Blade runner 2049
Discussion
Mothersruin said:
Just watched.
Loved it - loved the pacing as it allowed you to get lost on the scenes. Superbly shot and while not as brilliant as the first, I thought the soundtrack did a good job.
Interestingly, the wife like it more than the original - I like both for different reasons.
Will watch again.
I've got the BluRay pre-ordered, but I have a hooky torrent copy on my Plex server just to tide me over. I've had to stop watching it in case I sort of "wear out" my enjoyment of it.Loved it - loved the pacing as it allowed you to get lost on the scenes. Superbly shot and while not as brilliant as the first, I thought the soundtrack did a good job.
Interestingly, the wife like it more than the original - I like both for different reasons.
Will watch again.
One thing I would say to anyone is whatever you do watch it on the biggest screen you possibly can (think of the biggest council house TV imaginable) and with the mahoosivest sound system, cranked up full. The scale of the cinematography and the sound - it would be doing the film an injustice to use less.
RobDickinson said:
buy the 5 hour directors cut later then 
I buy these for the hq movie not the extras
I read that Villeneuve isn't going to release any 'deleted scenes' which I think is pretty cool. They always create re-interpretations and whatiffery amongst commentators. I hope that sticks - it's a great piece of work as it is, needs no more embellishment or supplement.I buy these for the hq movie not the extras
Luv was a strange and intriguing character. Tearful at times, having her nails done all fancy, then ruthless and unnecessarily cruel. She wasn't just a drone following orders, for example a few snide comments she made when 'dealing' with people.
Then Joi. Told him all he wanted to hear, or did she? Was that all she was or was she for real?
I can't see a third film happening. I think this one answers the questions we had as to what happened next and put some more meat on the bone in the quest to see how human replicants realy are or are not. The next film would probably just be an out and out battle between two races, and no deeper meaning to it than that.
Except perhaps, would we like to see what attack ships on fire really looked like, a prequel?!!!
Then Joi. Told him all he wanted to hear, or did she? Was that all she was or was she for real?
I can't see a third film happening. I think this one answers the questions we had as to what happened next and put some more meat on the bone in the quest to see how human replicants realy are or are not. The next film would probably just be an out and out battle between two races, and no deeper meaning to it than that.
Except perhaps, would we like to see what attack ships on fire really looked like, a prequel?!!!
King Herald said:
I found it tedious and couldn’t make head nor tail of what was supposed to be happening. Someone mentioned it would be better to re-watch the original first, so maybe I should have.
Watching the first is must, especially if you hadn't seen it in years as in my case.As 2049 unfolds there are some very clear links and references, apart from the obvious ones, to the first movie which will be missed if you've not revisited the first film. Someone who hasn't seen it at all, they'll be clueless watching 2049
agreed it doesn't quite stand alone does it - but all the better for it imho.
Pros
I really liked the fact and down to a terrifically understated performance from gosling, some terrific little touches like the look of the prostitute being similar to Pris, the staring a the hand and noticing he was starting to die, the production values were sky high, the portrayal of a divided race and for the most part the script....the
The way the story developed was handled really well despite a one or two clunky scenes - I loved the breakdown moment "you thought it was you ?" Gosling was superb...the ending as well so well handled
Cons -
The scenes with the police lieutenant were repetitive and a tad cliched and was it really plausible that someone of her relatively low rank was responsible for such a calamitous potential case...? and why always drinking - that got a bit boring.
Whilst I liked that you could almost differentiate different parts of the story from the colour scheme and lighting which provided a vivid backdrop - it felt a bit "too" different at times...maybe just me.
My only other gripe was the initial Deckard Gosling initial meeting - Questions questions....that felt overly clunky and difficult...I thought that scene could have been more perhaps collaborative as opposed to antagonistic...
Wallaces' character as well....for all that power lacked omnipotence and menace - more of a demigod than oligarch again maybe that is up to audience interpretation
don't get me wrong I really enjoyed the film and the striving human message accompanied by artifice and destruction....a very solid 9/10 with just a few minor gripes.
Pros
I really liked the fact and down to a terrifically understated performance from gosling, some terrific little touches like the look of the prostitute being similar to Pris, the staring a the hand and noticing he was starting to die, the production values were sky high, the portrayal of a divided race and for the most part the script....the
The way the story developed was handled really well despite a one or two clunky scenes - I loved the breakdown moment "you thought it was you ?" Gosling was superb...the ending as well so well handled
Cons -
The scenes with the police lieutenant were repetitive and a tad cliched and was it really plausible that someone of her relatively low rank was responsible for such a calamitous potential case...? and why always drinking - that got a bit boring.
Whilst I liked that you could almost differentiate different parts of the story from the colour scheme and lighting which provided a vivid backdrop - it felt a bit "too" different at times...maybe just me.
My only other gripe was the initial Deckard Gosling initial meeting - Questions questions....that felt overly clunky and difficult...I thought that scene could have been more perhaps collaborative as opposed to antagonistic...
Wallaces' character as well....for all that power lacked omnipotence and menace - more of a demigod than oligarch again maybe that is up to audience interpretation
don't get me wrong I really enjoyed the film and the striving human message accompanied by artifice and destruction....a very solid 9/10 with just a few minor gripes.
I like the fact that it is a very definite sequel, rather than the (sadly) more common "soft reboot" semi-sequel retelling that was first seen in "Tron: Legacy" and also done in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens".
I also like that there is so much going on.
For example, the interrogation scene. There is an interesting bit of background on it in a recent article from Den of Geek:
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/blade-runner-20...
(Caution: Spoilers)
My Bluray of the film arrived today, so I am looking forward to watching it again.
I also like that there is so much going on.
For example, the interrogation scene. There is an interesting bit of background on it in a recent article from Den of Geek:
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/blade-runner-20...
(Caution: Spoilers)
My Bluray of the film arrived today, so I am looking forward to watching it again.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Tuesday 6th February 10:50
Nice article, Cupcake.
That scene portrays K as one of those little baby chickens on the conveyor system, being checked for the right or wrong bits, one outcome is the chick lives a little longer and the other outcome is the chick gets thrown, without hesitation, into a mincer to be fed to the others.
It also suggests that it is accepted that replicants have or develop emotions and desires so what society is doing there is pretty sick.
That scene portrays K as one of those little baby chickens on the conveyor system, being checked for the right or wrong bits, one outcome is the chick lives a little longer and the other outcome is the chick gets thrown, without hesitation, into a mincer to be fed to the others.
It also suggests that it is accepted that replicants have or develop emotions and desires so what society is doing there is pretty sick.
I think that was one of the few scenes that really stood out for me. I like the fact that the replicant issue and the way humans interact with them has moved on logically in the sequel. Sure there was a bit of animosity towards them in the original film i.e. the derogatory term skin job used by the police boss in the first movie but they seemed to be generally accepted on the whole.
In the sequel it looks like a whole new level of conflict has arisen between humans and replicants. Perhaps there have been more Roy Batty incidents, one too many replicants going rogue in the intervening years or the general strife caused by the blackout has made humanity uglier and less tolerant.
You'd imagine that if Earth was in better shape, replicants might be treated better or even start to be given human rights but not in this future, it's gone totally in the opposite direction and that interrogation scene is a brilliant view into that, Star Trek this ain't.
In the sequel it looks like a whole new level of conflict has arisen between humans and replicants. Perhaps there have been more Roy Batty incidents, one too many replicants going rogue in the intervening years or the general strife caused by the blackout has made humanity uglier and less tolerant.
You'd imagine that if Earth was in better shape, replicants might be treated better or even start to be given human rights but not in this future, it's gone totally in the opposite direction and that interrogation scene is a brilliant view into that, Star Trek this ain't.
The only thing that is missing - unless I've missed something pretty fundamental is the why?
why does wallace continue to produce replicants with the "ability" to reproduce - the scene in the wallace corp room clearly suggest a "birthing" type ritual and a knife being used to prevent that particular one from reproducing.
why not change the process to make them infertile completely or is there in implicit suggestion that for whatever reason and its too soon to be evolutionary - replicants evolve in some other way? Rachael was clearly unique but given she was the first and there was no suggestion in the film that other replicants had bred to produce baby replicants.
in the film I'm sure Dekard and Rachaels' child is described as a human ?
i'm just struggling with wallace's motive to continue to produce potentially reproductive replicants when he can produce infertile drones effectively surely?
the presumption is clearly that deckard possessed DNA which as a replicant mating with another replicant cannot produce something human??? hence the miracle part? is that then a suggestion of some form of divinity? that has no place in a film like this...
why does wallace continue to produce replicants with the "ability" to reproduce - the scene in the wallace corp room clearly suggest a "birthing" type ritual and a knife being used to prevent that particular one from reproducing.
why not change the process to make them infertile completely or is there in implicit suggestion that for whatever reason and its too soon to be evolutionary - replicants evolve in some other way? Rachael was clearly unique but given she was the first and there was no suggestion in the film that other replicants had bred to produce baby replicants.
in the film I'm sure Dekard and Rachaels' child is described as a human ?
i'm just struggling with wallace's motive to continue to produce potentially reproductive replicants when he can produce infertile drones effectively surely?
the presumption is clearly that deckard possessed DNA which as a replicant mating with another replicant cannot produce something human??? hence the miracle part? is that then a suggestion of some form of divinity? that has no place in a film like this...
I may be way off here as I wasn't gripped by the film as much as many on this thread and may have drifted off\missed a bit but I didn't think Wallace had the ability to create replicants that could reproduce.
I thought the whole point of him trying to find Deckard and\or Rachels offspring was so he could dissect them and find out how to do it so he could produce replicants a lot more quickly and for free?
I thought the whole point of him trying to find Deckard and\or Rachels offspring was so he could dissect them and find out how to do it so he could produce replicants a lot more quickly and for free?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff