|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 9:18:54 GMT
I apologize if this matter has already emerged in this thread, but I did not want to risk reading any spoilers. Can someone tell me if the movie is worth seeing in 3D? Has anyone seen it in 3D and also without 3D? If it helps, Roger Deakins recommend NOT seeing the movie in 3D ... interesting, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 9:31:30 GMT
If it helps, Roger Deakins recommend NOT seeing the movie in 3D ... interesting, thanks. Problem is, in my country there's only the 3D option, even at IMAX
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 9:36:56 GMT
Problem is, in my country there's only the 3D option, even at IMAX Where are you?
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 9:38:52 GMT
Problem is, in my country there's only the 3D option, even at IMAX Where are you? Romania
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 9:47:23 GMT
I guess that the studio feels that the film will sell better to "yokels" in "hinterland" markets with 3D, or maybe releasing two different versions is more expensive and the studio believes that the added expense will not be worthwhile in some overseas markets. But given the fact that the filmmakers shot the movie in 2D, and the cinematographer feels that that format works better for this film, yes, that lack of choice is most unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 9:57:44 GMT
I guess that the studio feels that the film will sell better to "yokels" in "hinterland" markets with 3D, or maybe releasing two different versions is more expensive and the studio believes that the added expense will not be worthwhile in some overseas markets. But given the fact that the filmmakers shot the movie in 2D, and the cinematographer feels that that format works better for this film, yes, that lack of choice is most unfortunate. i'll surely enjoy it on blu-ray, the way it was meant to be seen. Just nost as big Most movies are 3d and 2d in our country
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 10:01:11 GMT
I guess that the studio feels that the film will sell better to "yokels" in "hinterland" markets with 3D, or maybe releasing two different versions is more expensive and the studio believes that the added expense will not be worthwhile in some overseas markets. But given the fact that the filmmakers shot the movie in 2D, and the cinematographer feels that that format works better for this film, yes, that lack of choice is most unfortunate. i'll surely enjoy it on blu-ray, the way it was meant to be seen. Just nost as big Most movies are 3d and 2d in our country... which makes their choice of only 3D all the more curious. Maybe they are anticipating a lackluster box-office performance either way, so why bother with multiple formats? But I do not know.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 10:04:00 GMT
i'll surely enjoy it on blu-ray, the way it was meant to be seen. Just nost as big Most movies are 3d and 2d in our country... which makes their choice of only 3D all the more curious. Maybe they are anticipating a lackluster box-office performance either way, so why bother with multiple formats? But I do not know. Yeah, maybe they thought: not many people will see this movie, at least let's charge them extra for 3D. it has nothing to do with the distributor, it was the studio's decision
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 10:13:13 GMT
... which makes their choice of only 3D all the more curious. Maybe they are anticipating a lackluster box-office performance either way, so why bother with multiple formats? But I do not know. Yeah, maybe they thought: not many people will see this movie, at least let's charge them extra for 3D. it has nothing to do with the distributor, it was the studio's decision ... they definitely might have been thinking that way, that they can get the most bang for their buck and maximize efficiency in that manner.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 24, 2017 10:53:32 GMT
Yeah, maybe they thought: not many people will see this movie, at least let's charge them extra for 3D. it has nothing to do with the distributor, it was the studio's decision ... they definitely might have been thinking that way, that they can get the most bang for their buck and maximize efficiency in that manner. If I have a choice between 3D and 2D, I go for 2D (even if it's IMAX). Not having a choice this time (so that I had to see it in 3D on IMAX or not at all) turned out to be a blessing because I loved it in 3D. I still resist it when I can, though. I don't think I'll ever go for the 4DX (which was also available at this IMAX theater in Jerusalem), though. They offered it for Blade Runner 2049 which was going to have rain in it, I was sure, and I didn't want to have my popcorn tossed all over the place while I was getting wet.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 24, 2017 12:29:29 GMT
If he is he could be a nexus -7, like Rachael is now thought to be. Ridley Scott discusses this in the book Future Noir, but it isn't established fact in the canon by any means. Just speculation. They clearly have different characteristics from the nexus-6. If Rachael can give birth I think it's safe to say anything goes with that model.
I've only seen 2049 once and I don't remember Deckard displaying superhuman strength in that fight. He's slugging K to minimal effect and K eventually convinces him to have a conversation instead.
I need to see it again too. Deckard was an older dude, he aged like a human does, he then would have been no match at all for K. If he was designed as a replicant Blade Runner, wouldn't it make sense that he have similar strength? Why would they create a replicant like Deckard, that wasn't up to the task or job, that was required to match those that were dangerous? There are too many anomolies and inconsistencies abound, and Ridley Scott created much of this by tampering with the context of Deckard's character after the fact and it has become confused. His movie flopped, so he decided to take it down a slightly different route and has created too much fuss and stir. No resolution or analysis is ever going to be correct or hit the jackpot of the intention. By keeping it ambiguous, and if they want to make another, they can take it down any contrived route they want too. Even the Blade Runner universe is a strange one and inaccurate, because the original is depicting a world as of now and it isn't like this. It perhaps needed to be set in the early 22nd century. Theoretically Deckard is that strong in the first one, he just doesn't know it. Rachael is a replicant-- we know that for a fact, yet we never see her use superhuman strength. Deckard gets beaten senseless by replicants a couple of times in the original but he can't use strength he doesn't know he has. Human beings behave like this, too. The bigger question is why doesn't Deckard have any kind of a past that he references? Why did he quit being a Blade Runner and why was he so easily convinced to come back? Why is Bryant so shifty around Deckard in his initial meeting when they're discussing the replicants? Watch his facial expressions while Deckard is talking to him after they watch the footage of Leon. I agree Scott adding the unicorn dream and flat out saying Deckard is a replicant in interviews after the fact was unnecessary, but the suggestion of Deckard being a replicant was always there. Otherwise there'd be no reason for Rachael to ask if he'd ever taken the test himself. Wallace dances around the idea in 2049, when he questions Deckard about his relationship with Rachael. He tells him it was a setup and Deckard should ask himself if it was chance that brought them together or if he was just programmed. The scene was a little too on the nose for my taste, but I'm glad they didn't answer the question either way. Anyway Scott didn't make these changes to drum up interest in an old underperforming film; he finally made the movie he wanted to make before the studio got in his way. The movie was changed drastically while it was still in production (for example the number of replicants that are allegedly on the loose), never mind the 50 different cuts of the film that are floating around out there now. I love Blade Runner because it's a beautiful disaster. It was ambitious and despite all its flaws (and there are plenty), it's a masterpiece in my book. All movies depicting the future are wrong, that's the chance you take. There are scores of films that take place a few years after they were released and they're always radically different from reality. You have to do something to make the world seem different from ours when you're writing sci fi, I'm not going to hold that against Dick or Scott or anyone else. The universe is indeed strange because there are so many different cuts of the film that the audience has to decide which they prefer as canon, and what the believe the true nature of the protagonist to be. I've found that it all comes down to which version you saw first. I saw the Director's Cut first (which heavily implies Deckard is a replicant) and that's the version I prefer. I know people who saw the original theatrical cut first and refuse to acknowledge the DC because they like the believe Deckard is a human. Ironically I now know how they feel, because while I enjoyed 2049 for what it tried to do, I don't agree with most of the creative choices they made. I feel like I can only watch 2049 from the viewpoint of it being a dream or an alternate reality so it doesn't ruin the canon of the original.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 12:49:05 GMT
... they definitely might have been thinking that way, that they can get the most bang for their buck and maximize efficiency in that manner. If I have a choice between 3D and 2D, I go for 2D ( even if it's IMAX). Imax is way better in 2D, 3D makes everything seem smaller compared to regular IMAX
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 24, 2017 15:34:58 GMT
Theoretically Deckard is that strong in the first one, he just doesn't know it. Rachael is a replicant-- we know that for a fact, yet we never see her use superhuman strength. Deckard gets beaten senseless by replicants a couple of times in the original but he can't use strength he doesn't know he has. Human beings behave like this, too. The bigger question is why doesn't Deckard have any kind of a past that he references? Why did he quit being a Blade Runner and why was he so easily convinced to come back? Why is Bryant so shifty around Deckard in his initial meeting when they're discussing the replicants? Watch his facial expressions while Deckard is talking to him after they watch the footage of Leon. I agree Scott adding the unicorn dream and flat out saying Deckard is a replicant in interviews after the fact was unnecessary, but the suggestion of Deckard being a replicant was always there. Otherwise there'd be no reason for Rachael to ask if he'd ever taken the test himself. Wallace dances around the idea in 2049, when he questions Deckard about his relationship with Rachael. He tells him it was a setup and Deckard should ask himself if it was chance that brought them together or if he was just programmed. The scene was a little too on the nose for my taste, but I'm glad they didn't answer the question either way. Anyway Scott didn't make these changes to drum up interest in an old underperforming film; he finally made the movie he wanted to make before the studio got in his way. The movie was changed drastically while it was still in production (for example the number of replicants that are allegedly on the loose), never mind the 50 different cuts of the film that are floating around out there now. I love Blade Runner because it's a beautiful disaster. It was ambitious and despite all its flaws (and there are plenty), it's a masterpiece in my book. All movies depicting the future are wrong, that's the chance you take. There are scores of films that take place a few years after they were released and they're always radically different from reality. You have to do something to make the world seem different from ours when you're writing sci fi, I'm not going to hold that against Dick or Scott or anyone else. The universe is indeed strange because there are so many different cuts of the film that the audience has to decide which they prefer as canon, and what the believe the true nature of the protagonist to be. I've found that it all comes down to which version you saw first. I saw the Director's Cut first (which heavily implies Deckard is a replicant) and that's the version I prefer. I know people who saw the original theatrical cut first and refuse to acknowledge the DC because they like the believe Deckard is a human. Ironically I now know how they feel, because while I enjoyed 2049 for what it tried to do, I don't agree with most of the creative choices they made. I feel like I can only watch 2049 from the viewpoint of it being a dream or an alternate reality so it doesn't ruin the canon of the original. Thank you for your insights, explanations and take on BR, Rey... I saw the theatrical cut when I was 15 at the cinema when first released. It is the only one I knew of, until the DC came out in 93'. I had read about the Deckard subplot, but never made any connection on the few viewings I had of the film in the original cut. I just saw Deckard as being a human cop, or is that Blade Runner, hunting down the dangerous androids. Deckard being a replicant himself was really of no real consequence to me, even after seeing the DC and FC. The FC does look beautiful though. It's only when the sequel was announced, that I have questioned the genuine relevance of it. 2049 still leaves this aspect unresolved, however, and like I have mentioned, Deckard has human aged and was this mentioned at any stage about the aging process for replicants? Scott, I suppose knew what he wanted to suggest as an artist and film-maker, but apparently in Dick's story, Deckard was human and Scott's take on wanting to make a different suggestion, has blurred the concept. Not that that is a bad thing, but was it really necessary to begin with? The studio didn't think so and what purpose does it serve in the larger scheme of both film's stories? It is still ambiguous. What 2049 has done, is blur the line even more regarding replicants and humans. Who "were" the humans in this film, was that clear? Replicants hunting replicants, or humans just wanting to destroy the synthetics they never should have created in the first place. Are replicants the ones now producing\creating more replicants? The setting\time frame for the film does mar it for me a bit, unless I just see it as an alternative futuristic universe, without taking the dates into consideration. It does seem a bit odd that they made the film in the early 80's, Dick's story was set early 90's and they set the milieu only 37yrs after the film was released in 2019. It appears that not much insight was placed on this aspect. Perhaps 2119 might have made it appear more believable. They kept the date setting, too close to Dick's source date. Thanks, I've enjoyed your perspective as well! Coincidentally I saw the DC in 1992 in the theater when I was also 15. I fell asleep, as funny as that is. Then I revisited it on DVD about 7 years later and I was blown away. Everything about the aesthetic, the story, the performances. It was amazing and I couldn't get enough of it. I read the book Future Noir about the making of Blade Runner and I highly recommend that book to anyone who loves the film. It's ironic that Dick's inspiration for Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep were accounts he read of Nazi soldiers' indifference to the suffering of the persecuted peoples around them. Humans that behaved less like humans and more like automatons. So he wrote a story about automatons who behaved more like humans. The concept shifted from losing your humanity to gaining it. I'm with you regarding the Deckard question, it isn't important whether Deckard is human or replicant. The story itself is an examination of what it is to be human emotionally. The Deckard stuff is just a fun talking point, in the big picture it's irrelevant. I actually watched the Final Cut (Blade Runner may be the only movie I own three times over on DVD and blu ray, boy are they making money off me) in the theater last year from the perspective of the replicants and it's such a tragic story. All they want is to survive and live in freedom. You feel it as they're hunted down and executed one by one. And you feel it on that rooftop-- whether Deckard is human or not-- when Roy saves the life of the man who has executed all of his friends and delivers that classic speech (which was ad-libbed by Hauer) about life. As well made as 2049 was, it wasn't needed. I don't need to know what happened to Deckard and Rachael after the end of Blade Runner. I don't want to know. And doing a sequel without those two characters (and the weight of their perspective after the first film) is like tearing the soul from the film. If you want to do a story which takes place in the Blade Runner universe, fine. But basing the story of the sequel around them while barely featuring them came off as cheap fan service. I had a lot of issues with the writing in 2049, but I think conceptually the whole project was flawed from the start. To be fair, I'm going to be a harsh critic because Blade Runner is (obviously) my favorite film, so maybe I'm a little too close to it. 2049 featured solid performances, an amazing score and was visually stunning (though I'll be honest and say many of the aesthetic choices came off as generic as well. For example, why was everything so bright and clean compared to the original?) perhaps, but had nowhere near the substance of the original, at least in my opinion. Thanks for letting me bend your ear (or eyes, as the case may be).
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Oct 25, 2017 16:47:46 GMT
Just a question since all I've ever seen was the old 1999 (or thereabouts) DVD of the Director's Cut. Which version of the bluray should I pick up? I've seen the 30th Anniversary (with the origami unicorn on the cover) being sold on ebay for $30 to $100. I've also seen a 5 disc blu ray and a 4 disc blu ray. I'm very confused. What is the definitive release?
PS. I love 2049, it's a beautiful film. I don't think I've seen quite something this wonderful in quite some time. I was never a huge Blade Runner fan although I enjoyed the original film (well at least the DC since that's the only one I've seen). But this was something else. It basically restored my faith in modern film making (this and Dunkirk).
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 25, 2017 17:15:37 GMT
Just a question since all I've ever seen was the old 1999 (or thereabouts) DVD of the Director's Cut. Which version of the bluray should I pick up? I've seen the 30th Anniversary (with the origami unicorn on the cover) being sold on ebay for $30 to $100. I've also seen a 5 disc blu ray and a 4 disc blu ray. I'm very confused. What is the definitive release? PS. I love 2049, it's a beautiful film. I don't think I've seen quite something this wonderful in quite some time. I was never a huge Blade Runner fan although I enjoyed the original film (well at least the DC since that's the only one I've seen). But this was something else. It basically restored my faith in modern film making (this and Dunkirk). The definitive release of Blade Runner is called "Final Cut" and it has the unicorn scene in it. It's the one most available for new purchases, probably. It's definitely on iTunes.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Oct 25, 2017 17:31:15 GMT
Just a question since all I've ever seen was the old 1999 (or thereabouts) DVD of the Director's Cut. Which version of the bluray should I pick up? I've seen the 30th Anniversary (with the origami unicorn on the cover) being sold on ebay for $30 to $100. I've also seen a 5 disc blu ray and a 4 disc blu ray. I'm very confused. What is the definitive release? PS. I love 2049, it's a beautiful film. I don't think I've seen quite something this wonderful in quite some time. I was never a huge Blade Runner fan although I enjoyed the original film (well at least the DC since that's the only one I've seen). But this was something else. It basically restored my faith in modern film making (this and Dunkirk). The definitive release of Blade Runner is called "Final Cut" and it has the unicorn scene in it. It's the one most available for new purchases, probably. It's definitely on iTunes. Okay thanks. There are a bunch of copies out there of the Final Cut but it appears to only be a 2 disc or 1 disc package. I guess the others that I've seen just have a lot of bonus features attached. Although it would be cool to have the set with all of the cuts included. I suppose that is the 4 and 5 disc versions.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 26, 2017 6:33:32 GMT
Just saw this tonight finally. Honestly, I was disappointed. The last half-hour is good (when Ford finally shows up), but the first two hours suffer from non-engaging and sluggish storytelling despite great visuals and fine acting. I think Leonard Maltin's review is spot-on. For the record, I like the original Blade Runner although I'm not a huge fan of it.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 26, 2017 7:26:33 GMT
... they definitely might have been thinking that way, that they can get the most bang for their buck and maximize efficiency in that manner. If I have a choice between 3D and 2D, I go for 2D (even if it's IMAX). Not having a choice this time (so that I had to see it in 3D on IMAX or not at all) turned out to be a blessing because I loved it in 3D.I still resist it when I can, though. I don't think I'll ever go for the 4DX (which was also available at this IMAX theater in Jerusalem), though. They offered it for Blade Runner 2049 which was going to have rain in it, I was sure, and I didn't want to have my popcorn tossed all over the place while I was getting wet. ... interesting; in any event, the film is no longer showing in 3D in my area. I did feel that 3D added something spatially and viscerally to last year's Passengers and 2015's The Walk, although The Walk proved genuinely great either way. (I viewed the film three times in 3D and once without it; in my view, it constituted one of two great movies from that year's features, along with Bridge of Spies.) I felt that The Jungle Book last year worked really well both with 3D and without it (I saw the movie once in each format), and I thought that 3D worked nicely for a couple of aspects in Jurassic Park when that film received a 3D re-release in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Oct 26, 2017 18:36:35 GMT
Better than I thought. I liked the slow pacing. And there was enough to go on with it: Wallece is still alive and so is the rebellion.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Oct 26, 2017 23:26:53 GMT
B+
+ - Amazing visuals & even more astonishing music & sound. This film will win Oscars, even if they're only tech awards, 100% guaranteed. - I enjoyed Gosling's K as a sympathetic lead, out following orders. I thought his relationship with de Armas' Joi was fascinating as 2 'individuals' making the most together in virtual life. Easily one of the most beautiful women to appear on screen I'd say. - Everyone's line deliveries & speech were spoken with such inorganic fluidity, it added a degree of serenity I thought.
- - Less elegant/romantic than the original. The age of Inception & The Force Awakens sci-fi is here. I'm finding less populated scenes, more vistas to look at, & cold edges to make it feel important. - I saved my viewing for daytime because skipping a few after work showings afraid of falling asleep. My first couple viewings of the original 1982 put me to sleep a bit, & alas I dozed off during the Deckard-Wallace scene, though not out cold. The very next sequence of course with bombastic music brought me back to life. - I feel like Robin Wright overacted, simply chewing loud lines at us. I grew tired of her character & thus cared little for her professional threats on K.
This probably won't make my top 10 of the decade. Ford was welcome as a bit more than cameo, & yet the micro storyline about K & the memory was less ambitious than I was expecting. I was hoping for larger scale replicant/A.I. investigation.
|
|