Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

Skerries

mrcheez wrote: »

Yeah the part where Deckard learned about the 4 year lifespan of replicants (obviously for the audience's benefit) bothered me at first, then I recalled he was "retired" and probably not familiar with the newer models only the older models that had no short lifespan

of which Deckard is himself

there is a theory which I buy into if we are believed that Deckard is a replicant that due to Gaff's injury as the top Blade Runner that his memories where put into Deckard and that is why Gaff says thing like he did a mans job

Skerries

brevity wrote: »

I want the coat that Ryan Gosling wore.

here is a decent one

here is a middling one

and here is a meh one

Tar.Aldarion

No stripes at the back, unwearable

murpho999

fryup wrote: »

Granted Ryan Gosling has got a pretty face....but ...he can't act.....even 70 odd yr old Harrison Ford shows him up

This is totally untrue. Look at his earlier work such as Lars and the Real Girl or My Blue Valentine.

He’s a quality actor and not just a pretty boy.

murpho999

mrcheez wrote: »

I take it all the IMAX showings are 3D right?

Glasses included or should I bring my own RealD3D pair?

IMAX provides their own glasses a small Real 3D glasses don’t work with IMAX

Rgb.ie

Seen this last night - definitely a film that must be seen in the cinema - quality atmosphere, great visuals and stunning camera work.

Gonna watch the original again tonight

johnny_ultimate

An assured, finely crafted sequel that at the same time is constricted by its self-imposed frigidness.

It certainly looks the part, and in a way that impressively does not merely feel derivative of its predecessor. This feels painted on a grander canvas, and while the film does lack (and sometimes suffers as a result) the 'on the ground' noir vibe of the original, some of the wide angle, zoomed out cityscapes and ruinscapes are stunningly vast things - like the great visual sci-fi of something like Blame!. The relentless rain feels as imposing as rain has ever felt in a film, and the snow both serene and ominous. The world building can go too far on occasion - the frequent 'giant naked women monuments & ads' motif goes way too far, for example, simply drawing attention to its contrived nature rather than enhancing the world's believability or any of the plot's nuances. That said, having been lucky enough to see it on a proper IMAX screen (albeit in digital rather than 70mm), the visual trip is worth the cost of entry and then some.

It's the plot, of course, where the film struggles most. It's uneasy in its own skin, with plenty of interesting ideas tied to a frustratingly conventional but also largely uninteresting tale. Individual action or suspense sequences are crafted with great care and are occasionally engrossing, but there's a lack of urgency and drama in the grand scheme of things. Lots happens in the film, but it rarely does so in a particularly interesting way - I wouldn't consider it a particularly slow film (although by modern Hollywood standards it's Tarkofsky-esque), just a laboured one. It dwells on atmosphere and build-up, but rarely delivers unexpected or even particularly interesting pay-offs. In some ways (and I know this is in some ways THE series about robot identity), it's as if there's a more fascinating story lurking in the background - details of this aggressively corporate, sexualised, ruined society are welcome bits of futuristic background colour, but also could surely be expanded and explored - the landscapes are more interesting than what the film has to say.

2049 is self-consciously cold for reasons that are deeply embedded into the film's narrative & even visual identity - but it also hardly makes for a compelling mystery, with plot points instead delivered with bland efficiency and many characters merely there to, ahem, mechanically dispense story developments. My experience was slightly tainted by having recently seen Columbus, an extremely talky film that nevertheless brilliantly ties its formal approach directly into what the characters are saying and feeling at any given time. 2049's long stretches of exposition and backstory could have done with more imagination and, well, life in how they were delivered - especially when it, on the whole, is one of the more eerily beautiful and thoughtfully constructed to be produced by a major studio in a decade or two.

A despondent replicant is the role Ryan Gosling was born to play: not sure if that's a good thing or not :pac:

The soundtrack is weak sauce: Hans Zimmer's typically overpowering percussion and bass feeling like the afterthought it apparently is, and a bland variation on the sorts of score both he and Johannson have put out in recent years. Even with another composer collaborating and odd bursts of 80s synth, it's an inert soundtrack that overvalues mere loud noise.

All that said, it's still a stronger sequel than many could have possibly hoped. The futurescapes are evocative, the direction generally accomplished (

the final brawl is a hell of a scene

), and the whole thing is a reasonably pleasing extension to the original without feeling beholden to it. What is lacking is a real spark, and storytelling to match some of the exquisite world-building. It, despite some impressive artistry, also manages to come across as somewhat robotic.

Sad Professor

Re: the score, I found it a bit overwhelming in the context of the film, but listening to it since I think it's very strong and gets the balance right. Zimmer was involved since July so it wasn't exactly a rush job.

alchemist33

I found the music completely underwhelming and unmemorable - goin to bed I had the end theme of the original in my head (although I have listened to that soundtrack a thousand times).

I'd take 0.5 off for that but still give it a 9.5. I thought it was brilliant, with a far more engaging plot than the original. It constantly asked questions and I didn't notice the time going by.

mrcheez

Mark Kemode's review succinctly describes how I felt about it. Can't wait for the second viewing in IMAX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8OIbWEHQM

lolo62

Ok just about to book tickets. The boyfriend is a nutjob blade runner fan and I'm a recent recruit.
Can anyone recommend which format to see it in? We're booking Blanchardstown Odeon and there's 'isense' 2d or 3d....normally I'm not a 3d fan as have had bad experiences with films being too dark, glasses over framing the view etc but if it's really worth it will go for that
Isense sounds great but I think it's just a bigger screen?
Any help appreciated!

Tar.Aldarion

Possible minor spoilers, don't read this post.

While I extensively loved it, thinking back I still felt it was missing something that was brushed over by amazing visuals, as if there was something more interesting to tell as Johnny said (have you reviewed the first?). More of an on the ground experience would have been nice.

Also the society seemed a mismatch, are they all extremely poor with all middle income and above earners gone off world, then who buys and drives all this holo-tech? Also how can real wood be unheard of? The stuff doesn't just disappear or be shipped away to wherever.

How can an apartment be so nice yet the outside hallway and the rest of the city be a Judge Dredd wet dream? I don't see any evidence of what things are really like for people, nobody even drives apart from the corporation and police, apparently all there is is just an over-the-top scavenger class that studied Benjamin Franklin and an elite blue label whiskey replicant corporation class.


I loved the grandiose revelatory ending of the first but also the harrowing journey for Gosling in the second, yet the first has more of an affect right now. It's hard to top the reversal of sympathy and subsequent existential questioning in the original yet that's funny because the more subtle journey in the second is more heartfelt, should I really need to be punched in the face for it to be great? I've had decades to rewatch the first and appreciate it more so onto the second viewing.

Beechwoodspark

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Possible minor spoilers, don't read this post.

While I extensively loved it, thinking back I still felt it was missing something that was brushed over by amazing visuals, as if there was something more interesting to tell as Johnny said (have you reviewed the first?). More of an on the ground experience would have been nice.

Also the society seemed a mismatch, are they all extremely poor with all middle income and above earners gone off world, then who buys and drives all this holo-tech? Also how can real wood be unheard of? The stuff doesn't just disappear or be shipped away to wherever.

How can an apartment be so nice yet the outside hallway and the rest of the city be a Judge Dredd wet dream? I don't see any evidence of what things are really like for people, nobody even drives apart from the corporation and police, apparently all there is is just an over-the-top scavenger class that studied Benjamin Franklin and an elite blue label whiskey replicant corporation class.


I loved the grandiose revelatory ending of the first but also the harrowing journey for Gosling in the second, yet the first has more of an affect right now. It's hard to top the reversal of sympathy and subsequent existential questioning in the original yet that's funny because the more subtle journey in the second is more heartfelt, should I really need to be punched in the face for it to be great? I've had decades to rewatch the first and appreciate it more so onto the second viewing.

Agree. We don't get a sense of a "lived in" city, with the grit and dirt we see in the first movie. Also, they were past the brink of environmental catastrophe. I was expecting more of an atmosphere of anarchy and desperation.

Shred

The soundtrack is all I've been listening to since Thursday, I think it's excellent (I'm not usually an 'electronic' music fan) and it's really making me want to go and see it again - which I will.

Tar.Aldarion

From reddit: The "baseline" lines are from Nabokov's Pale Fire:

Cells interlinked within cells interlinked
Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct
Against the dark, a tall white fountain played.

Here's what's interesting:

Pale Fire is hard to describe if you haven't read it, but it consists of a long poem, ostensibly written by (fictitious) famous poet John Shade, followed by "notes" by an editor who proves to be more and more of an unreliable narrator.

The baseline lines are part of Shade's description of what he saw when he had a near-death experience. Some time later, he reads in a newspaper an account from a woman who also had a near-death experience, and, in the poem, the paper quotes her as saying "Beyond that orchard through a kind of smoke / I glimpsed a tall white fountain--and awoke."

Shade sees this as too coincidental -- maybe this is some ur-memory, or proof of an afterlife! So he contacts the newspaper and gets in touch with the woman... who seems to have no memory of this. He checks back with the newspaper, and is told

"It's accurate. I have not changed her style.
There's one misprint--not that it matters much:
Mountain, not fountain. The majestic touch."

So the "tall white fountain" was an identity-shaking, shared connection between two people... except it turned out not to be true after all. Kinda like K's memory about the horse and the furnace.

http://www.shannonrchamberlain.com/palefirepoem.html). The baseline part is 705-707; the woman's quote is 757-758; the misprint quote is 800-802.

To make it even more postmodern-delicious, note lines 781-783. The woman is eager to meet Shade because of her affinity for his poem about Mont Blanc (a tall white mountain). So who influenced whom?

mrcheez

Shred wrote: »

The soundtrack is all I've been listening to since Thursday, I think it's excellent (I'm not usually an 'electronic' music fan) and it's really making me want to go and see it again - which I will.

Alexa is having a hard time recognizing what I'm asking for when I ask her to play it on Spotify ... must try harder

Un1corn

Didn't ever see the original blade runner but based on the reviews I will go to see this. Read the book of course. I'm a massive fan of Dick.

Useful.Idiot

Un1corn wrote: »

Didn't ever see the original blade runner but based on the reviews I will go to see this. Read the book of course. I'm a massive fan of Dick.

why haven't you watched the original?

johnnyskeleton

Useful.Idiot wrote: »

why haven't you watched the original?

Probably for the same reason that PKD fans are reluctant to watch minority report, total recall, paycheck etc.

Pero_Bueno

lolo62 wrote: »

Ok just about to book tickets. The boyfriend is a nutjob blade runner fan and I'm a recent recruit.
Can anyone recommend which format to see it in? We're booking Blanchardstown Odeon and there's 'isense' 2d or 3d....normally I'm not a 3d fan as have had bad experiences with films being too dark, glasses over framing the view etc but if it's really worth it will go for that
Isense sounds great but I think it's just a bigger screen?
Any help appreciated!

3D is a gimmick - skip it.

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

Shred

mrcheez wrote: »

Alexa is having a hard time recognizing what I'm asking for when I ask her to play it on Spotify ... must try harder

Try Siri instead :P

peteeeed

lolo62 wrote: »

Ok just about to book tickets. The boyfriend is a nutjob blade runner fan and I'm a recent recruit.
Can anyone recommend which format to see it in? We're booking Blanchardstown Odeon and there's 'isense' 2d or 3d....normally I'm not a 3d fan as have had bad experiences with films being too dark, glasses over framing the view etc but if it's really worth it will go for that
Isense sounds great but I think it's just a bigger screen?
Any help appreciated!

i saw it at the IMAX and it was great so as big as screen as possible with a good soundsystem

mrcheez

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

3D is a gimmick - skip it.

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

Where do you see 4K 2D?

joe123

Just an amazing film. The original is one of my all time favourites and this is up there. You know a film is good when you dont want it to end.

Came out feeling sad that I wont get to experience it for the first time again.

Bloody heartbreaking to see it flop at the box office.

me_irl

joe123 wrote: »

Just an amazing film. The original is one of my all time favourites and this is up there. You know a film is good when you dont want it to end.

Came out feeling sad that I wont get to experience it for the first time again.

Bloody heartbreaking to see it flop at the box office.

Hopefully history repeats and it will do well with BluRay sales.

I went to see it last night, and I'm still on the fence.

The visuals, the scenery, the lived-in world: loved it.
The characters, (some drawn out) scenes, the storyline: hated it.

Few of my gripes.

I felt like they could have omitted the hologram / replicant threeway. Why didn't they make Joshi his love interest? If I'm mistaken, I'm sure there were feelings for him on her side.

Why did Luv stop when she had the chance to blow him up with the "convenient air strike".

The ending too. I would have liked to have it fade to black as K/Joe is lying on the steps. Having Deckard see his daughter was too Hollywood.

Beechwoodspark

I'll try to keep this spoiler free but can anyone remember if any explanation is given as to why K ended up at the farm at the very beginning of the movie? Was he asked to go there? I can't remember

peteeeed

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I'll try to keep this spoiler free but can anyone remember if any explanation is given as to why K ended up at the farm at the very beginning of the movie? Was he asked to go there? I can't remember

he messages robin wrights character once the job is done and provides the retina scan so he was given the job by her to bring him in /retire

me_irl

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I'll try to keep this spoiler free but can anyone remember if any explanation is given as to why K ended up at the farm at the very beginning of the movie? Was he asked to go there? I can't remember

He was sent there to retire Sapper Morton (Bautista).

But I have a feeling it was also filmed because this was supposed to be how we were introduced to Deckard in the 1982 movie. Y'know... fanservice.

Beechwoodspark

me_irl wrote: »

He was sent there to retire Sapper Morton (Bautista).

But I have a feeling it was also filmed because this was supposed to be how we were introduced to Deckard in the 1982 movie.

The reason I ask is that everything that he subsequently investigates flows from the chance discovery he makes on that mission. Is it random or something more

me_irl

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The reason I ask is that everything that he subsequently investigates flows from the chance discovery he makes on that mission. Is it chance or something more

Yeah, I was trying to think

was there a conspiracy to have him conveniently retire this character and therefore find the remains.

But sure if it wasn't, why bother including the scene at all?

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The reason I ask is that everything that he subsequently investigates flows from the chance discovery he makes on that mission. Is it random or something more

I think it was random. Robin Wright's character asks if any other replicants were on the site which is when he notices the flower /grave

Beechwoodspark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it was random. Robin Wright's character asks if any other replicants were on the site which is when he notices the flower /grave

If Random then it's some coincidence that the discovery has a very specific meaning to him

MrMorooka

Useful.Idiot wrote: »

The original was probably even lighter in plot than this? Just out of it. a hell of a lot to comprehend, gonna take some time to mull over everything. Have absolutely no qualms with the film at all. Wouldn't hesitate to call it a masterpiece. Didnt fell it's length at all.

Exactly. The original film is a bit overrated, and has a really poor plot, and an awful awful romance. I don't hesitate in calling this film much better than the original. It's beautiful and keeps the atmosphere, but it also has a plot that makes sense, where things happen, and the main character has an arc to follow. It takes the idea(added in later edits and really poorly integrated) of the original of "is the main character a replicant or not?" but robustly explores it within the film's plot in an interesting way.

The original film is more notable for what it inspired other people to do than as a good film in its own right, as I see it, defining a cyberpunk look for decades that other creators have used and explored(I'm thinking from my own experience of games like Snatcher, the concept of hive cities from Warhammer 40k and novels set in that universe), and this new film is a really excellently-crafted example of that. Amazing film.

MrMorooka

There's a nice detail :

whatever means by which the Tyrell replicants can reproduce is implied to have issues and probably wouldn't have helped Wallace anyway, since the offspring seems to have massive auto-immune problems, so it's not really feasible.

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

If Random then it's some coincidence that the discovery has a very specific meaning to him

I think the point is that

the memory K had was probably also implanted into lots of other replicants too, so it could have happened to any replicant with that memory who were sent on that job.

MrMorooka

MrMorooka wrote: »

There's a nice detail :

whatever means by which the Tyrell replicants can reproduce is implied to have issues and probably wouldn't have helped Wallace anyway, since the offspring seems to have massive auto-immune problems, so it's not really feasible.

Yes I did wonder after

if the immune disorder was legit or an excuse to hide her away/protect her. I like to think that it was a consequence of replicant reproduction, maybe due to it being cross 'species' depending on whether one believes Decard is a replicant or not...

me_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I did wonder after

if the immune disorder was legit or an excuse to hide her away/protect her. I like to think that it was a consequence of replicant reproduction, maybe due to it being cross 'species' depending on whether one believes Decard is a replicant or not...

There's one line when K/Joe and Deckard are drinking the conveniently placed whiskey with the label towards the camera that hints that he was / is. I think he says "we were being hunted". Which would make me think that he is.

me_irl

me_irl wrote: »

There's one line when K/Joe and Deckard are drinking the conveniently placed whiskey with the label towards the camera that hints that he was / is. I think he says "we were being hunted". Which would make me think that he is.

I think the story works fine either way!

brevity

Really want to go see this again. Such a beautiful movie.

Jared Leto's character creeped me out though.

Tar.Aldarion

me_irl wrote: »

Hopefully history repeats and it will do well with BluRay sales.

I went to see it last night, and I'm still on the fence.

The visuals, the scenery, the lived-in world: loved it.
The characters, (some drawn out) scenes, the storyline: hated it.

Few of my gripes.

I felt like they could have omitted the hologram / replicant threeway. Why didn't they make Joshi his love interest? If I'm mistaken, I'm sure there were feelings for him on her side.

Why did Luv stop when she had the chance to blow him up with the "convenient air strike".

The ending too. I would have liked to have it fade to black as K/Joe is lying on the steps. Having Deckard see his daughter was too Hollywood.

She was helping him as she wanted him to find the "child" for her., not trying to blow him up.

MrMorooka wrote: »

There's a nice detail :

whatever means by which the Tyrell replicants can reproduce is implied to have issues and probably wouldn't have helped Wallace anyway, since the offspring seems to have massive auto-immune problems, so it's not really feasible.

The disease was made up to protect her from examination. She knows she is fine. Everything she said to Joe was a lie.

Sad Professor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

The disease was made up to protect her from examination. She knows she is fine. Everything she said to Joe was a lie.

Hmmm, are we sure

about the disease being a lie? And technically I'm not sure she lied to him about anything. She just said the memory was real, not that it was his memory.

Beechwoodspark

Sad Professor wrote: »

Hmmm, are we sure

about the disease being a lie? And technically I'm not sure she lied to him about anything. She just said the memory was real, not that it was his memory.

I don't think we know either way.

Giruilla

So was it simply pure coincidence that

K/Joe had the daughters memory planted in his head, AND he was the one that was put on the case to find her

?

kerplun k

Giruilla wrote: »

So was it simply pure coincidence that

K/Joe had the daughters memory planted in his head, AND he was the one that was put on the case to find her

?

No. :mad:
Multiple replicants had it. He was just one on many.

Giruilla

Giruilla wrote: »

So was it simply pure coincidence that

K/Joe had the daughters memory planted in his head, AND he was the one that was put on the case to find her

?

Yes. It's not that unlikely if you consider there's probably 100s/1000s of replicants walking around with that exact memory.

Giruilla

kerplun k wrote: »

No. :mad:
Multiple replicants had it. He was just one on many.

When did they say multiple replicants had the same memory? Don't recall that.

Giruilla

Giruilla wrote: »

When did they say multiple replicants had the same memory? Don't recall that.

Pretty sure K says in the scene where he's talking about the memory to Robin Wright's character that he felt weird talking about a memory that isn't actually his and is probably in the heads of lots of other replicants, I could be wrong though. From the gist of that scene and the

daughter/memory maker

it seemed clear to me they use the same memories in lots of replicants. There's no reason not to, really; they're all aware the memories are false they exist moreso to help them have an understanding of human emotion etc and stop them going insane.

Giruilla

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty sure K says in the scene where he's talking about the memory to Robin Wright's character that he felt weird talking about a memory that isn't actually his and is probably in the heads of lots of other replicants, I could be wrong though. From the gist of that scene and the

daughter/memory maker

it seemed clear to me they use the same memories in lots of replicants. There's no reason not to, really; they're all aware they memories are false they exist moreso to help them have an understanding of human emotion etc and stop them going insane.

Yeah fair enough. So basically a coincidence he was put on the case and had that memory, but other replicants had it too. Just thought there was a clever plot point or something there I was missing.

Giruilla

Giruilla wrote: »

Yeah fair enough. So basically a coincidence he was put on the case and had that memory, but other replicants had it too. Just thought there was a clever plot point or something there I was missing.

Yeah,

the whole time when he thought that he was the child I was thinking 'it's awful coincidental he just happened to work for the LAPD and be sent on this specific case' but then when it was revealed to be an implanted memory after all it made a lot more sense to me lol

Sad Professor

I don't think they all had the same exact memory, but different real memories involving the wooden horse that she had (illegally) given them. This is why they all felt that they were the one. However, he was possibly the only one with a memory that was verifiable and/or was in a position to prove it. So yes it was a coincidence (or fate) but not an implausible one.