Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

Tony EH

Jfrost wrote: »

He wasn't killing Terell without remorse he was killing his creator, his God.... As has a lot of people, without remorse.
He is just 4 years old..... Tell is how 4 year olds act they lash out, sometimes without thought of those consequences.
And wasn't he (Roy) the only one other morn Leon Z (forgotten her name) and Pris.
We morn those we love, sympathise for those we know and read headlines for strangers.... How are we different

Yes, but it's fake remorse. He's trying to act remorseful. If you look closely, it's all wrong, because he doesn't actually have those feelings.

Plus, replicants are "born" fully formed. They are not like children. But they're given a four year life span because humans worry that they will become too intelligent. So, they learn quickly. Roy is not a 4 year old in the sense of human development. He is, at that stage, a fully formed 30 something year old "man".

Roy is an android. He's not acting in a human way when he's killing Tyrell, who may be his creator/god, but is also a man and yes he kills him without remorse or pity, because he is incapable of feeling those emotions.

We can certainly have an amount of sympathy with Roy and the rest of the replicant's plight. But they are not "heroes" in any sense of the word.

Jfrost

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, but it's fake remorse. He's trying to act remorseful. If you look closely, it's all wrong, because he doesn't actually have those feelings.

Plus, replicants are "born" fully formed. They are not like children. But they're given a four year life span because humans worry that they will become too intelligent. So, they learn quickly. Roy is not a 4 year old in the sense of human development. He is, at that stage, a fully formed 30 something year old "man".

Roy is an android. He's not acting in a human way when he's killing Tyrell, who may be his creator/god, but is also a man and yes he kills him without remorse or pity, because he is incapable of feeling those emotions.

We can certainly have an amount of sympathy with Roy and the rest of the replicant's plight. But they are not "heroes" in any sense of the word.

It isnt fake... Watch a kid get terrible news.... They are only developing the abilities to deal with overpowering emotions like that.
Roy is only 4.....kids emotions jump and are very ott, like Roy's

CatInABox

There's a still going around the movie which is absolutely hilarious, it depicts a fight scene gone slightly wrong, and an actual punch landing rather than a fake punch. I'm not sure if you could class it as a spoiler (I don't think it is), but I'll err on the side of caution and treat it as such.

If anyone wants to see it, copy pasta this into the address:

https://twitter.com/GolazoDan/status/914094843277783040

Useful.Idiot

yeah they showed it on the Graham Norton show with Ford and Gosling both on the show. hilarious

mrcheez

Booking in to see the first showing of this at 1pm. Time to call a sickie

peteeeed

yep tomorrow 1:30 IMAX for me

branie2

I'm seeing it on Friday evening

Useful.Idiot

Saturday afternoon. Seems too far away

Tar.Aldarion

Tomorrow night for me, can't wait! May watch the first tonight.

Skerries

5pm IMAX for me

Conall Cernach

One thing that's always bugged me about Bladerunner is how come the only way to tell replicants apart from humans is to use some psychological test? Why not a DNA test?

alchemist33

Bloody ******ing stupid reviewer in 2fm gave away a huge spoiler this evening. He passed it off by saying its revealed very early but it was still something I hadn't heard before.

Serves me right for listening to 2fm. Back to the relative intelligence of Talksport for me now.

Technocentral

Seen preview of it Monday in Cineworld in 2D IMAX, loved it, it's a very small story on a huge canvas, the masses and blockbuster crowd will hate it, it's smart, beautiful looking hard sci fi.

Beechwoodspark

Conall Cernach wrote: »

One thing that's always bugged me about Bladerunner is how come the only way to tell replicants apart from humans is to use some psychological test? Why not a DNA test?

Good question. I wonder was DNA testing known about when dick wrote the original novel and also when the movie was filmed in 81.

mrcheez

Conall Cernach wrote: »

One thing that's always bugged me about Bladerunner is how come the only way to tell replicants apart from humans is to use some psychological test? Why not a DNA test?

DNA tests take time, whereas the VK test could be done in a matter of minutes. Less risk of the subject running off into the sunset while the lab waits to get back with results.

Also cheaper if they need to run it many times on the fly

2smiggy

I'll go to see it tonight, before I listen to movies and booze on the Sean Moncrieff show. The woman that does the movie reviews loves to give away the plot/spoilers of films. Not sure if trolling or just half simple

mrcheez

Should hopefully have my pick of the seats at the 1pm showing (plus you get a free poster apparently).

I'll probably go for the IMAX one after, just easier for me to get to Odeon today.

mrcheez

Pretty superb I gotta say. Complements first film perfectly expanding on the story with cues from moments in the original.
The cinematography makes me consider the IMAX for the next showing.

peteeeed

Mind blowing , pure science fiction , don’t know what else to say after that saw it in IMAX

Sad Professor

Sadly my screening was marred by a blown speaker and Vue's generally below par presentation these days, but I was very impressed. Very worthy sequel.

emo72

Sad Professor wrote: »

Sadly my screening was marred by a blown speaker and Vue's generally below par presentation these days, but I was very impressed. Very worthy sequel.

Interstellar was ruined for me in Vue. Don't tell me it's Liffey valley.

Sad Professor

emo72 wrote: »

Interstellar was ruined for me in Vue. Don't tell me it's Liffey valley.

Yeah Liffey Valley. I experienced similar issues when I saw Interstellar there as well. I already have a list of their bad screens which I avoid but it’s becoming a joke. I think I’m done with them after this.

emo72

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah Liffey Valley. I experienced similar issues when I saw Interstellar there as well. I already have a list of their bad screens which I avoid but it’s becoming a joke. I think I’m done with them after this.

That's an absolute joke. The money they charge for seats too. I'll get my money back if its sub par.

Telecaster58

emo72 wrote: »

That's an absolute joke. The money they charge for seats too. I'll get my money back if its sub par.

I was there a couple of weeks back and the ads had no sound. Had to go out to one of the staff to get it fixed

Falthyron

Telecaster58 wrote: »

I was there a couple of weeks back and the ads had no sound. Had to go out to one of the staff to get it fixed

Sounds like a blessing... :pac:

Trimm Trabb

is it worth watching the original before going to this?

Started last night and watched 30 mins but girlfriend not to keen on watching the rest before going to the cinema this weekend.

mrcheez

Trimm Trabb wrote: »

is it worth watching the original before going to this?

Started last night and watched 30 mins but girlfriend not to keen on watching the rest before going to the cinema this weekend.

Yeah pretty compulsory. Understanding original plot will help a lot as a lot of throwback references that are key to this story.

Make sure its the 2007 version you are watching (or at least not the 1982 version with the monologue)

Skerries

peteeeed wrote: »

Mind blowing , pure science fiction , don’t know what else to say after that saw it in IMAX

watching that in the IMAX was the best €20 I've spent in a while
this is a film that HAS to be seen there, the cinematography just blows your breath away

ohnonotgmail

Seen this today and thoroughly enjoyed. Did anybody find that some parts of the dialogue were hard to make out?

fryup

is it necessary to have a sequel to an all-time classic??

Trimm Trabb

mrcheez wrote: »

Yeah pretty compulsory. Understanding original plot will help a lot as a lot of throwback references that are key to this story.

Make sure its the 2007 version you are watching (or at least not the 1982 version with the monologue)

We started watching the 1982 one, this is the wrong one to watch?

What the 2007 one?

Tony EH

mrcheez wrote: »

Pretty superb I gotta say. Complements first film perfectly expanding on the story with cues from moments in the original.
The cinematography makes me consider the IMAX for the next showing.

There's one thing I want to know.

Is Deckard a replicant?

Sad Professor

Trimm Trabb wrote: »

We started watching the 1982 one, this is the wrong one to watch?

What the 2007 one?

There's 3 versions of the film:
- theatrical cut
- director's cut
- final cut (which was released in 2007)

The latter is the one you should one watch, but the director's cut is fine too – there's not much difference.

johnnyskeleton

I'm really not trying to be one of those edgy controversy merchants, but I was really underwhelmed by it. I thought a lot of the dragged out scenes were lacking in suspense and the characters were underdeveloped. The jarring synths and other loud noises were uncomfortable to listen to and I think I'm just a bit too CGI'ed out but I found the whole thing a lot less visually appealing that the original, and like all of these recent remakes/delayed sequels, they are too self reverential.

Dots1982

Trimm Trabb wrote: »

We started watching the 1982 one, this is the wrong one to watch?

What the 2007 one?

It’s the cut of the movie not different movies.

Did the version have a narration from Harrison Ford?

Yes - stop watching
No - keep watching

ciaradx

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm really not trying to be one of those edgy controversy merchants, but I was really underwhelmed by it. I thought a lot of the dragged out scenes were lacking in suspense and the characters were underdeveloped. The jarring synths and other loud noises were uncomfortable to listen to and I think I'm just a bit too CGI'ed out but I found the whole thing a lot less visually appealing that the original, and like all of these recent remakes/delayed sequels, they are too self reverential.

I saw it tonight and was really underwhelmed too. It was just too long, too drawn out and I was honestly bored. The cgi was fantastic but added nothing to it. I'm disappointed because I love the original. My boyfriend wasn't too impressed either and he was so excited for it.

Tony EH

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm really not trying to be one of those edgy controversy merchants, but I was really underwhelmed by it. I thought a lot of the dragged out scenes were lacking in suspense and the characters were underdeveloped. The jarring synths and other loud noises were uncomfortable to listen to and I think I'm just a bit too CGI'ed out but I found the whole thing a lot less visually appealing that the original, and like all of these recent remakes/delayed sequels, they are too self reverential.

ciaradx wrote: »

I saw it tonight and was really underwhelmed too. It was just too long, too drawn out and I was honestly bored. The cgi was fantastic but added nothing to it. I'm disappointed because I love the original. My boyfriend wasn't too impressed either and he was so excited for it.

That sounds really bad lads.

Dots1982

Yeah I thought it was overlong and missed a villain like Rutger Hauer. i think the directing and acting was good. The editing badly needed tightening up.

I still think the premise of the original movie is one of the greatest of any movie I’ve ever seen. This movie built on it by exploring deep deep themes.

emo72

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm really not trying to be one of those edgy controversy merchants, but I was really underwhelmed by it. I thought a lot of the dragged out scenes were lacking in suspense and the characters were underdeveloped. The jarring synths and other loud noises were uncomfortable to listen to and I think I'm just a bit too CGI'ed out but I found the whole thing a lot less visually appealing that the original, and like all of these recent remakes/delayed sequels, they are too self reverential.

seen it tonight too. luckily the screen and sound was perfect. yeah some of the dialogue was hard to follow. i enjoyed the synths though. i guess the soundtrack was a rush job due to johannson been dumped. his soundtracks are very minimalist anyway, and he probably couldnt do the lush synth sounds required. it will be interesting to see if he ever releases it. its gas how cursed that soundtrack is, with vangelis holding his back for years. i had to make do with that awful "new american orchestra" score. still have it on vinyl! probably over 15 years later it was released!

the movie was grand. like the original the pacing was slow. again it was a massive flop when it came out. the acting was good and probably luv was the best character. nice twist at the end that i didnt see coming.

well regards the cgi and the landscape, we are all jaded by it, we've seen it a million times and blade runner was the first, that inspired everything that followed. its too soon to look at it objectively though, i'll have to give it weeks! oh yeah, my wife asked me to put in this edit...she thought it sucks!

starvin

I have to say, I was totally underwhelmed by the whole thing. I thought the CGI was very intrusive and completely unnecessary for the story. The run time is about half an hour to 45 minutes too long. While I liked the idea of the plot, it was played out so badly, I felt it wasn’t worth the effort. It really hasn’t got the soul of the original, which is one of my top 10 movies.

Tar.Aldarion

We loved it, my friend said it was the first time she felt like she saw a classic as it happened.

We are going back to see it in Imax and never go to see things again. The drawn out scenes people complain about we loved, felt like you were more in the film, in the moment.

Mr E

Loved it.

Too long though. I'm in no rush to see it again.

Slydice

Saw it in 3D on the IMAX. It's really good.

It has a decent amount of 3D and the sound system in the IMAX worked well with it.
The soundtrack was really really good. There's no end credits scene but the music right to the end is great.

Decent performances all round.

I don't think the three prequels have any spoilers. I felt they enhanced the film experience for me.
In the order they came out:
1. "2036: Nexus Dawn":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ
2. "2048: Nowhere to Run":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9Os8cP_gg
3. "Black Out 2022":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrZk9sSgRyQ

The film:
-

had a good look and feel, like a decent combo of old blade runner and a more modern feel

-

it felt like the time flew by even though it was 3 hours.

-

the feels when she stamped out the AI!

-

the feels when he found out he wasn't the kid!

-

how freaking scary did the replicant come across when killing Robin Wright, the roars of her!

:eek:
-

In the end though. Like right at the end. I felt.. kinda at ease, like all peaceful like. I'm still thinking around why.

Asus X540L

Started watching the final cut cause I'm seeing 2049 tomorrow. Man it sucks arse.

Colours are terrible, shocking editing.

Director cut is infinitely better

Shred

I'm someone who's never really got the reverence the first one has, when I first saw it (probably mid to late eighties) it bored me ****less tbh but I was probably just too young. I've seen it maybe 4 times since (including two nights ago) and it is a film I do like but it wouldn't be in my top twenty or anything, although I would imagine seeing on the big screen at the time was probably pretty mind blowing.
However, I loved the new one and will definitely be going again. What a stunning looking movie and personally the plot kept me gripped throughout, I didn't really feel the time going in. The soundtrack is absolutely incredible too btw (that dodgy speaker in Vue aside); I've had it on repeat since. 8/10 (this might become a 9 when I see it again).

homerun_homer

I got to see this in Cineworld IMAX last night, it looks amazing and the sound was great in that screen, particularly the soundtrack. I enjoyed the film but it feels very long. It doesn't zip past yet I was never truly bored, but I imagine because of the length it will make repeat watching a bit of a slog. There's necessary long, and there is "it could have been trimmed" long and this falls in the latter category.

Story wise I felt it was quite a small and not as complex a story as I'd anticipated, given all the NDA's and how little the actors and reviewers will comment on the story. I was on the right path in guessing what was going on ahead of seeing it, I believed that

the bones would be of a replicant baby as opposed to pregnant mother and that would trigger a cover up/rivalry with Leto's crowd for power in some way.

The cinematography is amazing, I don't know what people are giving out about CGI in the movie as I felt the effects throughout were used brilliantly. I saw it in 3D mind you so unless it feels off in 2D then I can't say.

The seduction scene with the pleasure bot and the AI was expertly done and the kind of thing Spike Jonze's Her would dream of doing.

Thankfully Jared Leto is sparingly used and I felt

his character goes nowhere for a finish.

His assistant/assassin was a cool character but I would have liked to have got more out of her

given her comments to Robin Wright as she was about to kill her. It seemed like there was more to her but not shown or expanded on.

By the time Deckard shows up it felt like I'd have watched the original in that space of time. Harrison is great and doesn't phone it in. If anything I wish there was more of him in it given how good he was.

It bugged me how restaint (pardon the pun) he was when the car was getting flooded as K &
assassin bot fought. It wasn't until it was getting a bit too late that he tried to break from his shackles.

I really liked Ryan Gosling as K. He does that quiet and simple guy very well, and though I feel like you get more from his character than Deckard in the original, I still felt like I wanted more to make a more emotional connection as the film draws on.

It felt like it was too obvious for him to be the son of Deckard/Rachael and he'd be too old which had me cast doubts throughout, which takes away from the later reveal that he's not the son.

Speaking of the true heir to Deckard/Rachel, I knew something was up with that woman who creates the memories. Once it establishes that it's a daughter and not a son, I immediately knew it was her because of her reaction to K's memory. It felt too odd for it to be a standalone scene,
and again it felt like more backstory would have served it better.

The film's biggest let down I think is the result of a flaw in the original.

That is the chemistry and relationship of Deckard and Rachael.
Call that Harrison Ford and Sean Young not liking each other, or bad script,
or how it was a bit rapey for the romance factor. Given this film relies on Harrison to display his emotions when he thinks back to her, it falls a bit flat because you remember it wasn't that fantastic to begin with. That is unfortunate because if it was a great onscreen relationship then this film would have hit me in the feels 100%. As it is I just have to pretend that it was better than it was.

Overall, it was good, I hopefully will love it more over time. It's a small enough story made to epic scale. A lot of the fanfare of it being a masterpiece sort of overhyped it for me though no one has overhyped the visuals. It further cements Denis Villeneuve as a modern master of cinema.

restive

Is it worth seeing in 3D?

peteeeed

restive wrote: »

Is it worth seeing in 3D?

i would say yes

kerplun k

Before seeing it, I think the film had has so many things going against it, I mean its produced by Sony, Ridley Scott has been on somewhat of a downward spiral, You'd think at this point, Harrison Ford is just in it for the paycheck and I want to punch Ryan Gosling in his perfectly placed smug head, plus, your trying to do a sequel to one of the greatest Si-fi films of all time and not f**k it up, but somehow, somehow... it manages to overcome all off this, and produce a remarkable film which is nothing short of spectacular. It feels like a big budget blockbuster movie with an independent vibe, and is paced similar to an old Rian Johnson indie movie called Brick, it takes its time with long beautiful shots, never pandering to modern audiences need for instant gratification with cheap exposition and quick payoffs. It does things on its own terms, takes its own time, and tells the story the way it should be told. Some of the shots just blew me away. On several occasions, I just thought, WOW, you could literally take several shots from this movie, and you have these wonderful images which could be framed, made into posters, and put into photography galleries, all of this is perfectly blended with this wonderful score, and great sound effects. I keep trying to hate Gosling, but you can't deny he's good at basically everything he does, and again, he's excellent in this film, as is Ford, Ana de Armas, Leto and all other cast.

I'm not sure if you can tell from this post, but I really, really, loved this. I don't look at trailers, and no longer read professional reviews, so I don't know what kind of reception this is getting. A Quick look at this forum suggests it's mixed, but I would completely recommend it, and urge people to watch on a big screen in the cinema.

mrcheez

‎Denis Villeneuve actually said that he expected it to fail; to be an impossible task to stand up against a movie like Blade Runner.

So once he accepted that, he said it was far easier to work on the flick.

I guess when you don't have such grandiose precedent weighing on you, you get the creative freedom to create something magical.