[Closed] Blade Runner 2049

I missed this thread before.

I am also excited to a point, but more because I'm hoping this could be the film the book deserved. I read the book a couple of years ago and only got round to watching the film the other week, I thought it was a bag of indulgent toss. They'd have been able to fit the rest of the story in if they'd not guffed about so much with lingering shots of people not acting.

fasthaggis - Member

In get ready mode,I watched the original again the other night.
Some of it really doesn't age well,but hey,it was ground breaking in 1982 and still worth watching for Rutger Hauer alone.

MSP - Member

Oh god, most of the reviews seem good, that's probably the worst scenario,now I will end up watching it and be disappointed. If they had been crap, like they should be, I could have quite happily ignored it.

fasthaggis - Member

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?

Made teenage antigee watch the directors cut a few weeks ago and she was just blown away by the camerawork and the sets not bothered by the plot thought that mediocre
😥
Edit Will check out 2049 IMAX thanks for heads up

Why can't Hollywood just leave well alone?

The point of mystery/sci-fi is to leave you wondering at the end. Like 2001 A Space Odyssey.

The Alien Franchise should've stopped after Aliens but they try and explain everything in the average Prometheus and the truly dire Covenant. It just devalued the whole thing.

It'll be the same with Blade runner.....

It'll be the same with Blade runner.....

I'm willing to go with it as Villenueve is a better film maker than Ridley Scott.

I agree with namastebuzz both brilliant and origonal films in their day and both a major influence on every sci-fi film since .Why not leaver it be and make something new and original now .

I’m looking forward to seeing in a week or two, look stunning.

I don’t get the issue with them doing sequels nice to the story continue.

I don’t get the issue with them doing sequels nice to the story continue

Especially given the multiple tweaked versions of Blade Runner.

Hardly a definitive work. Apart from the Final Cut that is 😉 But messing around 25 years later?

Like 2001 A Space Odyssey.

you do know there's a sequel to this, right? 😆

Review embargo lifted.

5* in Empire for what it's worth.

[i]5* in Empire for what it's worth[/i]

Not a lot! Don't Empire just give everything 5*s?? Did last time I saw it.

Ah, wondered why reviews were appearing. Telegraph gone all existentialist, says trailers bear no real relationship to the film. I'm now wondering if it's all going to be a bit much for the Marvel generation.

Not a lot! Don't Empire just give everything 5*s?? Did last time I saw it.

Well yeah.

Try this - Peter Bradshaw 5*

To be fair Empire tend to give everything 4 stars.

I'm surprised you thought that. I watched it last year and thought it was perfect.

Hardly a definitive work. Apart from the Final Cut that is But messing around 25 years later?

Yup exactly that’s ample time for the nerds to discuss theories.

SFX liked it.

http://www.gamesradar.com/blade-runner-2049-review/

I'm avoiding all reviews cos SPOLIERS, but from what I've gleaned its turned out well. I'll report back next Thursday night when I see it.

Just back, I'm not a fan of the original no matter how many times I attempt to re-watch but I am a fan of Denis Villenueve.

For me it was beautifully crafted (nearly 3 hours) but suffered by being way too ponderous and monotone in its story telling. It is after all a paper thin plot stretched out.

Needed something extra to open out the canvas for a viewer to sink their teeth into. I can cope without exposition and slow pacing but there should've been more.

If you're a Blade runner fan I think you'll love it but this is the first Villenueve film I've not been blown away by.

I predict it's trying to do two things: follow in the footsteps of the original by being a cult hit appreciated years after and setting up a franchise.

I also think it won't do too well at the box office.

I also think it won't do too well at the box office.

Edit: You did reasonably well to avoid spoilers, but it's an almost impossible task as I read far too much into everything, so I'll bow out now!

Considering that I'm going to go and haven't been to the cinema since Django and Drac(?) said he hadn't been for 20 years and is going, I think you might be surprised

I will look out for the extra $30 on the box office takings.

Seriously 20 years. You've missed some good stuff.

Seriously 20 years. You've missed some good stuff.

Mark Kermode is a weather vane for me. If he says it's good then I'll wait for it to come on telly...

I've had a home cinema since 2000, and much prefer that experience normally. And I'm patient/busy enough to watch things when they take my fancy rather than when marketed.

So have I, but some films are worth the extra girth.

There was a time when I hated going to the cinema (too noisy etc) but we have such a good local cinema (walkable and cheap) that I still go quite a bit.

This film is definitely worth a trip for Deakins' fabulous cinematography.

I'll give this a watch when it comes out on showbox, I remember watching the original and i'll watch it again now to get up to speed with the plot.
Which original should I watch tho?

I'll give this a watch when it comes out on showbox, I remember watching the original and i'll watch it again now to get up to speed with the plot.

Do it at least justice and at least pay to see it.

To be honest I'm not that bothered, I wouldn't go to the cinema for a big clock so it'll be on the telly one way or another, just a matter of when and how, if it's xmas in ten years time its no big deal.

namastebuzz - Member
Why can't Hollywood just leave well alone?

The point of mystery/sci-fi is to leave you wondering at the end. Like 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Also just back, IMAX in Glasgow.

I dont really have words yet- stunning, just stunning. In every way. Ryan Gosling can actually act and is very very good indeed. I'm convinced. Visually- I've never seen anything like it. And yet it looks like Blade Runner.....go figure.

All I can really say is that they built a believable world based on Blade Runner and our own world, with logical and consistent extrapolations to a world 30 years later. And a plot that unites the 2 eras wonderfully, with enough resonance for fans of the original and (I think) those who've never seen the first one. You could live in this world.

And the dialogue is just fantastic. The writers made it all sound right and the actors made it pay off, all of them.

Dare I say it....[i]as good as, if not better, than the original[/i] and I think a new high watermark, certainly for science fiction.

At one point, I became self-conscious as my jaw had been hanging open, jaw dropped, for about 10 minutes. But then forgot all about it as something else jaw-dropping started happening.

I was pretty much gobsmacked by how good that was. 🙂

Absolutely blown away by it, soooo relieved!!! Looks like keeping Ridley Scott's hands off the tiller is prob a good idea from now on! 🙂

This film is definitely worth a trip for Deakins' fabulous cinematography.

Quite, it was absolutely stunning!

Looks like there was something good about Alien: Covenant after all!

Scott's commitment to Alien: Covenant (2017) may have forced him to step away from directing Blade Runner 2049 (2017).

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/trivia?ref_=m_tt_trv_trv

2 meetings in London on Tuesday - tickets for the morning session at the iMax booked!

Saw it last night. Very very impressed. As many others have said, such a Blade Runner atmosphere, good plot with a little bit of twistiness and good acting all round. Mebbes not everyone's cup of tea but a must for sci fi geeks like me.

Kermode review on shortly

I watched yesterday morning at I max 2d, this is how it should be seen, visual and audio joy, the cinematography is memorising, beautiful and blissful. Just watch for this alone.

The pacing of the film will get much criticism as it not the hyperactive marvel film, it is imho wonderfully paced allowing you time to be immersed into the story, the world and importantly the characters.

The plot is either as straightforward or 'as extensional as you wish.some bits in for me I went meh.

Acting is top notch, I like Ryan Gosling ( watch Nice Guysto see the contrast) the Harrison Ford stops being Harrison and acts reminding me that he could act. Strong female characters.

Yeah good good film off to see again tomorrow

I found the story lacking, a basic storyline without the twists of the original, the music, although very good, overpowering in places and overused and the lack of fine detail a great let down - I wanted something I would watch over and over again, each time spotting something new - this sadly isn't it 🙁

Obviously this is just my opinion, you choose to make your own...

I wouldn't go to the cinema for a big clock so it'll be on the telly one way or another

I keep seeing this sentence at the top of the page but I can't work it out- which big clock? Something to do with New Year's?

Watched it last night. Sorry if I'm mentioning any spoilers...

I saw the original before going out which heightened the anticipation.

Audience was ace. No munching or any ambient noise from them. Some Cineworld pass holders walked out as it obviously wasn't their thing.

Saw it in a regular screen which worked really well. No need for any other shenanigans like 3D or moving seats!

Really, really loved the scene where we are introduced to the lady that crafts memories! Great moment.

The score worked well.

I've grown to like Gosling (I quite liked Driver as well).

The film did lovingly linger over its own landscapes a little too much. Outside Vegas was a bit rubbish but hologram Elvis was great in the shootout.

All sorts of interesting characters get introduced but then forgotten. Seems too much about the sequels in that respect!

I reckon a 7 or 8 out of 10 for me.

I keep seeing this sentence at the top of the page but I can't work it out- which big clock? Something to do with New Year's?

To be honest I don't know, its just a saying, like for all the tea in china or something. I [i]think[/i] it might be something I picked up in Liverpool.

Which original should I watch tho?

The Final Cut. It's completely remastered, has various scenes cut from other versions, and is the only version Scott had full creative control over.

Disagree about the directors cut. It doesn't include the introspective narration by deckard which gave the film, for me at least, an engaging quality.

I saw it last night and thought it was excellent, and provides a great companion-piece to the original; Visually, and atmospherically, it was spot-on, with some great performances.

My only complain is the uprising bit in the basement was a bit too Matrix: Reloaded, for me, but that's a minor issue.

I'm off to see it tomorrow. The question is - 2D or 3D ? Will watching in 3D be a lot better or is it just a gimmick ?

I saw it in 2D and didn't miss 3D at all. In fact, I'd say 3D would have spoiled it.

Bladerunner has been my favourite film for as long as I can remember. I think it was about 14 when I first saw it so about four years after its release.

If you're a fan or the original Bladerunner film then the sequel won't disappoint. It is deeply thoughtful, poignant, intelligent and visually and audibly stunning. It is ultimately a continuation of the original themes of what it means to be human and takes that idea into very new territory that is genuinely original. It is easily best seen on the big screen but be prepared to be patient. The narrative story telling takes its time and the pace is one that allows you the opportunity to really think about what it's saying.

It is a wondrous and compelling evolution.

I found the story lacking, a basic storyline without the twists of the original, the music, although very good, overpowering in places and overused and the lack of fine detail a great let down - I wanted something I would watch over and over again, each time spotting something new - this sadly isn't it

I've got to agree with Gil. The fight sequences were overly long, Gosling's acting is wooden, and what's with all the male fantasy/female nudity?

I've also got issues with the plot but I won't go into those as it would take too long to type it all out.

cant read the thread in case of spoilers, but do you have to have seen the original to appreciate this new one?

i think i have seen it, but i dont really remember anything about it....

+1 gentee1972.

Spot on and I'm huge a fan of the first one. Even wrote post-grad essay's on it bitd!
Loved it.

mahalo - yes see the original. Directors or Final Cut.

cant read the thread in case of spoilers,

There aren't any really.

I've not seen the sequel yet but, either way the first one is well worth a watch.

I'm a huge fan of the first film.

I saw 2049 last night, fully expecting to be massively disappointed. I wasn't.

I love the first film as well and the critics reviews of BL2049 gave me hope that it might be at least as good as the original. However having seen it last night in 3D IMax I'm a bit disappointed. The film is at least 30 mins too long with some glaring plot holes and some of the characters appeared to be superfluous (K's "girlfriend"). Positives were the cinematography, CGI and the set design which built on the original. There was an interesting plot twist and a couple of extremely poignant moments. I usually hate Ryan Gosling and every film he's been in but in BL2049 he actually acted a bit and Harrison Ford also remembered how to act. Overall they didn't sully the memory of the first film but it would have been a much better film 30 mins shorter with less self indulgent editing for which I blame Villeneuve who has form (think the snoozefest that was Arrival). It also got me thinking about the original film again and how bloody good that was. Perhaps like Rudger Hauer said they should have left it well alone as a stand alone classic.

I can't decide if I loved the film or not. There certainly were some great things about it as mentioned above but I agree that it's too long (can't think what would be cut though, actually scratch that the scene with Gaff was just indulgent) and the score whilst having some nice references to the original was too loud (could just be the cinema I saw it in) and too Hans Zimmery. Yes Hans I know you like French Horns but really can you try something new?

The other thing that struck me as I was leaving was the promotional material in the cinema. There were three actors on three posters, Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford & Jarred Leto. As I came out I couldn't help but think that Jarred Leto shouldn't have been on the poster but one of the Female actors should have been there instead (Robin Wright most likely)

some glaring plot holes and some of the characters appeared to be superfluous (K's "girlfriend")

Slight spoiler but isn't she the equivalent of the Unicorn?

Slight spoiler but isn't she the equivalent of the Unicorn?

Having Joi (K's girlfriend) there is about love and humanity existing in yet another form that again also breaks from servitude.

some of the characters appeared to be superfluous (K's "girlfriend")

I think you missed a huge component as to what this film is really about. Her role is huge in terms of exploring the notion of what it means to be a real person; she's the film narative version of a Turing Test and as such takes the theme of what it means to be human to a whole new level.

Spoiler Alert

she's the film narrative version of a Turing Test

Then she failed, by calling him Joe again, from the billboard

Spoiler Alert!

Then she failed, by calling him Joe again, from the billboard

Well 'she' didn't call him Joe, that was someone else. 'She' passed, by sacrificing herself for him. That made her real.

But you make a really good point about this plot device; it suggests that her involvement and her brinigng in the prostitute to engage K was not a chance event.

For me the message of the film would have been the same without her. Anyway the question of AI being human has been done better in other films like Bicentennial Man.

The replicant prostitute could have done what was required for the plot when she met K in the market.

Then she failed, by calling him Joe again, from the billboard

You weren't paying attention, then.

She was a bit exposition-y, but (spoiler) the film explores what it means to have "emotions" and "humanity" and asks is that restricted to just humans. K and Joi (an off the shelf product) are clearly not human and yet are demonstrably in love with each other.

She was a bit exposition-y, but (spoiler) the film explores what it means to have "emotions" and "humanity" and asks is that restricted to just humans. K and Joi (an off the shelf product) are clearly not human and yet are demonstrably in love with each other.

Roy and chums in the first film did the whole 'what is it to be human?' thing much better. I'd rather they explored the 'big data, where is it going?' question with Joi - bit of a missed opportunity.

I kept expecting her to be reporting back on what K was up to, since she was ultimately a Wallace product

She/it was being monitored by Luv.

Not convinced... if Joi's a virtual AI companion, then this behaviour is what customers would expect - in effect this is what customers would be paying for.

There is a point in the film where the replicant rebel leader (the lady with the one eye) says there is nothing more human than dying for a cause you believe in.

When Joi asks to be put into the handheld device and K highlights the risk of doing this, she says it's a risk she wants to take; by doing this she is putting herself out there to die for her cause, which is K and is the narrative's way of showing her humanity.

Did no one else think there was deliberate similarities between the prostitute and the pleasure model from the first film.

Yes she was deliberately styled to look similar to Priss in the original film.

Also when K was looking at the microfilm of the DNA sequences and Joi was looking over his shoulder she was dressed in a transparent raincoat similar to the one the snake dancer replicant wore in the first film

SPOILER ALERT****

I saw it last night. Confused by the Officer K meeting with Dr Dreams.

I thought that Dr Dreams was a posh french bird who was going to live off-world (where only the privileged can travel). Then it turns out she's from a rubbish dump in San Diego and the wooden horse memory is hers.

Why doesn't she say "oi that's mine" when she reviews K's memory? She can see him going mental thinking that it actually happened to him, why not set him straight?

Why did she implant the memory in K in the first place?

How did K come to realise that she's "the one"? He didn't have a clue and then for some reason which eludes me, it dawned on him with absolute certainty.

Is Dr Dreams actually suffering from an immunity condition or is that just a ruse to keep her isolated and safe?

PS loved the origami double meaning. The layers are almost Shakespearean

Why did she implant the memory in K in the first place?

we don't know that she hasn't implanted that memory (or versions of it) in many Replicants, after all, she tells K that the best ones are based on reality.

How did K come to realise that she's "the one"?

because he realises that 1. the DNA records are mixed to hide that the replicant child is in fact a girl. 2. he realises that when he has the horse examined that it was in San Diego (radiation) and when he gives it to Dekard, (who he still thinks might be his father) Deckard recognises it as his own handiwork, and finally 3. putting together the memory of the horse with the person who created it, after the one eyed replicant tells him that the offspring is a girl...

I thought that Dr Dreams was a posh french bird who was going to live off-world (where only the privileged can travel). Then it turns out she's from a rubbish dump in San Diego and the wooden horse memory is hers.

Confused me as well. Either she's lying or someone has been frigging with her memory. Maybe the horse memory isn't hers. Also how does someone with a compromised immune system survive in an orphanage on a rubbish tip? Maybe someone has somehow convinced her she needs to stay in the bubble when she really doesn't.

I thought the horse was carved from wood taken from Las Vegas not San Diego because that's how K knew to look in Las Vegas for Deckard.

JOI s****s

JOI s****s

That didn't escape my notice either!

Yes she was deliberately styled to look similar to Priss in the original film.

And did anyone notice the startling similarities between large sections of this film and 'The Shinning'?

Plenty of people have delved deep into the film already. For me it’s enough that it looks, sounds and feels like the original Blade Runner. It’s got an interesting plot, doesn’t try and answer all the questions left by the original and doesn’t try too hard. It just worked.

OMG just watching the original again.

The bit just after Bryant calls Deckard (in his car) to tell him that Tyrell and Sebastian have been killed. The Jawa scrotes are clambering on his car and trying to pull it to bits. Deckard drives off, but the Jawas have torn the drone off the roof of his car! The drone that you don't notice in the first film but plays such a big part of the second!

Just in from watching it. It looked great. It was clearly meant to be sparse in tone and pacing. The nerds will be filling the gaps for [i]years[/i].

Joi was more than an exploration of humanity. Together they were an artificial relationship, and the question is 'does that make it have less value because they are not human'.

At the same time, Joi is effectively K's version of a replicant. A replicant's replicant if you will. He realises both that she is a product and wonders himself on their uniqueness and reality of their relationship when he encounters blue haired advertising Joi and she calls him Joe.

Layers and layers and layers. If you're a binary thinker you're really going to struggle with this movie, or utterly miss the point and think it's slow, overlong with a basic, thread bare plot, but it's not about the linear events of the plot. It's about what the characters are thinking and changes in their state of mind a they as they go through the story.

@uponthedowns & nickc

Yes I thought Las Vegas not San Diego was the irradiated zone (which was why Deckard has the place to himself).

Also, regardless of which place is irradiated, struggling to see how K identified Dr Dreams as Deckard's daughter.

May have to watch again.

I still think the fact that Deckard's car has a drone in the first film is an internet shattering sensation.

Saw it yesterday at the iMax in 3D - given that I haven't been to a cinema for a few years, it was visually stunning.

San Diego was the waste recycling zone and Deckard was living in Las Vegas as it was clearly shown as being east of LA, plus the Elvis and casino references. Somewhat ironic given recent events...

K discovering that there were dual-DNA matches for boy and girl, but quite how that led to Dr Dreams? Didn't quite get the significance of Dr D's tears at K's dream sequence at the time, simply the aesthetics of it being real, not synthetic.

Not quite 5*, but certainly 4* as a visual feast

Also, regardless of which place is irradiated, struggling to see how K identified Dr Dreams as Deckard's daughter.

All I can think of is that when she told him the memory was real he thought it was his own memory then when he found out he wasn't a "real boy" he assumed that it must be her memory that she had sold to Wallace for implanting in replicants.

I'm trying to decide if these gaps, inconsistencies and ambiguities in the story are deliberate and are intended to be explained in further sequels or if it is just sloppy writing

Just seen it. Absolutely loved it was superb in imax.

More to add my food is here. Oh and Drac has been to the cinema many times in the last 20 years I think my name got mixed up.

Also, regardless of which place is irradiated, struggling to see how K identified Dr Dreams as Deckard's daughter.

Wasn't it a case of putting the pieces together? He was told that a small number of replicants had been designed to reproduce, and that Rachel was one such replicant. He also discovered that only one child who was born as a result had survived. He also knew that Deckard and Rachel got together, so it wouldn't take a great leap to decide she was Deckards daughter.

This, coupled with the horse, his meeting with the girl, and what the one-eyed rebellion-leading replicant said, all pointed in that direction.

They also refer to the meeting between Rachel and Deckard not being a "chance" meeting, suggesting it was set up so they could produce a child who they could manipulate to produce the memories for future replicants.

I'm also not convinced he knew Deckard was the father until he went to LV: He had an idea, but it wasn't until he saw Deckard's wooden figures that it was confirmed.

I saw it after a couple of beers, so I may be mis-remembering some things and may have got it completely wrong 😀

The Deckard/Rachel relationship thing was left nicely ambiguous - was it engineered or was it chance? Is he or isn't he? In some ways I'm wondering if they could have left K's replicant status a bit more hidden during the early part of the film, a lot of the early references to 'Your kind'/'you people' could be construed as meaning Blade Runners rather than replicants. Then his relationship with Joi would have been seen from a different perspective and then re-evaluated. But that's just nit picking, the rest of it was a fine sequel to the orginal.