and the ensuing investigation reveals that a replicant had reproduction abilities so the hunt in on for the offspring.

While the former according to some is paper thing, the latter is just plain dumb, and is even more transparent. On that basis the entire movie could have been played out in about 45 minutes, which indicates two hours of bloat, which some are determined to label as explorations of different themes (read horse manure).

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine - I wanted to like this movie but it has no substance.

Just as a matter of interest did you watch BR 2019 in 1982 in the cinema?

I did wonder if there was going to be a luke and Leia moment like star wars at one point

WhiteMemento9

I am really torn on this film. The pace, visuals etc all make the films feel like it could have been make by one of the greats from the 70/80's. The film itself though just isn't that good. We are so starved of films with budgets on this level trying to reach for places that this film in part tries to reach with respect for an audiences intelligence that I think I want to love it more than it really deserves.

I don't want to say it is completely style without substance as this certainly has body but it isn't on the same level with the rest of the film. Maybe that is why it is disappointing because it feels important watching it but after all was said and done it hasn't much weight in its ideas.

I am distraught that it is doing so badly at the box office as if art on this scale was made with more frequency we would end up with some truly great films more often. If you are starving and someone throws you a bone with a little meat it will taste amazing but that doesn't make it a steak.

RasTa

Society is over when crap like Happy Death Day overtakes it in the box office.

murpho999

Finally saw this on Sunday afternoon in IMAX and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I watched the first film the night before and I was glad I did as I had forgotten a lot.

Those who say it's boring or too long should stick to films like Happy Death Day or Fast and Furious with explosions every 5 minutes to stop you being bored or full explanations of plot so you don't have to think about the film's meanings and ambiguities.

It's a pity that people have such short attention spans nowadays and not be in a rush.

I loved how film cared about visuals and scenes were not rushed as you got to now characters.

It's a very worthy sequel to the original that asks big questions about humanity and our existence and deserves to do better in the box office than it is.

CiDeRmAn

The mate I brought along didn't enjoy it.
He didn't state it was boring but he did point out that the sci-fi he likes is shiny, colourful and has lots of action....

I really must see it again though, lots of texture to that one, both in terms of visuals, the music, the plot, everything could benefit from a 2nd viewing.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Finally saw this on Sunday afternoon in IMAX and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I watched the first film the night before and I was glad I did as I had forgotten a lot.

Those who say it's boring or too long should stick to films like Happy Death Day or Fast and Furious with explosions every 5 minutes to stop you being bored or full explanations of plot so you don't have to think about the film's meanings and ambiguities.

It's a pity that people have such short attention spans nowadays and not be in a rush.

I loved how film cared about visuals and scenes were not rushed as you got to now characters.

It's a very worthy sequel to the original that asks big questions about humanity and our existence and deserves to do better in the box office than it is.

Can't remember exactly when but I do recall this film giving blatant explanations of the plot a few times. Flashbacks in particular. It could have been more esoteric.

murpho999

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't remember exactly when but I do recall this film giving blatant explanations of the plot a few times. Flashbacks in particular. It could have been more esoteric.

Nothing wrong with that, you can't make a film totally abstract.

Only flashbacks were in relation to the wooden horse memories.

Lots of other stuff remained unanswered.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that, you can't make a film totally abstract.

Only flashbacks were in relation to the wooden horse memories.

Lots of other stuff remained unanswered.

There was some other moments where we were explicitly told exposition in the form of a hammy conversation. I think it was between K and his boss lady towards the start. Apologies, I'm only working off my appalling memory. The plot definitely isn't nearly as subtle as people are making it out to be.

What was unanswered?

murpho999

Deleted User wrote: »

There was some other moments where we were explicitly told exposition in the form of a hammy conversation. I think it was between K and his boss lady towards the start. Apologies, I'm only working off my appalling memory. The plot definitely isn't nearly as subtle as people are making it out to be.

What was unanswered?

Is Deckard a replicant?
Did K really die?
How come Rachael can conceive?
Why does Wallace kill the newborn female replicant?
Who is the replicant leader and how did they came about?
Why was Luv crying?

Also, why are you saying that exposition is a bad thing? Some of it is fine.

Outkast_IRE

Finally got to see this on the big Maxx screen last night.

For me instant masterpiece, i havent seen anything like it for years. Its unapologetic in its pace, some will call it slow, but to me it allowed you to savor the gorgeous visuals and atmosphere.

I love that it leaves so much unanswered, i often find we criticise films much more when they overexplain the ending and its goes on a bit.

Film of the year so far for me.

murpho999

My question was genuine about what was left unanswered but I'll give it a go at my take on these. I don't think we need to know the answer to any of these though.

murpho999 wrote: »

Is Deckard a replicant?

This doesn't matter at all tbh. I don't think he is. I'm glad they didn't try to tie this in. This was alluded to after the fact in the original by super fans. There is barely anything to support this theory in the original imo. What matters is that a replicant got pregnant, if the father was also a replicant doesn't really matter that much.

Did K really die?

A friend of mine brought this up. I don't think it really matter as his story has been told. If they are planning a sequel to explain this, which I really hope they don't, the I suppose it does matter.

How come Rachael can conceive?

This is the crux of the entire plot. Nobody knows. It was a miracle. Wallace desperately wants to know himself.

Why does Wallace kill the newborn female replicant?

No idea what this was about. Didn't like it at all. It was almost creepy for the sake of being creepy. I suppose it was showing this god-like creature cares little for his creations and is numb to their apparent existence.

Who is the replicant leader and how did they came about?

No idea. I thought it was Rachel at first. Obviously not as she was found six feet under. I hope it doesn't matter as long as they don't try a sequel.

Why was Luv crying?

She was Decard's child! Right??! She is the child everyone is searching for. K's memories of the wooden horse were implanted by her. They were her memories. Her own traumatic childhood caused her to cry. I was initially confused by this too but it was explained later, was even explained with flashbacks.

Also, why are you saying that exposition is a bad thing? Some of it is fine.

I'd prefer if the audience is given more credit personally, even if you miss somethings. The film can become a joy with repeated viewings. It really depends on how the exposition is layed out. I don't like when I feel like the director has taken an opportunity to explicitly give me information in an inorganic way. It takes me out of the moment. I find flashbacks fall into the inorganic category.

I watched the Godfather trilogy recently and I was blown away by how little blatant exposition was used. I can only imagine what it must have been like to see the first two in the cinema. That would never happen today.

Not sure why this comes to mind. Saw Aliens again recently and they cut to end of a long meeting with an irritated Ripley ("How many times do I have to tell you!"); allowing them to reiterate the entire plot of the first film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m92yvNscIAo

unplayable

Saw it in london last nite!

Wow was blown away..visually stunning and the music is living with me. Listening to Mesa as we speak. Zimmer is just a genius..

Will let it sink in for a week or so and go see it again for sure. A triumph of cinema and exactly what you want for a cinematic experience!

This director is really one to watch. Arrival was so good also..I watched it again recently and was very impressed.. we could easily see another sequel to this right?

fisgon

Great visuals, but not as innovative as people are claiming. I felt that I had seen a lot of it before.

It is painfully slow, and takes itself far too seriously. "This is an important film!" it screams, at every turn, "watch it and be amazed!" I was largely bored for the second half, way too long.

Jared Leto's bad-guy was way overplayed too, just a cliched meglomaniac that you have seen a hundred times before.

(And no, I am not one of those who need an explosion every five minutes to be entertained - I just prefer films to not be so self-regarding).

Useful.Idiot

murpho999 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

There was some other moments where we were explicitly told exposition in the form of a hammy conversation. I think it was between K and his boss lady towards the start. Apologies, I'm only working off my appalling memory. The plot definitely isn't nearly as subtle as people are making it out to be.

What was unanswered?

Is Deckard a replicant?
Did K really die?
How come Rachael can conceive?
Why does Wallace kill the newborn female replicant?
Who is the replicant leader and how did they came about?
Why was Luv crying?

Also, why are you saying that exposition is a bad thing?  Some of it is fine.

Is Deckard a replicant? Purposely left ambiguous. The question of whether this actually matters is the underlying premise of both films.

Did K really die? It is implied that he does as the same musical theme that played during Roy Batty's death in the first film is played as K lies on the steps

How come Rachael can conceive? The fact that she can is more important than how. Like above it's the miracle that drives most of the events in the film.

Why does Wallace kill the newborn female replicant? She can't conceive so she is useless to him to mass produce. Also shows that individually to him they are no more than products on an assembly line.

Who is the replicant leader and how did they came about? Don't think who she is is important. It's understandable that a societal group who are mostly exiled and fighting for their own rights to co-exist would form a secretive resistance group.

Why was Luv crying? She is engineered to obey her master at any cost but seeing her master have such disregard for her own kind would naturally fill her with great sadness. This also explains why she kissed K before trying to kill him.

Useful.Idiot

Useful.Idiot wrote: »

...

Why was Luv crying? She is engineered to obey her master at any cost but seeing her master have such disregard for her own kind would naturally fill her with great sadness. This also explains why she kissed K before trying to kill him.

My answer to this is completely incorrect. Got the character names wrong.

johnnyskeleton

murpho999 wrote: »

Those who say it's boring or too long should stick to films like Happy Death Day or Fast and Furious with explosions every 5 minutes to stop you being bored or full explanations of plot so you don't have to think about the film's meanings and ambiguities.

This is an unfair characterisation of people who say the movie was boring or too long, and you shouldnt claim false superiority over other people. This movie captured your imagination and thats great for you. But for others the plot seemed thin and the charters poorly developed. Its not that we dont want to think about the ambiguities or that we dont understand them, its that for some people, myself included, the movie wasnt engaging on an intellectual or emotional level.

So while Im aware of the ambiguities and am interested in hearing peoples theories on them, I dont really care enough about the movie to get excited about them. I didnt feel the existential curiosity that I feel with good sci fi or with PKDs books. Instead, it was more detective movie than hard sci fi.

I felt that the questions about the nature of being a replicant, are they actually alive, have feelings etc (do they dream of electric sheep) was a brilliant concept in the first movie, with an interesting subplot of whether Dekard was actually a replicant himself. Such ideas were absent from this movie, which was basically

a hunt to find the child of a dead replicant for reasons that were, in my view, poorly thought out rather than mysterious. The subplot was more interesting, i.e. K figuring out if he is the child or not but again if the child is just a mcguffin to move the detective plot along I dont think that saves the movie.

So another poster above made the suggestion that you cant like the first movie and not the second, or that it is bizzare to think the second is boring and not the first. But the slow pacing of the first was exciting because it was interspersed with great dialogue, you cared about the characters and the overall plot was very interesting. I didnt find the same level of engagement with the second one, hence I found that it dragged for what it was i.e. detective on a quest to find X.

And by the way, there were lots of explosions and special effects in this movie so your suggestion that people who didnt like this only like action scenes is false. I found the

big action fight sequence between K and Dekkard

to be particularly boring and irrelevant.

Tldr; I found it boring because the plot seemed formulaic and the characters thin, not because of the pacing of the movie. 2001 is a captivating slow paced movie and the matrix 2 is a boring fast paced movie. So please dont pretend that people who didnt like it must only like action movies.

pumpkin4life

TBH I think it's a kind of crap movie even though Blade Runner 1 is one of the ten greatest films ever made, for myself anyway.

Hollywood are really running with this nostalgia, stunted childhood superhero theme in movies as of late.

Stand back from this film lads.

pumpkin4life

pumpkin4life wrote: »

TBH I think it's a kind of crap movie even though Blade Runner 1 is one of the ten greatest films ever made, for myself anyway.

Hollywood are really running with this nostalgia, stunted childhood superhero theme in movies as of late.

Stand back from this film lads.

I'm seeing a trend emerging here

p to the e

I absolutely loved this film but I think my love of it came from how gorgeous it looked and the soundtrack was mind blowing. I think if that was stripped away you would have a pretty thin plotline with under developed characters. A few months back I watched Tarkovsky's "Solaris" from 1972. The film was just shy of 3 hours with minimal effects but kept me riveted throughout. Now that was good writing.

Don't get me wrong I thoroughly enjoyed this and would watch again but I can understand that it's not for everyone. It reminds me of Prometheus from a few years ago. I loved it but could see how some people would hate it.

Tom.D.BJJ

Saw it tonight. Incredible movie that needs to be seen in the cinema. The sound and visuals really blew me away

riffmongous

p to the e wrote: »

I absolutely loved this film but I think my love of it came from how gorgeous it looked and the soundtrack was mind blowing. I think if that was stripped away you would have a pretty thin plotline with under developed characters. A few months back I watched Tarkovsky's "Solaris" from 1972. The film was just shy of 3 hours with minimal effects but kept me riveted throughout. Now that was good writing.

Don't get me wrong I thoroughly enjoyed this and would watch again but I can understand that it's not for everyone. It reminds me of Prometheus from a few years ago. I loved it but could see how some people would hate it.

Re Solaris- Even during the driving scene?

.......

This post has been deleted.

p to the e

riffmongous wrote: »

Re Solaris- Even during the driving scene?

Especially the driving scene...... probably.

eviltimeban

Haven't seen the original properly (I've seen sections, in a non-linear fashion, over the years), would I be lost if I went to this?

Useful.Idiot

eviltimeban wrote: »

Haven't seen the original properly (I've seen sections, in a non-linear fashion, over the years), would I be lost if I went to this?

No. You should try watch the original first though.

eviltimeban

Useful.Idiot wrote: »

No. You should try watch the original first though.

Hmm, was gonna go tonight. I read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia.

riffmongous

p to the e wrote: »

Especially the driving scene...... probably.

5 minutes of my life I will never get back. But Solaris is still a great movie.

When I think about it, one thing that I'm thankful for with Bladerunner is that while it was slow, I never got the feeling of forced periods of 'reflection' like the aforementioned driving scene, or the many examples from the recent Twin Peaks reboot.

Outstanding piece of filmmaking, with characteristics that simply aren't there in modern blockbuster films anymore. Atmospheric, stylish, paced perfectly. Reynolds suited to the role very well with his emotionless face, and the rest of the cast ideal. Enjoyed the plot, didn't find it predictable and could of had another hour of it no problem.
The fact that this hasn't done well in the US doesn't bode well for the future given it was so good, but many people don't want to see this kind of thing anymore. They don't have the attention span for it. So if it doesn't make a good profit in the rest of the world, probably things like this won't get the green light anymore. And it will be Star Wars: Jedi's on Tour and Thor vs Ant Man when it comes to big budget forever more. This was a throwback to 80's film making and I hope it cleans up at the awards. If Mad Max can clean up and this can't its pretty worrying.

eviltimeban

Useful.Idiot wrote: »

No. You should try watch the original first though.

Saw it last night and wasn't lost (though was glad I had refreshed the plot in my mind). Thought it was great. Long movie for sure but the first hour had gone by and I hadn't even noticed. The plot, while reasonably thin, was strong and I genuinely didn't see the ending (though it was pretty well sign posted).

One or two flagging moments (could've done without Jared Leto I thought) and there was definitely and "uncanny valley" moment with Rachael but overall I thought it was a great movie and felt very much in line with the first movie (from what I could remember of it).

Great visuals, great music, and I think Ryan Gosling needs a special mention for his acting here; to be able to hold everything back so much (save for one moment of anger) for the duration of the movie is commendable.

D3V!L

Did anyone feel this movie was made just to set up another sequel ? I thought it was great but for some reason walked out feeling that.

gmisk

Deleted User wrote: »

Outstanding piece of filmmaking, with characteristics that simply aren't there in modern blockbuster films anymore. Atmospheric, stylish, paced perfectly. Reynolds suited to the role very well with his emotionless face, and the rest of the cast ideal. Enjoyed the plot, didn't find it predictable and could of had another hour of it no problem.
The fact that this hasn't done well in the US doesn't bode well for the future given it was so good, but many people don't want to see this kind of thing anymore. They don't have the attention span for it. So if it doesn't make a good profit in the rest of the world, probably things like this won't get the green light anymore. And it will be Star Wars: Jedi's on Tour and Thor vs Ant Man when it comes to big budget forever more. This was a throwback to 80's film making and I hope it cleans up at the awards. If Mad Max can clean up and this can't its pretty worrying.

Reynolds?.....the "Ryans" are a bit interchangeable but still...
I agree with rest of what you said though.
Hopefully it makes really good money in other countries, I would think it could do well in China etc.

Shred

eviltimeban wrote: »

...and there was definitely and "uncanny valley" moment with Rachael...

I saw it again last night and thought the same as the first time that it's the most impressive 'face mapping' I've seen so far, it was pretty flawless I thought. It apparently took a year to do.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltimeban

Shred wrote: »

I saw it again last night and thought the same as the first time that it's the most impressive 'face mapping' I've seen so far, it was pretty flawless I thought. It apparently took a year to do.

Still looked fake.

Useful.Idiot

I don't think it looked fake at all but maybe the knowledge in the back of my head that it actually was might have slightly skewed my overall perception.

Shred

eviltimeban wrote: »

Still looked fake.

Not for me :P

gmisk

gmisk wrote: »

Reynolds?.....the "Ryans" are a bit interchangeable but still...
I agree with rest of what you said though.
Hopefully it makes really good money in other countries, I would think it could do well in China etc.

Ronnie's....Ryan's

johnny_ultimate

It's uncanny for sure, and I'm not a fan of the technique in general... BUT I would suggest it's the rare example where it actually works in the moment. It's meant to be a strange, disorientating scene for Deckard - and therefore I think it gets away with a trip to the valley.

eviltimeban

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's uncanny for sure, and I'm not a fan of the technique in general... BUT I would suggest it's the rare example where it actually works in the moment. It's meant to be a strange, disorientating scene for Deckard - and therefore I think it gets away with a trip to the valley.

That's actually a very good point, and puts a new spin on it for me.

Usually I'm not a fan (Star Wars) yet it added yet another layer of what is real and not real. A kind of meta layer.

opus

Got to see it last night, certainly held my interest as didn't realise how long it was 'til we left the cinema. Too bad there wasn't any monologue from Agent K at the end à la Roy Batty but guess he had nobody to actually say anything to.

We were talking about the original film at coffee in work this morning and seems nobody is ever quite sure which of the many 'cuts' they've seen!

Sad Professor

There's really only two versions of the original film: the theatrical cut (with voice-over and happy ending) and the director's cut (with no voice-over and the elevator ending). All the other versions contain slight variations of these two which most viewers are unlikely to notice. The director's cut is the probably version most people have seen.

eviltimeban

So having seen the BR2049 and loved it, and having seen lots of the original (and being familiar with the basic plot of it), should I now:

- Get the original theatrical cut on DVD
- Get the director's cut on DVD
- Or get the "final" cut on DVD?