26

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

I think it the trailer looks good, but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

27

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

The_Commander wrote:
Napoleon Plural wrote:

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.

If you see what appears to be Ford with longer hair its his stunt man friend Vic Armstrong who stood in for him in a few scenes, its particularly noticeable when he's investigating Leon's bath tub.

28

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Oh yeah, I'm a fan...

https://s27.postimg.cc/ofybkx0fj/BR_Wallet.jpg

29

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Skippy wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm a fan...

https://s27.postimg.cc/ofybkx0fj/BR_Wallet.jpg

nice! heres some of my collection
https://s28.postimg.cc/mwzfesup5/brgun.png

30

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

walther p99 wrote:
Skippy wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm a fan...

https://s27.postimg.cc/ofybkx0fj/BR_Wallet.jpg

nice! heres some of my collection
https://s28.postimg.cc/mwzfesup5/brgun.png

That blaster is amazing! Where did you come by that?

Murder | Employment.

31

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

_Stocks wrote:
walther p99 wrote:
Skippy wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm a fan...

https://s27.postimg.cc/ofybkx0fj/BR_Wallet.jpg

nice! heres some of my collection
https://s28.postimg.cc/mwzfesup5/brgun.png

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 ajb007/lol

32

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

walther p99 wrote:
_Stocks wrote:
walther p99 wrote:

nice! heres some of my collection
https://s28.postimg.cc/mwzfesup5/brgun.png

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 ajb007/lol

It looks terrific and judging by the new teaser looks like it's making a comeback in the sequel.

Murder | Employment.

33

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Looking forward to it but hope Ford ain't doing another Force Awakens

Instagram - bondclothes007

34

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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.
https://s30.postimg.cc/b28nmu69p/BRP.png

35

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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.  ajb007/martini

1.ohmss  2.cr  3.frwl  4.ltk  5.gf  6.tswlm  7.sf  8.op  9.tld  10.dn  11.lald  12.tb  13.fyeo  14.ge  15.mr  16.yolt  17.tnd  18.avtak  19.sp  20.twine  21.qos  22.tmwtgg  23.daf  24.dad

36

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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.

37

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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.

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

38

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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???

Last edited by Chriscoop (15th Oct 2017 09:37)

It was either that.....or the priesthood

39

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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).

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

40

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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!

It was either that.....or the priesthood

41

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Chriscoop wrote:

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...

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

42

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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.

43

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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 was either that.....or the priesthood

44

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Chriscoop wrote:

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.

45

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

walther p99 wrote:

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.

Exactly. And that's a powerful point.

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

46

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

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.

1 - Avtak, 2 - Op, 3 - Ltk, 4 - Lald, 5 - Fyeo, 6 - Ohmss, 7 - Sf, 8 - Dn, 9 - Ge, 10 - Daf, 11 - Tmwtgg, 12 - Tswlm, 13 - Mr, 14 - Tld, 15 - Yolt, 16 - Sp, 17 - Gf, 18 - Frwl, 19 - Dad, 20 - Qos, 21 - Tnd, 22 - Twine, 23 - Tb, 24 - Cr

1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby

47

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Jarvio wrote:

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.  ajb007/crap

Last edited by chrisisall (16th Oct 2017 12:28)

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

48

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Erm........ Spoiler Alert! 

chrisisall wrote:
Jarvio wrote:

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.  ajb007/crap

It was either that.....or the priesthood

49

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

chrisisall wrote:

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.

1 - Avtak, 2 - Op, 3 - Ltk, 4 - Lald, 5 - Fyeo, 6 - Ohmss, 7 - Sf, 8 - Dn, 9 - Ge, 10 - Daf, 11 - Tmwtgg, 12 - Tswlm, 13 - Mr, 14 - Tld, 15 - Yolt, 16 - Sp, 17 - Gf, 18 - Frwl, 19 - Dad, 20 - Qos, 21 - Tnd, 22 - Twine, 23 - Tb, 24 - Cr

1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby

50

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

chrisisall wrote:
Jarvio wrote:

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.  ajb007/crap

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.