That blaster is amazing! Where did you come by that?
thanks! I got it brand new off ebay about 4-5 years ago. It's mostly metal and has working lights though I have yet to get the correct batteries to light it up )
It looks terrific and judging by the new teaser looks like it's making a comeback in the sequel.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Denis Villeneuve's few films I highly recommend Prisoners, His first big Hollywood film. Its absolutely brilliant and shot by none other then the best cinematographer in the business, Skyfall's Roger Deakins, whose also doing Blade Runner 2049.
Yes I agree Prisoners is an excellent film. Can't wait for the Blade Runner sequel. Watched Blade Runner (The Final Cut) the other week. I am a big fan. Not forgetting the soundtrack by Vangelis. -{
For those who saw the film what did you think? I've seen it twice now (once in the presence of huge Blade Runner fan Christopher Nolan!) and I'm still kind of processing it but I don't think I liked it as much as I thought I would.
I feel that Blade Runner 2049 is a film that didn't need to be made. However, I also feel that they did the impossible here. They made a sequel that should have failed miserably, and somehow made it work better than it had any right to. It's a masterpiece of film-making, BUT that doesn't mean the FILM ITSELF is a masterpiece. I've seen it once, and in all likelihood I will never see it again. It's like a grand experiment in fan fiction to me. If the original team had made a sequel in, say, the 90's, it *might* have been closer to the original in terms of valid continuation and quality... but the time for that passed. Let the reasonably invested fans love it front to back, SUPER invested fans such as myself cannot/may not see this as anything more than a loving and well crafted tribute. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Chris, from the original film did you ever decide if Deckard was a replicant or not? As far as I know there has never been a definitive answer, Scott said different things to Ford, and if they don't know???
It has always been my feeling that he isn't a replicant. A defining characteristic of a replicant is heightened physical strength (see the dictionary meaning at the beginning of the workprint). This is why an untrained girl like Rachael can hold & accurately fire a big caliber gun like Deckard's. But Deckard can't even win a fight against a pleasure model (Pris).
Yeah that's what I always believed and wanted to believe, I just don't understand why they had to put that paper unicorn in at the end. Also other than Rachel, all replica have a termination date! Hello!! Deckard is back!
I just don't understand why they had to put that paper unicorn in at the end.
Originally, that was Gaff commenting on Deckard's life with Rachael being a fantasy since she had less than 4 years to live. Later they stuck in the unicorn in Deckard's thoughts (rather clumsily I might add) to insinuate that Gaff knew his thoughts and that he was a replicant. That's part of why I only watch the theatrical cuts...
Deckard being a replicant makes absolutely no sense to me. As Chrisisall mentions every replicant he comes across he barely beats if at all. But also Deckard being a replicant makes the whole story pretty meaningless because at the end its shown through Roy that the replicants showed more humanity and compassion then the human Deckard.
It never made sense but was kind of hinted at, particularly when Scott gave interviews he didn't deny it in fact he courted the idea. For me after the original cut I'd decided that in no way could Deckard be replicant, the final cut skewed that slightly. In fact I never even considered the possibility until I watched the final cut as an adult.
It never made sense but was kind of hinted at, particularly when Scott gave interviews he didn't deny it in fact he courted the idea. For me after the original cut I'd decided that in no way could Deckard be replicant, the final cut skewed that slightly. In fact I never even considered the possibility until I watched the final cut as an adult.
As far I know its only been Scott who has been pushing the idea that Deckard is a replicant. Everyone from Ford to the Phillip K. Dick says the character is human, and as I said above the story makes sense that way.
Deckard being a replicant makes the whole story pretty meaningless because at the end its shown through Roy that the replicants showed more humanity and compassion then the human Deckard.
I saw 2049 today and thought it was excellent. I'm not gonna say it was better than the original because it wasn't, but that doesn't mean that this sequel was not excellent. It was very well done, and I am relieved that I liked it so much because I was afraid it would ruin the legacy of the excellent original. But thankfully, I'm into it.
I saw 2049 today and thought it was excellent. I'm not gonna say it was better than the original because it wasn't, but that doesn't mean that this sequel was not excellent. It was very well done, and I am relieved that I liked it so much because I was afraid it would ruin the legacy of the excellent original. But thankfully, I'm into it.
I'm truly glad for those who love it- it's an awesomely well made sequel that never needed to be... but I just have too many problems with it being that the original is my favourite pure sci-fi of all time.
Some well made points from ProfJoeButcher over at MI6:
SPOILERS!
They retcon motivations into the first movie (Rachael was programmed as part of a villain's plot, Deckard's even more special than the events of the first film made him out to be) and give motivations to Gosling that are either the result of incredible coincidence or more "Chosen One"-style nonsense. That tone even nicks my appreciation of some of the design: Jared Leto's over-the-top abode was as insufferable as he was. Why would that room exist?
And why is the film 163 minutes long? I like long movies, but they need to justify their length. Watching K slowly approach that furnace thing, slowly open it, slowly take out the bag, slowly remove the bag's contents, and slowly check the date on the wooden horse that the audience already knew was there smacks of self-indulgence. There's no reason for that scene to be constructed that way. They could have made it twice as long, or half as long, and it would make no difference whatsoever. I don't feel that they're respecting the audience here.
And there are worse ways the film disrespects the audience, specifically, the audience's intelligence. Apart from very frequent references to "slaves" and "angels" spelling out the themes, and hamfisted discussion of souls, and being "born, not made", you have little annoyances. The one that irritated me the most was when K was looking at the DNA, and Joi (ugh) comments that humans are just made up of four things, but she's only made up of two. And then she explains, for the idiots, "ones and zeroes". Please, movie, give me a tiny bit of credit here. By the way, naming the protagonist "K" at all, ("Hey, you guys like Kafka? Look what we did here!")
Oh, and not long after Deckard explains that "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger," Luv kills Joi! Groan!
Some of that may sound nitpicky, but it just underscores that disrespect for the audience. Less nitpicky would be to point out how obnoxious it is to leave an *obvious* red herring (K might be Deckard's son!) floating around for like an hour.
Other observations:
The film seems to take place in one of those rare dystopias with virtually no security whatsoever. Waltzing into the police station and murdering a lieutenant seems to be a trivial matter. For the two most hunted guys in the universe to waltz into the facility where the dream maker works seems pretty easy too.
Why does Wallace want replicants to reproduce? I mean, okay, there's the prestige of having accomplished that, but does he feel that his current method of producing millions of replicants just how he likes them is too fast and efficient? Is he tired of making money by selling replicants, and would prefer that millions of free ones just get produced?
Maybe it's just me, but Joi's AI seemed radically underdeveloped in comparison to that of K, and it's hard for me to really see that relationship making sense. And just the idea of selling a romantic partner that's completely non-physical, in a world with millions of replicants, seems like an odd thing to do generally.
"Well, K is hurt, so we'll just leave him over there and then go complete our evil master--oh ****! It's K!"
A lot of this flew past me as I was honestly not invested enough to care, but it just makes me more sure I will not revisit this movie past my one theatrical viewing.
I saw 2049 today and thought it was excellent. I'm not gonna say it was better than the original because it wasn't, but that doesn't mean that this sequel was not excellent. It was very well done, and I am relieved that I liked it so much because I was afraid it would ruin the legacy of the excellent original. But thankfully, I'm into it.
I'm truly glad for those who love it- it's an awesomely well made sequel that never needed to be... but I just have too many problems with it being that the original is my favourite pure sci-fi of all time.
Some well made points from ProfJoeButcher over at MI6: They retcon motivations into the first movie (Rachael was programmed as part of a villain's plot, Deckard's even more special than the events of the first film made him out to be) and give motivations to Gosling that are either the result of incredible coincidence or more "Chosen One"-style nonsense. That tone even nicks my appreciation of some of the design: Jared Leto's over-the-top abode was as insufferable as he was. Why would that room exist?
And why is the film 163 minutes long? I like long movies, but they need to justify their length. Watching K slowly approach that furnace thing, slowly open it, slowly take out the bag, slowly remove the bag's contents, and slowly check the date on the wooden horse that the audience already knew was there smacks of self-indulgence. There's no reason for that scene to be constructed that way. They could have made it twice as long, or half as long, and it would make no difference whatsoever. I don't feel that they're respecting the audience here.
And there are worse ways the film disrespects the audience, specifically, the audience's intelligence. Apart from very frequent references to "slaves" and "angels" spelling out the themes, and hamfisted discussion of souls, and being "born, not made", you have little annoyances. The one that irritated me the most was when K was looking at the DNA, and Joi (ugh) comments that humans are just made up of four things, but she's only made up of two. And then she explains, for the idiots, "ones and zeroes". Please, movie, give me a tiny bit of credit here. By the way, naming the protagonist "K" at all, ("Hey, you guys like Kafka? Look what we did here!")
Oh, and not long after Deckard explains that "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger," Luv kills Joi! Groan!
Some of that may sound nitpicky, but it just underscores that disrespect for the audience. Less nitpicky would be to point out how obnoxious it is to leave an *obvious* red herring (K might be Deckard's son!) floating around for like an hour.
Other observations:
The film seems to take place in one of those rare dystopias with virtually no security whatsoever. Waltzing into the police station and murdering a lieutenant seems to be a trivial matter. For the two most hunted guys in the universe to waltz into the facility where the dream maker works seems pretty easy too.
Why does Wallace want replicants to reproduce? I mean, okay, there's the prestige of having accomplished that, but does he feel that his current method of producing millions of replicants just how he likes them is too fast and efficient? Is he tired of making money by selling replicants, and would prefer that millions of free ones just get produced?
Maybe it's just me, but Joi's AI seemed radically underdeveloped in comparison to that of K, and it's hard for me to really see that relationship making sense. And just the idea of selling a romantic partner that's completely non-physical, in a world with millions of replicants, seems like an odd thing to do generally.
"Well, K is hurt, so we'll just leave him over there and then go complete our evil master--oh ****! It's K!"
A lot of this flew past me as I was honestly not invested enough to care, but it just makes me more sure I will not revisit this movie past my one theatrical viewing.
the original is my favourite pure sci-fi of all time.
Me too. Well, besides the original Star Wars trilogy, and pretty much on par with the Back To The Future trilogy. Those, with Blade Runner, are my absolute favourite sci-fi films. Interstellar is outside of this, but still a high ranker.
I saw 2049 today and thought it was excellent. I'm not gonna say it was better than the original because it wasn't, but that doesn't mean that this sequel was not excellent. It was very well done, and I am relieved that I liked it so much because I was afraid it would ruin the legacy of the excellent original. But thankfully, I'm into it.
I'm truly glad for those who love it- it's an awesomely well made sequel that never needed to be... but I just have too many problems with it being that the original is my favourite pure sci-fi of all time.
Some well made points from ProfJoeButcher over at MI6:
SPOILERS!
They retcon motivations into the first movie (Rachael was programmed as part of a villain's plot, Deckard's even more special than the events of the first film made him out to be) and give motivations to Gosling that are either the result of incredible coincidence or more "Chosen One"-style nonsense. That tone even nicks my appreciation of some of the design: Jared Leto's over-the-top abode was as insufferable as he was. Why would that room exist?
And why is the film 163 minutes long? I like long movies, but they need to justify their length. Watching K slowly approach that furnace thing, slowly open it, slowly take out the bag, slowly remove the bag's contents, and slowly check the date on the wooden horse that the audience already knew was there smacks of self-indulgence. There's no reason for that scene to be constructed that way. They could have made it twice as long, or half as long, and it would make no difference whatsoever. I don't feel that they're respecting the audience here.
And there are worse ways the film disrespects the audience, specifically, the audience's intelligence. Apart from very frequent references to "slaves" and "angels" spelling out the themes, and hamfisted discussion of souls, and being "born, not made", you have little annoyances. The one that irritated me the most was when K was looking at the DNA, and Joi (ugh) comments that humans are just made up of four things, but she's only made up of two. And then she explains, for the idiots, "ones and zeroes". Please, movie, give me a tiny bit of credit here. By the way, naming the protagonist "K" at all, ("Hey, you guys like Kafka? Look what we did here!")
Oh, and not long after Deckard explains that "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger," Luv kills Joi! Groan!
Some of that may sound nitpicky, but it just underscores that disrespect for the audience. Less nitpicky would be to point out how obnoxious it is to leave an *obvious* red herring (K might be Deckard's son!) floating around for like an hour.
Other observations:
The film seems to take place in one of those rare dystopias with virtually no security whatsoever. Waltzing into the police station and murdering a lieutenant seems to be a trivial matter. For the two most hunted guys in the universe to waltz into the facility where the dream maker works seems pretty easy too.
Why does Wallace want replicants to reproduce? I mean, okay, there's the prestige of having accomplished that, but does he feel that his current method of producing millions of replicants just how he likes them is too fast and efficient? Is he tired of making money by selling replicants, and would prefer that millions of free ones just get produced?
Maybe it's just me, but Joi's AI seemed radically underdeveloped in comparison to that of K, and it's hard for me to really see that relationship making sense. And just the idea of selling a romantic partner that's completely non-physical, in a world with millions of replicants, seems like an odd thing to do generally.
"Well, K is hurt, so we'll just leave him over there and then go complete our evil master--oh ****! It's K!"
A lot of this flew past me as I was honestly not invested enough to care, but it just makes me more sure I will not revisit this movie past my one theatrical viewing.
The original Blade Runner is obviously one of my favorite films so of course I had sky high expectations for this but I left the cinema feeling a bit underwhelmed. One of the reasons why is because most of the film didn't truly feel like Blade Runner to me. Obviously in the sequel they have to expand the universe and the setting but once they left LA and went to the junkyard I thought of Mad Max and when he went to Vegas I thought of Fallout. I wish more time was spent on the rainy streets like the Scene when K meets Mariette.
I saw 2049 today and thought it was excellent. I'm not gonna say it was better than the original because it wasn't, but that doesn't mean that this sequel was not excellent. It was very well done, and I am relieved that I liked it so much because I was afraid it would ruin the legacy of the excellent original. But thankfully, I'm into it.
I'm truly glad for those who love it- it's an awesomely well made sequel that never needed to be... but I just have too many problems with it being that the original is my favourite pure sci-fi of all time.
Some well made points from ProfJoeButcher over at MI6:
SPOILERS!
They retcon motivations into the first movie (Rachael was programmed as part of a villain's plot, Deckard's even more special than the events of the first film made him out to be) and give motivations to Gosling that are either the result of incredible coincidence or more "Chosen One"-style nonsense. That tone even nicks my appreciation of some of the design: Jared Leto's over-the-top abode was as insufferable as he was. Why would that room exist?
And why is the film 163 minutes long? I like long movies, but they need to justify their length. Watching K slowly approach that furnace thing, slowly open it, slowly take out the bag, slowly remove the bag's contents, and slowly check the date on the wooden horse that the audience already knew was there smacks of self-indulgence. There's no reason for that scene to be constructed that way. They could have made it twice as long, or half as long, and it would make no difference whatsoever. I don't feel that they're respecting the audience here.
And there are worse ways the film disrespects the audience, specifically, the audience's intelligence. Apart from very frequent references to "slaves" and "angels" spelling out the themes, and hamfisted discussion of souls, and being "born, not made", you have little annoyances. The one that irritated me the most was when K was looking at the DNA, and Joi (ugh) comments that humans are just made up of four things, but she's only made up of two. And then she explains, for the idiots, "ones and zeroes". Please, movie, give me a tiny bit of credit here. By the way, naming the protagonist "K" at all, ("Hey, you guys like Kafka? Look what we did here!")
Oh, and not long after Deckard explains that "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger," Luv kills Joi! Groan!
Some of that may sound nitpicky, but it just underscores that disrespect for the audience. Less nitpicky would be to point out how obnoxious it is to leave an *obvious* red herring (K might be Deckard's son!) floating around for like an hour.
Other observations:
The film seems to take place in one of those rare dystopias with virtually no security whatsoever. Waltzing into the police station and murdering a lieutenant seems to be a trivial matter. For the two most hunted guys in the universe to waltz into the facility where the dream maker works seems pretty easy too.
Why does Wallace want replicants to reproduce? I mean, okay, there's the prestige of having accomplished that, but does he feel that his current method of producing millions of replicants just how he likes them is too fast and efficient? Is he tired of making money by selling replicants, and would prefer that millions of free ones just get produced?
Maybe it's just me, but Joi's AI seemed radically underdeveloped in comparison to that of K, and it's hard for me to really see that relationship making sense. And just the idea of selling a romantic partner that's completely non-physical, in a world with millions of replicants, seems like an odd thing to do generally.
"Well, K is hurt, so we'll just leave him over there and then go complete our evil master--oh ****! It's K!"
A lot of this flew past me as I was honestly not invested enough to care, but it just makes me more sure I will not revisit this movie past my one theatrical viewing.
The original Blade Runner is obviously one of my favorite films so of course I had sky high expectations for this but I left the cinema feeling a bit underwhelmed. One of the reasons why is because most of the film didn't truly feel like Blade Runner to me. Obviously in the sequel they have to expand the universe and the setting but once they left LA and went to the junkyard I thought of Mad Max and when he went to Vegas I thought of Fallout. I wish more time was spent on the rainy streets like the Scene when K meets Mariette.
I found it very reminiscent, though I've not seen the original for maybe 5 years, I did think that the city scenes looked older and less futuristic in 2049, I was pleased they made a feature of the rain in 2049, it's a good film, but is it a good sequel? Possibly not.
I never liked Ford's cropped haircut. It makes him a right old moonface.
However, there is a bootleg copy of the film in which he has long hair for a lot of the scenes, there were two versions filmed apparently, one in which he looks more like Hans Solo.
This is one of those foaf-lore stories that isn't true. Ford never shot any scenes with long hair, official or non-official. There are screen test scenes of Dustin Hoffman in the role, but Ford insisted on the crew-cut as he didn't want to become stereo-typed as an actor in a hat - which is what Deckard was meant to be - a proper 'Dick Tracy' style investigator. As part of the agreement to take on the role, Ford got the chopped hair before the cameras started rolling.
There's some stories that should be left and I believe that Blade Runner is one of them. I'll doubtless go see the movie, but I am expecting to hate it. I hope to be surprised.
Well, I have seen BR2049 now and it's the first film in a while that I'll be seeing twice at the pictures (as we older Brits call the cinema) - it's been playing around in my mind for the last few days and I need to see it in full again.
I think the sequel addresses one big issue in a way that nobody has ever thought about, or at least I've never seen it mentioned: is Deckard a replicant?
What is a replicant? An android, a synthetic human. Our understanding of these descriptions back in 1982 probably filled our heads with thoughts of mechanical robots with a flesh and skin covering, a bit like a Terminator or synthetic like Bishop or Ash in the Alien films. From watching BR2049 now, we understand that a replicant is essentially a lab-grown biological being which is capable of reproduction (whether intended or unintended). The limited life span has been removed from the new models, presumably as owners didn't want to pay out every 4 years. But as the reproduction capable and long-life examples are all old Nexus models, now that Eldon Tyrell is gone, nobody understands how this has come about - least of all Niander Wallace. Is the reproduction a product of evolution, an accidental side-effect or something else?
So, what is a replicant? Effectively it's a grown human, treated as a slave by those left on earth. So essentially, it doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant or not. There's no real difference apart from our perception of the term.
BR2049 is a very different film to the original, but it is an excellent film and I'm glad it was made and that I've experienced it.
Whether he's a replicant matters more to the original film, as replicants are not allowed on earth, if he was a replicant he could not have been trusted to be bladerunner. I'm still unsure what to make of gosling being a "skinner".
What I've taken from the sequel is that Rachel was a very different replicant, she had no termination date, she believed she was human and as such I think tyrell gave her the ability to reproduce, and that secret went with tyrell. It's only the final cut that introduces the possibility that Deckard could be a replicant.
Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.
The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.
Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.
Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.
The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.
Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.
Similar to my thoughts, 2049 is a great film, well acted, well directed etc but possibly isn't a great sequel, but is it meant for the die hard fans of the original or does it need to appeal also to the casual cinema goer
Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.
The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.
Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.
Yeah the originals aesthetic is so unique that even BR2049 couldn't replicate it perfectly. But a lot of that has to do with the use of CGI vs matte paintings and models in the original. Have any of you guys picked up the limited edition Johnnie walker directors cut?
2049 is a great film, well acted, well directed etc but possibly isn't a great sequel, but is it meant for the die hard fans of the original or does it need to appeal also to the casual cinema goer
It's clearly meant for fans of the original. Someone brand new to it wouldn't know why they should care halfway through it...
2049 is a great film, well acted, well directed etc but possibly isn't a great sequel, but is it meant for the die hard fans of the original or does it need to appeal also to the casual cinema goer
It's clearly meant for fans of the original. Someone brand new to it wouldn't know why they should care halfway through it...
What makes me wonder is that the original was hardly a huge box office hit, granted it's appeal has grown since amd it's cult status is legendary but at the time I think it's fair to say it underperformed. Do Hollywood studios really make cult films for die hard fans these days?
Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.
The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.
Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.
Yeah the originals aesthetic is so unique that even BR2049 couldn't replicate it perfectly. But a lot of that has to do with the use of CGI vs matte paintings and models in the original. Have any of you guys picked up the limited edition Johnnie walker directors cut?
no but the use of it in 2049 and Deckard holding the bottle in Vegas wasn't lost on me. Or the fact he said he had millions of bottles. In his apartment in the original he had a fair few bottles there too.
What makes me wonder is that the original was hardly a huge box office hit, granted it's appeal has grown since amd it's cult status is legendary but at the time I think it's fair to say it underperformed. Do Hollywood studios really make cult films for die hard fans these days?
It was pointed out to the suits how many different releases the original had and how revered it was in the sci-fi community, so I think they thought of it as a pre-sold, sure fire hit. But making a sequel so long after the original is always tricky, and a good portion of the fans of the original probably didn't even bother to see it. I almost didn't myself.... but I felt duty bound.
Loved both movies, but indeed the first more than the second.
And yeah, Deckard is human to me. Wallace was just full of ****. And so was Tyrell if you ask me. I believe Rachel did have an end date which may be why she died in childbirth. But hey, that's just me. )
Comments
It looks terrific and judging by the new teaser looks like it's making a comeback in the sequel.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Some well made points from ProfJoeButcher over at MI6:
SPOILERS!
They retcon motivations into the first movie (Rachael was programmed as part of a villain's plot, Deckard's even more special than the events of the first film made him out to be) and give motivations to Gosling that are either the result of incredible coincidence or more "Chosen One"-style nonsense. That tone even nicks my appreciation of some of the design: Jared Leto's over-the-top abode was as insufferable as he was. Why would that room exist?
And why is the film 163 minutes long? I like long movies, but they need to justify their length. Watching K slowly approach that furnace thing, slowly open it, slowly take out the bag, slowly remove the bag's contents, and slowly check the date on the wooden horse that the audience already knew was there smacks of self-indulgence. There's no reason for that scene to be constructed that way. They could have made it twice as long, or half as long, and it would make no difference whatsoever. I don't feel that they're respecting the audience here.
And there are worse ways the film disrespects the audience, specifically, the audience's intelligence. Apart from very frequent references to "slaves" and "angels" spelling out the themes, and hamfisted discussion of souls, and being "born, not made", you have little annoyances. The one that irritated me the most was when K was looking at the DNA, and Joi (ugh) comments that humans are just made up of four things, but she's only made up of two. And then she explains, for the idiots, "ones and zeroes". Please, movie, give me a tiny bit of credit here. By the way, naming the protagonist "K" at all, ("Hey, you guys like Kafka? Look what we did here!")
Oh, and not long after Deckard explains that "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger," Luv kills Joi! Groan!
Some of that may sound nitpicky, but it just underscores that disrespect for the audience. Less nitpicky would be to point out how obnoxious it is to leave an *obvious* red herring (K might be Deckard's son!) floating around for like an hour.
Other observations:
The film seems to take place in one of those rare dystopias with virtually no security whatsoever. Waltzing into the police station and murdering a lieutenant seems to be a trivial matter. For the two most hunted guys in the universe to waltz into the facility where the dream maker works seems pretty easy too.
Why does Wallace want replicants to reproduce? I mean, okay, there's the prestige of having accomplished that, but does he feel that his current method of producing millions of replicants just how he likes them is too fast and efficient? Is he tired of making money by selling replicants, and would prefer that millions of free ones just get produced?
Maybe it's just me, but Joi's AI seemed radically underdeveloped in comparison to that of K, and it's hard for me to really see that relationship making sense. And just the idea of selling a romantic partner that's completely non-physical, in a world with millions of replicants, seems like an odd thing to do generally.
"Well, K is hurt, so we'll just leave him over there and then go complete our evil master--oh ****! It's K!"
A lot of this flew past me as I was honestly not invested enough to care, but it just makes me more sure I will not revisit this movie past my one theatrical viewing.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Me too. Well, besides the original Star Wars trilogy, and pretty much on par with the Back To The Future trilogy. Those, with Blade Runner, are my absolute favourite sci-fi films. Interstellar is outside of this, but still a high ranker.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I found it very reminiscent, though I've not seen the original for maybe 5 years, I did think that the city scenes looked older and less futuristic in 2049, I was pleased they made a feature of the rain in 2049, it's a good film, but is it a good sequel? Possibly not.
Well, I have seen BR2049 now and it's the first film in a while that I'll be seeing twice at the pictures (as we older Brits call the cinema) - it's been playing around in my mind for the last few days and I need to see it in full again.
I think the sequel addresses one big issue in a way that nobody has ever thought about, or at least I've never seen it mentioned: is Deckard a replicant?
What is a replicant? An android, a synthetic human. Our understanding of these descriptions back in 1982 probably filled our heads with thoughts of mechanical robots with a flesh and skin covering, a bit like a Terminator or synthetic like Bishop or Ash in the Alien films. From watching BR2049 now, we understand that a replicant is essentially a lab-grown biological being which is capable of reproduction (whether intended or unintended). The limited life span has been removed from the new models, presumably as owners didn't want to pay out every 4 years. But as the reproduction capable and long-life examples are all old Nexus models, now that Eldon Tyrell is gone, nobody understands how this has come about - least of all Niander Wallace. Is the reproduction a product of evolution, an accidental side-effect or something else?
So, what is a replicant? Effectively it's a grown human, treated as a slave by those left on earth. So essentially, it doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant or not. There's no real difference apart from our perception of the term.
BR2049 is a very different film to the original, but it is an excellent film and I'm glad it was made and that I've experienced it.
What I've taken from the sequel is that Rachel was a very different replicant, she had no termination date, she believed she was human and as such I think tyrell gave her the ability to reproduce, and that secret went with tyrell. It's only the final cut that introduces the possibility that Deckard could be a replicant.
Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.
The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.
Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Similar to my thoughts, 2049 is a great film, well acted, well directed etc but possibly isn't a great sequel, but is it meant for the die hard fans of the original or does it need to appeal also to the casual cinema goer
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Loved both movies, but indeed the first more than the second.
And yeah, Deckard is human to me. Wallace was just full of ****. And so was Tyrell if you ask me. I believe Rachel did have an end date which may be why she died in childbirth. But hey, that's just me.