Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

Sad Professor

eviltimeban wrote: »

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?

The final cut.

Tar.Aldarion

Somebody did a fairly good version of the coat, even made from the right materials, waxed cotton and fake shearing

http://www.magnoliclothiers.com/2049-coat-overcoats-p-788.html

peteeeed

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Somebody did a fairly good version of the coat, even made from the right materials, waxed cotton and fake shearing

http://www.magnoliclothiers.com/2049-coat-overcoats-p-788.html

ziggyman17

loved the film from start to finish... was blown away with it........currently listening to the soundtrack, loving that too.......so atmospheric......

conorhal

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.

In fairness, people didn't go to see the original either. It's audience was always going to be a small but appreciatve one.

I heard one review bemoan it's failure to make bank as 'the demise of art in cinema' but I don't think that's fair.
The real reason we get so few movies like Bladerunner released, is likely down to the demise of the 'mid-budget movie' from studio production slates.
Everything these days seems to be a 200 milion dollar plus franchise and because studio's aren't making mid-budget movies there is less latitude to make something that is unique or risky.
If 2049 had been made for 40-50 million dollars then nobody would be crying right now, least of all Alcon, who look like they might go bankrupt for backing the film.

Let's be honest, it was crazy to spend 200m on a movie who's run time would limit screening numbers, test the patience of the audience and most likely appealed to the fans of a 30yr old film who rarely venture into cinemas any more. Alcon let the current studio 'all in, highroller' attitude infect their thinking and they spent way to much money on the film, and that will hurt the prospect of getting more films like this green lit.

RasTa

It was made for $150m

Could still hit $350m worldwide according to this.

With $194 million worldwide, it will all come down to Japan and China. Blade Runner 2049 will debut in both markets next Friday. And yeah, it is possible that both markets could overperform. But even a run slightly better than Terminator Genisys (say, $25m in Japan and $115m in China) gets the film to a global total of around $365m, or right about where Mad Max: Fury Road (which didn’t play in China) and Edge of Tomorrow ended up.

furiousox

Saw it earlier today.
My first impressions are that I thought it was visually stunning and that the soundtrack was amazing.
The storyline was interesting and strong enough to keep me involved in the film's progression.
I thought the performances were very good, especially Ryan Gosling's.
I did find the pacing slightly slow on occasion and thought it was too long overall.
I reckon trimming 20 mins off would be no harm.
Overall though, I enjoyed it.
I went in with an open mind and found enough there to rate it positively on it's own merit, and also worthy as a sequel in style and in spirit to the original.

conorhal

RasTa wrote: »

It was made for $150m

Could still hit $350m worldwide according to this.

They've said 150m but 'they' tend to low ball numbers if something looks like a financial disaster as damage limitation for the company, just as Sony did with Ghostbusters 2016.
I've seen quotes that suggest the budget was north of that, then you have to consider the advertising and PR, it has been suggested that spend was also north of a 100m. So you're looking at a net cost of up to 300m for the picture. By the 'rule of 3' that's a movie that needs to make damn near a billion dollars to see a profit.
I also wouldn't count to heavily on the Chinese market to save Bladerunner at the box office. there's a reason they like Transformers so much there, big stuff goes bang and the plot is irrelevant. Arthouse does poorly in China, as do sequels to films that were never released there. The Force Awakens seriously underperformed in China because there's no nostalgia for the films there, they'd not seen them or grown up with them.

furiousox

Question, what did Luv shout at K during the fight scene near the end when she stabbed him and left him for dead in the sea?
I didn't hear her clearly, but I thought she said "now I'm the last one"?
What did she mean by that?

Tar.Aldarion

She said "I'm the best one", she has anxiety with being replaced by Wallace, especially if there are the newer models that can give birth, and it's become a fixation for her that she has to be the best.

Spon Farmer

I saw it last week.

The only thing I've been able to say to people about the film is "WOW!!!" :P

The music was new but still felt like it could have been in the original film. The sets, designs and VFX were glorious.

Joi wasn't just the actress standing in front of Gosling like one of the woeful Holodeck technology on Star Trek or the ghosts on Being Human. She was actually transparent. And when she melded with the prostitute they didn't take the lazy way out of just putting her in the other actress' place, they put the work to show both characters in the same body.

And when they got to San Diego, I actually shed a tear. I love The Force Awakens but Jakku being a desert is lame. Jakku should have looked just like Blade Runner's San Diego.

Does anyone know where in the real Los Angeles the fight scene between K and Luv takes place?

And what was the reason Joi gave for giving K the name Joe? I couldn't the dialogue for that.

I love that they still haven't confirmed whether Deckard is a human or a replicant.

mcgovern

I went to see it last night as well and loved it. It really was visually stunning. My wife wasn't such a fan though, she thought it was too long and bleak. She hadn't seen the original either though until a week ago and fell asleep during that so not really her type of film!

Spon Farmer

mcgovern wrote: »

I went to see it last night as well and loved it. It really was visually stunning. My wife wasn't such a fan though, she thought it was too long and bleak. She hadn't seen the original either though until a week ago and fell asleep during that so not really her type of film!

That reminds me of something I was curious about.

What do people who haven't seen the original film think of this one?

Does it work as a standalone film?

I can't tell because the original is a part of my childhood. :P

Spon Farmer

D3V!L wrote: »

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.

Pretty expensive and time consuming teaser trailer.

Spon Farmer

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.

I haven't seen Fury Road yet, but isn't it a reboot of the series and not sequel?

eviltimeban

Spon Farmer wrote: »

That reminds me of something I was curious about.

What do people who haven't seen the original film think of this one?

Does it work as a standalone film?

I can't tell because the original is a part of my childhood. :P

I'm aware of the original and have seen enough of it to know what it's like. I remember as a child when it came out I was disappointed that it wasn't Star Wars, which is what I expected as Harrison Ford was in it. :-)

However as an adult I haven't seen it from start to finish. And my report from BR2049 is that I loved it. I thought it was an amazing film.

I knew enough about the plot and characters of the previous film to know what was going on and realise the significance of certain parts of it though, so I'm not sure what it would be like for someone going in completely cold.

Tar.Aldarion

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I saw it last week.

The only thing I've been able to say to people about the film is "WOW!!!" :P

The music was new but still felt like it could have been in the original film. The sets, designs and VFX were glorious.

Joi wasn't just the actress standing in front of Gosling like one of the woeful Holodeck technology on Star Trek or the ghosts on Being Human. She was actually transparent. And when she melded with the prostitute they didn't take the lazy way out of just putting her in the other actress' place, they put the work to show both characters in the same body.

And when they got to San Diego, I actually shed a tear. I love The Force Awakens but Jakku being a desert is lame. Jakku should have looked just like Blade Runner's San Diego.

Does anyone know where in the real Los Angeles the fight scene between K and Luv takes place?

And what was the reason Joi gave for giving K the name Joe? I couldn't the dialogue for that.

I love that they still haven't confirmed whether Deckard is a human or a replicant.

Because she was telling him what he wanted to hear, he was more than just the registration number he was assigned at production, that he was special, fueling his fantasy. The particular name Joe was something he had an epiphany about later on when he was walking by the other hologram and she calls him "a real good Joe", that Joi was possibly just a reflection of his desires and hadn't cared for him at all.

After all their advertising says that she tells you everything you want to hear. Speaking to her and interacting every day would have made him feel different, that she loved or at least cared for him. You'll notice Joi actually got jealous, she always activated herself around other women (prostitute/Luv), never around men. It's left open ended as to her capabilities to feel or go off script, same as with everything. However I got the impression it haunted him from that scene with the giant hologram yet he still cared for her, it was part of his harrowing story.

A funny interaction i thought was the replicant prostitute looking down on the AI Joi, another form of artificial life. Telling her "I've been inside you, there’s not all that much there". It asks more questions like, well for all intents and purposes Joi does love him, even activating to help him when he is unconscious and well, aren't we all just biologically programmed to love, what's the difference? This film makes you ask a lot of questions and I love it.

Spon Farmer

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Because she was telling him what he wanted to hear, he was more than just the registration number he was assigned at production, that he was special, fueling his fantasy. The particular name Joe was something he had an epiphany about later on when he was walking by the other hologram and she calls him "a real good Joe", that Joi was possibly just a reflection of his desires and hadn't cared for him at all.

After all their advertising says that she tells you everything you want to hear. Speaking to her and interacting every day would have made him feel different, that she loved or at least cared for him. You'll notice Joi actually got jealous, she always activated herself around other women (prostitute/Luv), never around men. It's left open ended as to her capabilities to feel or go off script, same as with everything. However I got the impression it haunted him from that scene with the giant hologram yet he still cared for her, it was part of his harrowing story.

What I meant by "Joi's reason" was what did she say to K was the reason she she choose the name Joe.

Are you saying Joi said something like "giant Joi called you a real good Joe and I want to call you Joe"?

I was sure Joi mention "mother" and at least a part of K's number.

Tar.Aldarion

The giant Joi called him that only after his Joi had already done so, they call everybody that - it's in the background a few times during the film. To add to that point, she repeats the "hard day" line that she states when we're first introduced to their relationship. It was implicated that should the need for a nickname ever arise, all Joi's are programmed with a predisposition towards "Joe."

Some people like to think she chooses Joe ist because Joi = Jo + i.
It's all just theories on why she said Joe. It wasn't got to do with anything about mother or number, just that he was "special" and needed a name.

There is also a possible reference there to Joseph K (character in The Trial 1962), Another dystopian movie from the 60s. Joe Jones - MIT Researcher who designed robots to clean in the 80s.


In general: another theory about what happened when he saw that as was when K saw the Joi ad, it reminded him of his relationship that he shared between each Joi and himself, and realised that you can still express your humanity regardless of your nature, replicant or AI. Even though he was just informed that he was a replicant all along and that there wasn't supposed to be why humanity in him, I think it's precisely his relationship with her upon being reminded on seeing the ad, that he took the decision to save Deckard. Cause he understood and realised that your nature doesn't determine your humanity.

barrymanilow

Saw it last night and as a big fan of the Ridley Scot Film I was ready to be disappointed but it was just brilliant .

Questions ;

1.were those kids in the orphanage human kids or were they special Replicants designed as children so that there small hands could extract the metals from the waste?

2.The place where Deckard was living was a place hit by a dirty bomb according to the guy who checked out the wooden horse and a highly toxic location .Given that replicants are maybe not affected by radiation or whatever this explains k being able to visit but how was Deckard able to survive there ? The two guys who accompanied love when she attacked Deckards hideaway were wearing what seemed like respirators to be able to breathe there ?

3. How did love manage to get into an LA police station in 2049 and kill a coroner and then leave with a box of evidence only to return later on , get into the Top Policewomans office , kill her and then leave again without being challenged ,caught on camera or identified for who she was and tracked down .

I was also surprised that a replicant could be killed by drowning , I assumed they wouldn't need oxygen to live .

Film of the year in my book

eviltimeban

barrymanilow wrote: »

Questions ;

I was also surprised that a replicant could be killed by drowning , I assumed they wouldn't need oxygen to live.

I can only really comment on this one; they aren't robots. They have human body parts, they've just been constructed / grown and put together to form the replicant.

So they would have lungs, a heart, a brain, etc. And they would need oxygen. That's as far as I know about replicants, but Ridley Scott did make the distinction between a replicant and the android in "Alien" at that time.

barrymanilow

I am getting nerdy here but the reason I was suprised is that I assumed they were made to do the dirty jobs in off world colonies and being able to survive without oxygen / in hostile atmospheres was their whole purpose.

5rtytry56

Saw it last night.

So, "Joe"/K is given 48 hours to get lost.

..So he takes the opportunity to make love.

Right.

So Miss Psycho apparently drowns in the submerged car at the end.....no doubt she'll reappear in BR 3 sequel.

kerplun k

5rtytry56 wrote: »

Saw it last night.

So, "Joe"/K is given 48 hours to get lost.

..So he takes the opportunity to make love.

Right.

So Miss Psycho apparently drowns in the submerged car at the end.....no doubt she'll reappear in BR 3 sequel.

You think she’ll be still acting in 27 years?

5rtytry56

kerplun k wrote: »

You think she’ll be still acting in 27 years?

wut?

'rachel' in the current movie was convincing. Original actor not needed.
Just like there was no need for run run shaw in the new movie.

frivolous question really.

Spon Farmer

barrymanilow wrote: »

Saw it last night and as a big fan of the Ridley Scot Film I was ready to be disappointed but it was just brilliant .

Questions ;

1.were those kids in the orphanage human kids or were they special Replicants designed as children so that there small hands could extract the metals from the waste?

I never considered the children were anything but human. That was why Ana was put there, so as to pass for human.

Those kids do sometimes get adopted, like Ana was, and no-one would want a "skin-job child".

barrymanilow wrote: »

2.The place where Deckard was living was a place hit by a dirty bomb according to the guy who checked out the wooden horse and a highly toxic location .Given that replicants are maybe not affected by radiation or whatever this explains k being able to visit but how was Deckard able to survive there ? The two guys who accompanied love when she attacked Deckards hideaway were wearing what seemed like respirators to be able to breathe there ?

I thought at first this was confirmation that Deckard was a replicant, but Deckard is never shown outdoors nor is it discussed if he needs special gear to go out.

So either Deckard can live there because he is a replicant or the building is sufficient t protect a human.

barrymanilow wrote: »

3. How did love manage to get into an LA police station in 2049 and kill a coroner and then leave with a box of evidence only to return later on , get into the Top Policewomans office , kill her and then leave again without being challenged ,caught on camera or identified for who she was and tracked down .

Anybody can get into a police station.

Accessing the inner sections like the morgue and the chief's offices - Luv works for Wallace Corporation and they have great influence which opens many doors (literally and figuratively).

Not being caught on camera can be done in the real world now - hack and wipe - so I'd imagine in 2049 it is quite easy for Wallace Corporation.

barrymanilow wrote: »

I was also surprised that a replicant could be killed by drowning , I assumed they wouldn't need oxygen to live .

Replicants are biological

Spon Farmer

barrymanilow wrote: »

I am getting nerdy here but the reason I was suprised is that I assumed they were made to do the dirty jobs in off world colonies and being able to survive without oxygen / in hostile atmospheres was their whole purpose.

They are sent to do those dirty jobs because they aren't real people. They are a slave race with no rights.

They are stronger, faster and have more stamina than us and Luv took longer to drown than a human (I think) but they are still human like.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mrcheez

If you have a Rift get this to experience the world in VR

https://www.oculus.com/blog/blade-runner-2049-memory-lab-available-now-on-rift-and-gear-vr/

mrcheez

Anyone find it odd that you never see a replicant's machine internals?

They are androids, but you never see an exoskeleton, when they are killed.

barrymanilow

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I imagined that the bees were artificial (explaining how they could live in the radiation)as i assume there was nothing for them to harvest in the wasteland

eviltimeban

mrcheez wrote: »

Anyone find it odd that you never see a replicant's machine internals?

They are androids, but you never see an exoskeleton, when they are killed.

They aren't androids. They're not metal robots with skin on top, like the Terminator. They are biological beings, only their body parts were grown and put together.

Spon Farmer

mrcheez wrote: »

Anyone find it odd that you never see a replicant's machine internals?

They are androids, but you never see an exoskeleton, when they are killed.

I don't think replicants are ever referred to as androids and I don't know if they are both the same thing, but isn't an exoskeleton on the outside of a body?

And they aren't machines - they are biological robots - grown and programmed.

Spon Farmer

....... wrote: »

You do see him breathing the air when Wallaces people smash the windows and they catch him.

Am I misremembering or did the humans with Wallaces people arrive wearing gas masks but the replicants didnt?

But didnt K's radiation detector show that the levels were negligible outdoors just before he came across the bees? That they could survive outside too probably meant the radiation levels had died off.

To be honest I can't remember Wallace's goons wearing or not wearing breathing gear.

Do you mean you see Deckard actually inhaling or simply exposed to the outside air? Perhaps it is simply survivable for a few minutes?

I don't remember what K's readings were but you could be correct. After all, replicants are biological - radiation would surely affect them at some stage. What did the guy who scanned the wooden horse actually say?

.......

This post has been deleted.

mrcheez

eviltimeban wrote: »

They aren't androids. They're not metal robots with skin on top, like the Terminator. They are biological beings, only their body parts were grown and put together.

They are androids according to this wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

Also the story was inspired by Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep


The idea came up because I always assumed androids were mechanical but wiki says they can be "synthetic organisms", so I guess there's no need for the mechanical aspect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)

Spon Farmer

....... wrote: »

I thought that at first but apparently there were feeder trays attached to the hives so Deckard must have been feeding them.

I assumed they were genuine bees and it was a symbol that life finds a way, etc.

Spon Farmer

mrcheez wrote: »

They are androids according to this wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

Also the story was inspired by Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep


The idea came up because I always assumed androids were mechanical but wiki says they can be "synthetic organisms", so I guess there's no need for the mechanical aspect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)

I had forgot that the original story has Androids in the title :P

But aren't the replicants in that original story actually mechanical under a biological skin?

Anyway, the replicants in the movie have always been biological lifeforms.

On that point, are the human Cylins in the new Battlestar Galactica the same as replicants or are they like Terminators and hosts in Westworld (a machine in a human skin)?

I

eviltimeban

mrcheez wrote: »

They are androids according to this wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

Also the story was inspired by Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep


The idea came up because I always assumed androids were mechanical but wiki says they can be "synthetic organisms", so I guess there's no need for the mechanical aspect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)

In that same article, a replicant is "a genetically engineered creature composed entirely of organic substance." So no metal. Depends on your definition of what an "android" is.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mrcheez

Are there any good pre-order deals on the BluRay?

Is that whiskey glasses + BluRay still going?

furiousox

Available for pre-order on HMV for £40stg.

https://store.hmv.com/film-tv/4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray/blade-runner-2049

mrcheez

furiousox wrote: »

Available for pre-order on HMV for £40stg.

https://store.hmv.com/film-tv/4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray/blade-runner-2049

I don't have a 4K TV (yet) so imagine this UHD version will have a normal 1080p output as well?

I will inevitably get a 4K eventually so would be nice to have something to play on it then, but obviously want to be able to play the 1080p version now.

Also I assume it has 3D or do you need to get a "3D" version?

RasTa

Bombed in China anyway $7.6m opening weekend compared to geostorm with $33m.

It's at 223.5m but no chance of it hitting $250 let alone $300m

mrcheez

RasTa wrote: »

Bombed in China anyway $7.6m opening weekend compared to geostorm with $33m.

It's at 223.5m but no chance of it hitting $250 let alone $300m

at least it's over the production budget of 185 mill though

I haven't been following the thread but in one sentence what is the reason it bombed?

Too long and people don't "get" the story is that it?

Sad Professor

Theatres take half the box office returns so generally a film has to make twice its budget to turn a profit and that usually doesn’t count marketing costs which often costs as much as the budget. But I still think it made enough to eventually crawl its way to a profit on DVD/Blu-ray/streaming.

The reviews were good, fans like it and there were no production issues, so I think the marketing will be blamed for failing to appeal more to women and Chinese audiences and not revealing enough of the plot. There may also be a consensus that there’s no point going r-rated and losing the teenage boy audience unless it’s for good reason - lots of blood and nudity, which is basically the cable tv model.

Sephiral

Saw it a few weeks ago. It is better than the original and will become more and more well regarded with time.

mrcheez

Its certainly going to be the go-to BluRay for showing off TVs in 2018 as Avatar was for 3D TVs

barrymanilow

Question ;

How did Sapper Morten , the first android who was killed at the farm by K live well past his 4 year lifespan (he is obviously older than 4 as he was the one who delivered Dekkards daughter ), was he a Next Gen Nexus ?If so then why was he retired?

.......

This post has been deleted.