Blade Runner 2049 Spoilers from post 444

tiny timy · 27-12-2017 8:34pm

Just watched this for the first time. What a load of rubbish. Absolutely dire. Cannot see what people found so great about it. R.G was his usual stone faced boring self. It only got good when H.F showed up.

Very disappointing.

Mister Vain · 27-12-2017 8:37pm

tiny timy wrote: »

Just watched this for the first time. What a load of rubbish. Absolutely dire. Cannot see what people found so great about it. R.G was his usual stone faced boring self. It only got good when H.F showed up.

Very disappointing.

I agree with the Ryan Gosling thing. He never seems to express any emotion. Just the same blank look on his face.

mrcheez · 27-12-2017 8:38pm

tiny timy wrote: »

Just watched this for the first time. What a load of rubbish. Absolutely dire. Cannot see what people found so great about it. R.G was his usual stone faced boring self. It only got good when H.F showed up.

Very disappointing.

Cam ?

me_irl · 27-12-2017 8:48pm

tiny timy wrote: »

Just watched this for the first time. What a load of rubbish. Absolutely dire. Cannot see what people found so great about it. R.G was his usual stone faced boring self. It only got good when H.F showed up.

Very disappointing.

Just wondering did you know anything about this before going in? Are you a fan of the first?

I really liked it. But not saying you're wrong.

Mister Vain wrote: »

I agree with the Ryan Gosling thing. He never seems to express any emotion. Just the same blank look on his face.

I think in this case it works because he's a replicant.

tiny timy · 27-12-2017 9:07pm

me_irl wrote: »

Just wondering did you know anything about this before going in? Are you a fan of the first?

I really liked it. But not saying you're wrong.

I think in this case it works because he's a replicant.

Yes, loved the first one.

tiny timy · 27-12-2017 9:48pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Cam ?

Nope

Avatar MIA · 27-12-2017 9:58pm

tiny timy wrote: »

Nope

Same, watched HD online. It was okay.

Massive fan of the first, but that was ground breaking. HF was good as was RR, but the storyline was meh.

mrcheez · 27-12-2017 10:27pm

tiny timy wrote: »

Nope

It's still in cinemas??

Avatar MIA · 27-12-2017 10:55pm

mrcheez wrote: »

It's still in cinemas??

The answer to this is beyond the scope of this thread

tiny timy · 27-12-2017 10:55pm

mrcheez wrote: »

It's still in cinemas??

Don't know, all about where you look.

Relikk · 28-12-2017 1:11am

Saw it once in the cinema when it was released. The original (directors cut onwards) is one of my favourite ever films. I thought 2049 was good. Not great and nowhere near the originals level but, I also watched it again last night, for the first time since seeing it in the cinema and I absolutely LOVE this movie. It's gorgeous, sonically astounding and the performances are more than solid.

Hands down my favourite mainstream release this year.

OldRio · 28-12-2017 10:35am

tiny timy wrote: »

Just watched this for the first time. What a load of rubbish. Absolutely dire. Cannot see what people found so great about it. R.G was his usual stone faced boring self. It only got good when H.F showed up.

Very disappointing.

If you didn't see this in a Cinema you missed one of the most visually astonishing films ever made IMHO.
A dodgy stream is not the way to view this work of art.

mrcheez · 28-12-2017 11:09am

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The answer to this is beyond the scope of this thread

Right, so as the BluRay isn't released yet it's clear he must have seen a cam version. Which is clearly not the way to appreciate this visual feast work of art

Relikk · 28-12-2017 11:13am

mrcheez wrote: »

Right, so as the BluRay isn't released yet it's clear he must have seen a cam version. Which is clearly not the way to appreciate this visual feast work of art

Come on man, stop playing dumb. There are HD versions "out there" at the moment that seem to have been sourced from iTunes.

OldRio · 28-12-2017 11:19am

Dodgy stream with a HD 'branding'.

Cinema is the only way to go with this visual feast.

mrcheez · 28-12-2017 11:19am

Relikk wrote: »

Come on man, stop playing dumb. There are HD versions "out there" at the moment that seem to have been sourced from iTunes.

Ah right it's been released on iTunes on Dec 26th? Thought it was due for release around Blu Ray release date

Relikk · 28-12-2017 11:20am

OldRio wrote: »

Dodgy stream with a HD 'branding'.

Cinema is the only way to go with this visual feast.

Goes without saying. :pac:

mrcheez · 28-12-2017 11:22am

OldRio wrote: »

Dodgy stream with a HD 'branding'.

Cinema is the only way to go with this visual feast.

IMAX is the only way

Or PSVR in IMAX view

tiny timy · 28-12-2017 1:07pm

OldRio wrote: »

If you didn't see this in a Cinema you missed one of the most visually astonishing films ever made IMHO.
A dodgy stream is not the way to view this work of art.

Nothing dodgy with 1080p

OldRio · 28-12-2017 2:14pm

tiny timy wrote: »

Nothing dodgy with 1080p

So you didn't see it in the Cinema. That explains it.

emo72 · 28-12-2017 2:28pm

Even with a 65 inch 4k screen and high end surround sound, I don't think it would come close to a cinema experience.

tiny timy · 28-12-2017 2:38pm

Cinema or not, it's a rubbish film

me_irl · 28-12-2017 2:55pm

tiny timy wrote: »

Cinema or not, it's a rubbish film

...in your opinion!

mrcheez · 28-12-2017 3:08pm

me_irl wrote: »

...in your opinion!

I was going to respond "sez you!"

but I guess that works :P

Fysh · 28-12-2017 3:19pm

tiny timy wrote: »

Cinema or not, it's a rubbish film

Do you mean "it's a rubbish film" because you found the plot boring? Or because you thought the actors were bad? Or because of other things? On a different note, what were you hoping or expecting the film to be like?

I think it's over-long as a film, but I absolutely loved the visual spectacle of it (which you can't really get on a home viewing, legitimacy of source notwithstanding) and was very taken with the score as well (though I can't help suspect I'd have enjoyed Johan Johansson's score even more, as I really like his work). Like Dunkirk, I think it's a film that has more to offer in a cinema setting, so I can understand not enjoying it as much at home.

I think mainly the reason I (and probably others) am wondering what you didn't like about it is that, to me, BR2049 is very faithful to the feel and approach to film-making in the first film. So it would be interesting to hear what you didn't like about the sequel given that you liked the first.

Tony EH · 28-12-2017 4:12pm

Watched it last night.

Found it very good and quite in line with the first film (by first film, I mean the original). It's shot well, and everyone is on their game.

It expands brilliantly on 'Blade Runner' and opens out the story with very pleasing results I thought. Gosling was well cast and his "usual stone faced boring self" was Replicant perfect. And Ford didn't phone it in. Loved Sylvia Hoeks too.

If there's a criticism, I'm not sure that the Joi AI character works all that well and it's a bit too long. But, I wouldn't know where to cut it. It's never boring though and thankfully, it's a closed off story. There's no set up for a sequel. But, seeing as Sony is hungry for a franchise to milk, you can bet your ass someone is trying their best to get something going. It'll probably be to do with the Replicant underground. But, I've no real interest in seeing that. For me the story of Deckard is done and, also thankfully, I can still view him as a human as there's no clear indication that he was ever a Replicant in 'Blade Runner 2049' - which was my worst "fear" about this film.

mrcheez · 28-12-2017 4:38pm

Hmm I thought the fact that he could survive the wastelands was the evidence of replicant-ness?

Maybe I was wrong.

me_irl · 28-12-2017 5:32pm

Tony EH wrote: »

For me the story of Deckard is done and, also thankfully, I can still view him as a human as there's no clear indication that he was ever a Replicant in 'Blade Runner 2049' - which was my worst "fear" about this film.

Except for the line "We were being hunted." when talking to K/Joe. I thought that was admittance to being a Replicant.

mrcheez wrote: »

Hmm I thought the fact that he could survive the wastelands was the evidence of replicant-ness?

Maybe I was wrong.

His "drone" reads No Radiation when K/Joe requests it.

Thought this was a clever copy of the photo analysis scene from the first.

28-12-2017 5:42pm

I feel like people who absolutely adore the original, don't like this one at all

Tony EH · 28-12-2017 5:46pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Hmm I thought the fact that he could survive the wastelands was the evidence of replicant-ness?

Maybe I was wrong.

As me_IRL said, there's no radiation in the Las Vegas wasteland. So he's grand.

Fysh · 28-12-2017 5:47pm

me_irl wrote: »

Except for the line "We were being hunted." when talking to K/Joe. I thought that was admittance to being a Replicant.

It's a neatly ambiguous line, in that the "we" could mean "the group I was part of" or "we, the replicants I had banded together with". Overall, barring the bit with Niander's theory about Deckard being engineered to fall for Rachael, I thought Villeneuve did a good job of acknowledging the ambiguity about whether Deckard is a replicant without answering the question either way.

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel like people who absolutely adore the original, don't like this one at all

None of the people I know IRL who have any goodwill to the original have had problems with the new one, bar some feeling that it's too long. (Which isn't all that many people, to be fair, but outside of comments on the internet - and not a great many of them, at that - I haven't encountered anyone who loves the first but hated the second.)

Tony EH · 28-12-2017 6:00pm

me_irl wrote: »

Except for the line "We were being hunted." when talking to K/Joe. I thought that was admittance to being a Replicant.

Aye, but they're hunting Ford for different reasons. You can take it whatever way you want I guess, which was very smart of Villeneuve to do.

There's another line from Ford, where he says "I know what's real". I took that as a clever nod to Ford's insistence that Deckard was always a human and he played him as a human, despite Scott's clumsy (and completely unnecessary) retrofitting of Deckard is a Replicant to the original film.

But that scene with Leto (who got some flak for his role, I don't know why?) is very slyly handled. If you want Deckard to be "designed" as a Replicant, you can have it. If you prefer him as a human, then that's there too.

28-12-2017 6:04pm

Fysh wrote: »

It's a neatly ambiguous line, in that the "we" could mean "the group I was part of" or "we, the replicants I had banded together with". Overall, barring the bit with Niander's theory about Deckard being engineered to fall for Rachael, I thought Villeneuve did a good job of acknowledging the ambiguity about whether Deckard is a replicant without answering the question either way.

None of the people I know IRL who have any goodwill to the original have had problems with the new one, bar some feeling that it's too long. (Which isn't all that many people, to be fair, but outside of comments on the internet - and not a great many of them, at that - I haven't encountered anyone who loves the first but hated the second.)

There's tons of people in this thread

mrcheez · 28-12-2017 6:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel like people who absolutely adore the original, don't like this one at all

Sez you!

(Finally got to use it after all)

me_irl · 28-12-2017 6:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel like people who absolutely adore the original, don't like this one at all

When I saw 2049 in the cinema I left a bit jaded... Mostly due to the kip I saw it in. But on a re-watch I was blown away (mainly due to the fact the quality was actually much better than the cinema).

So, now I'm a huge fan of both!

The themes, imagery and motivations of characters stayed with me long after. That's my mark of an enjoyable movie.

OldRio · 28-12-2017 6:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel like people who absolutely adore the original, don't like this one at all

Well I'm someone who adored the first and loved this one. Therefore you are incorrect.

alchemist33 · 28-12-2017 7:27pm

Gonna keep this simple...

It's a magnificent film.

Wibbs · 28-12-2017 8:36pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel like people who absolutely adore the original, don't like this one at all

I love the original and TBH I liked this one too. I wasn't disappointed or pining for the past, or asking WTF have they done with the story. The original was of the moment, lightning in a bottle and the same can't happen today, but this sequel didn't hurt the original and added to it. Though like others I found it a bit long and maybe in need of a little trimming, but where to trim. That's not so easy a decision.

nix · 28-12-2017 8:45pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Though like others I found it a bit long and maybe in need of a little trimming, but where to trim. That's not so easy a decision.

heh, what we saw was the trimmed finish :P

When he originally slapped it all together it was pushing near 4 hours, he even thought about splitting it into 2 films but decided to polish it down to what he released in the end.

Fysh · 29-12-2017 12:10am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's tons of people in this thread

Fair enough. On the other hand, picking purely people I know IRL, me, and my OH, and my brother, and at least 2 people I work with are all big fans of Blade Runner and we all thought that 2049 was at least very good.

So...some people who love the original really dislike the new one? Well, ok. I'm not sure that adds anything to the discussion, tbh. I'm certainly not personally prepared to say "well, X number of randoms on the internet (who may or may not be sockpuppet accounts for a significantly smaller number of actual humans) thought it was bad so I'll ignore what I personally felt and thought about the film in pursuit of some sort of idealised concensus opinion". Diversity of opinion and interpretation is what makes talking about films interesting, IMO ðŸ™‚

Thargor · 29-12-2017 3:30am

My God they create this stunning audio and visual world and then they p1ss it away on that boring plot, such a letdown story-wise, when I saw the running time 2 hours in I was still wondering what the twist would be but then its revealed and you're left thinking who cares? Literally the most boring irrelevant character that got one scene an hour ago is the whole point of it?

pixelburp · 03-01-2018 11:11am

So have CGI recreations finally broken the Uncanny Valley? At the time in the cinema I honestly just thought the scene with Rachel involved a similar actress altered slightly with CGI, but nope: they recreated the entire head using scans from the '82 film & of Sean Young's head. Incredible stuff (especially when compared with a similar approach to the 'Peter Cushing' used in Rogue One that yielded mixed results) and the video includes some test footage where they replaced scenes in the '82 film with their CGI variant:

https://vimeo.com/249369342

gmisk · 03-01-2018 11:12am

pixelburp wrote: »

So have CGI recreations finally broken the Uncanny Valley? At the time in the cinema I honestly just thought the scene with Rachel involved a similar actress altered slightly with CGI, but nope: they recreated the entire head using scans from the '82 film & of Sean Young's head. Incredible stuff (especially when compared with a similar approach to the 'Peter Cushing' used in Rogue One that yielded mixed results):

https://vimeo.com/249369342

I still thought it was fairly obvious in Blade Runner 2049...but definitely an improvement over Rogue One alright

pixelburp · 03-01-2018 11:33am

gmisk wrote: »

I still thought it was fairly obvious in Blade Runner 2049...but definitely an improvement over Rogue One alright

I don't think it was obvious the whole head was a CGI prop though; yes it felt pretty suspect that some CGI was being used, but the fair assumption was that a lookalike had been airbrushed to better resemble - not a whole head-swap.

johnny_ultimate · 03-01-2018 11:51am

It definitely took me on a trip to the valley, but as I think I suggested earlier I’d be more willing to let that slide than usual as the scene is meant to be sort of hyperreal and strange for Deckard.

Tony EH · 03-01-2018 6:06pm

gmisk wrote: »

I still thought it was fairly obvious in Blade Runner 2049...but definitely an improvement over Rogue One alright

It will ALWAYS be obvious in situations like the ones above. Because our minds KNOW that Sean Young doesn't look like she did in 1982. We KNOW that Peter Cushing is dead and couldn't possibly be in a film made in 2015.

But, while the producers of 'Rogue One' got a little too proud with their Tarkin, I think the CGI for Rachel was terribly good and if nobody actually knew who the actress was, the "uncanny valley" thing probably wouldn't happen.

....... · 03-01-2018 6:09pm

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail · 04-01-2018 10:43am

I thought they had just reused some footage from the original as well.

conorhal · 04-01-2018 11:56am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It definitely took me on a trip to the valley, but as I think I suggested earlier I’d be more willing to let that slide than usual as the scene is meant to be sort of hyperreal and strange for Deckard.

I still thought the CGI was quite noticiable, partly due to a dip into the uncanny valley, and perhaps in part because I 'knew' that what they were doing could only be achieved one way. It would be intresting to know if people seeing the film who didn't know the original, or know Sean Young doesn't look like that today, were completely taken in or not.
Either way it didn't matter to me, there we the inevitable momentary distraction of 'WTF, it's CGI Rachel!?!' but since the character's unexpected appearance was supposed to ilicit a 'holy crap, it's Rachel' anyway, it entirely works.
I haven't seen it since the cinema so I might be wrong here, but I think they also rather wisely made good use of shadow and doubles and limited the amount of dialogue the character spoke directly to the screen. It's always the biggest givaway. While a static CGI character can be very convincing, the plunge into the uncanny valley gets very steep as soon as they begin to speak. I think a lot of her dialogue is delivered in over her shoulder shots from behind or in shadow.

conorhal · 04-01-2018 12:41pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Watched it last night.

Found it very good and quite in line with the first film (by first film, I mean the original). It's shot well, and everyone is on their game.

It expands brilliantly on 'Blade Runner' and opens out the story with very pleasing results I thought. Gosling was well cast and his "usual stone faced boring self" was Replicant perfect. And Ford didn't phone it in. Loved Sylvia Hoeks too.

If there's a criticism, I'm not sure that the Joi AI character works all that well and it's a bit too long. But, I wouldn't know where to cut it. It's never boring though and thankfully, it's a closed off story. There's no set up for a sequel. But, seeing as Sony is hungry for a franchise to milk, you can bet your ass someone is trying their best to get something going. It'll probably be to do with the Replicant underground. But, I've no real interest in seeing that. For me the story of Deckard is done and, also thankfully, I can still view him as a human as there's no clear indication that he was ever a Replicant in 'Blade Runner 2049' - which was my worst "fear" about this film.

I'd agree with that assessment, 2049 is a flawed film in my book but still manages to be a damn good one, the original if we're honest about it has many flaws too. 2049 suffers some of the same flaws, largely around the muddy nature of the replicants, while other flaws that the original has, 2049 does much to improve upon, such as the fact that Deckard is a detective that does little or no detecting.
The 'replicant underground' sequel bating was an annoying misstep as far as I was concerned and shone a light on the worst aspect of the film, the half baked and underwritten nature and reasons for the existance of replicants and their status in society, which is at best muddy and at worst often contradictory.

Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

Comments

Blade Runner 2049 Spoilers from post 444