|
|
Post by Archelaus on Oct 16, 2017 21:47:01 GMT
I saw it last night in IMAX, and I give it a 8/10. The cinematography was stunningly beautiful; Roger Deakins deserves to win an Oscar for this. The action scenes was well-staged and brutally intense, as well as Sylvia Hoeks's terrifying performance. I did not mind the long running time. I did love the callbacks to the original film including the opening shot of the human eye and product placements of Pan Am and Coca-Cola among other things. I did appreciate the continuity and expansion of thematic elements from the first film. The narrative was definitely a puzzle to figure out which definitely requires a second viewing (at least from me), and I'm glad it went against the "chosen one" trope that I initially thought it was going to take while I was watching the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 17, 2017 3:48:31 GMT
Well, I have a question for anyone else who has seen Blade Runner 2049: Why did the replicant rebellion people want Deckerd to be killed? Were they trying to keep him from getting into the hands of the Wallace people who might learn about how to make their own replicants reproduce? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 17, 2017 3:54:47 GMT
I saw it last night in IMAX, and I give it a 8/10. The cinematography was stunningly beautiful; Roger Deakins deserves to win an Oscar for this. The action scenes was well-staged and brutally intense, as well as Sylvia Hoeks's terrifying performance. I did not mind the long running time. I did love the callbacks to the original film including the opening shot of the human eye and product placements of Pan Am and Coca-Cola among other things. I did appreciate the continuity and expansion of thematic elements from the first film. The narrative was definitely a puzzle to figure out which definitely requires a second viewing (at least from me), and I'm glad it went against the "chosen one" trope that I initially thought it was going to take while I was watching the film. I saw the movie in IMAX, too!! It was in 3D, which I was not expecting. The website said that it was in 2D, but the theater explained when I got there that all their IMAX movies are in 3D now. They hadn't corrected the website yet or something. The theater is in Jerusalem, Israel, near where I live. It was beautiful. The one place where 3D really made a difference was in this scene: When the doctor was in her glass enclosure and the room seemed to be a jungle. The closer plants and insects in 3D were truly stunning. I'm really glad I saw the movie and I look forward to getting the iTunes version of it when it comes out so that I can see any small pieces of dialog that I might have missed that fill in some pieces of the story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:16:27 GMT
Well, I have a question for anyone else who has seen Blade Runner 2049:
He knew too much of them, how they stayed hidden and the likes. Still not sure why that meant they had to kill him though, why not try and rescue him? Instead, they sent one man, a man they weren't even sure they could even trust to begin with, to kill Deckard. Not the only thing I'm wondering about. In the scene where they all talk to K, they also admit that they allowed K to kill one of their own (as seen at the beginning of the movie). But they had to know that Rachael's body was still there? The leader admitted that she was the one holding the baby on the picture. And they had to know that it would not be difficult for the police to find out that Rachael was pregnant? Why on earth would they deliberately allow themselves to be put in that kind of danger?
It all felt too easy. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 17, 2017 18:18:25 GMT
@zieveraar
Yeah, you make some good points.
I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:23:35 GMT
This is one of the things that bothered me. For a movie with this length, so little got any background. At all. Especially the Wallace corporation and what exactly they were up to and why. There's also the matter of the psycho assistant, what the heck was that all about? I completely agree. Overall it felt short of the expectations but for (very little) background, Villeneuve made 3 short movies (not sure if you saw them but it takes roughly 30 minutes to watch them all): imdb2.freeforums.net/post/966803As for the assistant, here is my take on her: First, I got to be honest, I don't remember if we ever get an answer about what she is, either human or replicant, but my understanding is she is the latter. If I'm wrong, then probably half of what's next won't make sense. So, let's talk about her psycho side. As you can see in the short 2036: Nexus Dawn (found in the link above) and from 2049, Wallace seems to be the kind of person who would not stop at anything to achieve his goals. If that's the way he goes, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't get an assistant that is reluctant to do shady and/or dirty work. Now, in this scene:  She tells Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), that she'll just tell Wallace that Joshi attacked her first. It was then obvious she isn't upfront with her boss and it also raised the question whether she has her own agenda or not. Now I may be totally wrong but the way it happened and considering her position, it nearly suggested that she would or could take over the Wallace corp or at least try to break free from his control. Whether she succeed or not, her head would be on the chopping block pretty fast. Also, wasn't she the one who "pushed" for Wallace to inspect the new model and didn't she had a tear when he killed it? It kinda proves she's under pressure and may not totally agree with the way he does things. To me, the only thing that is keeping her from really taking over is the "wall" Joshi talked about to K. She then claimed that there would be a revolution or numerous deaths if somehow replicants where able to control their "destiny" by being able to reproduce themselves. Again, the only thing that is holding her back is the fact she "sees" that "wall", otherwise she would run on her own. The assistant is most definitely a replicant, I have no doubt about that. She pretty much confirms this at the end, when she thought she beat K and said: "I'm the best".
She's psychotic, her actions are insane. She butchers a mortician without blinking an eye and does the same to a Captain of the police. Sure, it looked spectacular, but there's no real motivation for doing something this extreme. Characterwise, anyway. She's shown as showing emotion when a fellow replicant gets slaughtered (for no good reason), yet has no problems killing other replicants (or trying to, anyway) and definitely no problem with killing humans. A bit too erratic for no good reason imo. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 17, 2017 18:26:28 GMT
@zieveraar About the assistant... She just seemed so thoroughly evil that I really wanted her dead by the end.
It seemed necessary because she would never have stopped going after Deckerd (even if he could have gotten away from her while she was still alive, which was doubtful). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:26:54 GMT
@zieveraar Yeah, you make some good points. I don't know. I might be too harsh on the movie though, most likely my expectations were just too high for it. And the movie does have excellent moments too. Especially, for me anyway, when K finally accepts that this computer program he genuinely cared for, was never more than that. A program. He was an artificial creature himself, who sought companionship with something that was also artificial, but unlike him, never was real. That was a genuinely emotional moment, worked really well. Have you read the sequel books to Bladerunner, btw? Written by Jeter? |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 17, 2017 18:35:02 GMT
@zieveraar Yeah, you make some good points. I don't know. I might be too harsh on the movie though, most likely my expectations were just too high for it. And the movie does have excellent moments too. Especially, for me anyway, when K finally accepts that this computer program he genuinely cared for, was never more than that. A program. He was an artificial creature himself, who sought companionship with something that was also artificial, but unlike him, never was real. That was a genuinely emotional moment, worked really well. Have you read the sequel books to Bladerunner, btw? Written by Jeter? Oh, I loved the movie - I'm just still curious about some plot points. I'll need to get the movie on iTunes when it comes out to see every bit of dialog on closed captioning. Sometimes, things said can be missed. I haven't read any sequel books to Blade Runner, although I should. I write Sci-Fi stories and some of my writings are about robots. Nothing this advanced, of course, because my stories don't go way into the future. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 19:01:40 GMT
I might be too harsh on the movie though, most likely my expectations were just too high for it. And the movie does have excellent moments too. Especially, for me anyway, when K finally accepts that this computer program he genuinely cared for, was never more than that. A program. He was an artificial creature himself, who sought companionship with something that was also artificial, but unlike him, never was real. That was a genuinely emotional moment, worked really well. Have you read the sequel books to Bladerunner, btw? Written by Jeter? Oh, I loved the movie - I'm just still curious about some plot points. I'll need to get the movie on iTunes when it comes out to see every bit of dialog on closed captioning. Sometimes, things said can be missed. I haven't read any sequel books to Blade Runner, although I should. I write Sci-Fi stories and some of my writings are about robots. Nothing this advanced, of course, because my stories don't go way into the future.
Unfortunately, I can't really recommend them. The books aren't all that great, mostly because the author tried to combine both book and movie into one sequel, which is impossible to do. The movie had little to do with the book. But he tried, three times. Jeter Bladerunner (caution, contains the synopsis of the novel)
There is one specific element in the books that seems to tie in with Bladerunner 2049, although I can't say what. It was however from an SF aspect quite interesting. I'll post it under here with the spoiler tag.
Although humans did colonise other planets, they slowly became sterile, they could not reproduce. But the Replicants could. It was as if a planet determined the life that could live on it, a sort of anthropomorphic field of a planet that basically cut off human colonisation, but left the galaxy for the replicants who discovered that they were able to reproduce, offworld.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 17, 2017 19:03:45 GMT
@zieveraar
Interesting!!
Thanks for what's in your spoiler tag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Oct 17, 2017 19:38:44 GMT
Loved it visually, but it just dragged for me. The only compelling character was Luv. Joi was interesting. Robin Wright was wasted. There needed to be at least one more scene with Jared Leto expanding on his motivations. The sex scene was fascinating visually, but unnecessary. Nothing really happened. It was a mystery that was never truly answered... You kind of knew it wouldn't be him in the end, because it came out too early, so that wasn't a surprise. And we never really learned if the child was born of two replicants, or of a replicant and a human. I can't say I disliked it, but just found it kind of bland. I doubt in 30 years I will get the itch to watch this one like I do the original. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 22:17:11 GMT
It has the exact same virtues and vices as the original movie.
It's absolutely gorgeous. Truly beautiful to look at.
It's deep.
It's wonderfully acted. Superb performances all around.
It's thoughtful.
It's a brilliant example of worldbuilding.
And then, I have to say... it's also kind of boring. Sorry, but it just is. It feels like a 110 minute movie crammed into 160 minutes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not sorry I watched it. I still enjoy watching the original Blade Runner from time to time, and that's quite boring too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 20, 2017 12:16:53 GMT
Loved it visually, but it just dragged for me. The only compelling character was Luv. Joi was interesting. Robin Wright was wasted. There needed to be at least one more scene with Jared Leto expanding on his motivations. The sex scene was fascinating visually, but unnecessary. Nothing really happened. It was a mystery that was never truly answered... I can't say I disliked it, but just found it kind of bland. I doubt in 30 years I will get the itch to watch this one like I do the original. Regarding the spoiler comments: That was intentional. As with the original, they wanted to leave the question of Deckard's true nature open to interpretation. As beautiful as it was, this movie feels like a big waste of time. This sequel doesn't need to exist and I wish it didn't. Blade Runner is my favorite film and I see this as a rather bland follow up that ultimately doesn't hit the high notes of the original. Upon subsequent viewings I'm going to pretend it's Deckard's dream or something. The whole thing feels strange, like it's trying to be Blade Runner but not quite. Just an unnecessary film. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 21, 2017 6:08:29 GMT
I just got in from a late showing.
I'm blown away. It's essentially perfect.
10/10
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
 
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 21, 2017 7:05:25 GMT
I just got in from a late showing. I'm blown away. It's essentially perfect. 10/10 Oh yeah. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 21:27:29 GMT
Deckard as a replicant makes no sense to me. I just don't understand the point of it.
The idea is that the authorities have the Tyrrell company build the some replicants in order to track down and retire other replicants, yes? But if that's so then why is Ford a civilian when we meet him? You go to all the trouble of making an anti-replicant replicant to act as a Blade Runner, and then just let it quit the force when it doesn't like doing the job?
And if he's a replicant for taking on other replicants, why does he only have human normal physical capabilities? Any one of the replicants could have killed Deckard at any time. Zohra only failed because she was interrupted and panicked, Leon only failed because he decided to taunt Deckard a bit, and then had the bad luck to be shot by another replicant, Pris only failed because she decided to do a gymnastics display in the middle of it, and Roy only failed because he decided to mess around with Deckard for a while and then developed a newfound respect for all living things in his last moments.
So if Deckard is an anti-replicant-replicant, then he's truly crappy at the job because he's woefully slower and weaker than his targets.
Seriously, it just makes no sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 6:56:49 GMT
Deckard as a replicant makes no sense to me. I just don't understand the point of it. The idea is that the authorities have the Tyrrell company build the some replicants in order to track down and retire other replicants, yes? But if that's so then why is Ford a civilian when we meet him? You go to all the trouble of making an anti-replicant replicant to act as a Blade Runner, and then just let it quit the force when it doesn't like doing the job? And if he's a replicant for taking on other replicants, why does he only have human normal physical capabilities? Any one of the replicants could have killed Deckard at any time. Zohra only failed because she was interrupted and panicked, Leon only failed because he decided to taunt Deckard a bit, and then had the bad luck to be shot by another replicant, Pris only failed because she decided to do a gymnastics display in the middle of it, and Roy only failed because he decided to mess around with Deckard for a while and then developed a newfound respect for all living things in his last moments. So if Deckard is an anti-replicant-replicant, then he's truly crappy at the job because he's woefully slower and weaker than his targets. Seriously, it just makes no sense to me.
I doubt he was meant to be one at first. But Ridley Scott did change the movie afterwards, adding the whole unicorn bit (if I'm not mistaken). It's that unicorn scene that makes people believe that Deckard is a replicant.
I guess the theory could be that Deckard never had a past before the moment the movie started. He's basically Holden, who got injured so they had to replace him. And Deckard was the man. It was never allowing him to 'quit the job', but creating a circumstance in which Deckard would believe that he was a cop, and get the job done.
The physical aspect could be explained by him being the latest model, crafted more like a human than the others who were never meant to be on Earth to begin with.
A shaky explanation, no doubt.
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 23, 2017 8:08:02 GMT
Deckard as a replicant makes no sense to me. I just don't understand the point of it. The idea is that the authorities have the Tyrrell company build the some replicants in order to track down and retire other replicants, yes? But if that's so then why is Ford a civilian when we meet him? You go to all the trouble of making an anti-replicant replicant to act as a Blade Runner, and then just let it quit the force when it doesn't like doing the job? And if he's a replicant for taking on other replicants, why does he only have human normal physical capabilities? Any one of the replicants could have killed Deckard at any time. Zohra only failed because she was interrupted and panicked, Leon only failed because he decided to taunt Deckard a bit, and then had the bad luck to be shot by another replicant, Pris only failed because she decided to do a gymnastics display in the middle of it, and Roy only failed because he decided to mess around with Deckard for a while and then developed a newfound respect for all living things in his last moments. So if Deckard is an anti-replicant-replicant, then he's truly crappy at the job because he's woefully slower and weaker than his targets. Seriously, it just makes no sense to me.
I doubt he was meant to be one at first. But Ridley Scott did change the movie afterwards, adding the whole unicorn bit (if I'm not mistaken). It's that unicorn scene that makes people believe that Deckard is a replicant.
I guess the theory could be that Deckard never had a past before the moment the movie started. He's basically Holden, who got injured so they had to replace him. And Deckard was the man. It was never allowing him to 'quit the job', but creating a circumstance in which Deckard would believe that he was a cop, and get the job done.
The physical aspect could be explained by him being the latest model, crafted more like a human than the others who were never meant to be on Earth to begin with.
A shaky explanation, no doubt.
Indeed very shaky |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 23, 2017 10:19:20 GMT
Blade Runner 2049 will be complete for me when it's released on iTunes (expected in December 2017). Then I can hear/see every tiny bit of dialog that I might have missed while watching it on IMAX 3D.  |
|
