[Movie] Blade Runner 2049

Bullwinkle
Bullwinkle
edited October 2017 in Off-Topic
Tagged:
I made a post about this, but it was lost in the Great Board Migration of 2017.

I was underwhelmed by the recent posters (below) for Blade Runner 2049, but the new trailer came out, and it blew me away and made me say, "Holy crap, this is a Blade Runner sequel!"








http%3A%2F%2Fhypebeast.com%2Fimage%2F2017%2F05%2Fblade-runner-2049-posters-01.jpg?fit=max&fm=pjpg&ixlib=php-1.1.0&q=90&w=1755&s=e90d55ba480daa0c530f105f57b84909
Tagged:

Comments

  • farley2k
    farley2k
    GT Moderator
    I am very interested after this trailer. I hope it isn't a case of a great trailer and a weak movie.

  • EngineNo9
    EngineNo9
    GT Member
    I'm one of those people who doesn't really have a ton of love for the original Blade Runner. I can recognize that it was very impactful at the time, but since I didn't see it until many years later (probably around 2003-ish?) it doesn't hold any special place for me.

    Having said that, I would say the trailer looks like a decent scifi movie. But if you told me the name was "Oblivion 2" or anything else I would have the same impression.
  • Blackjack
    Blackjack
    GT Member edited May 2017
    I saw an extended trailer before Alien Covenant this afternoon.

    I guess the thing to remember is Blade Runner was not a hit in summer 1982. I did see it as a teen with a couple friends while visiting in Virginia from South Korea. But I went in expecting "Indiana Jones: Bounty Hunter" -- we probably expected something more akin to what The Terminator delivered in 1984.

    That was really a tremendously cool movie summer for sci-fi: E.T., Tron, Blade Runner and John Carpenter's The Thing. Though really only E.T. was a runaway hit.

    And Blade Runner's also a 35 year old movie. Good grief that may be some record for longest period of time between sequels. :o Marketing the movie may be kind of tough to some extent in today's movie world. It's not a comic book, it's not a big honking franchise IP that lends itself to toys and tie-ins. I don't expect Rick Deckard action figures and replicant Happy Meal pack-ins. :)

    At least unlike in 1982, the studio seemed to realize this isn't really summer blockbuster type material. I guess the hope is an October release will draw in more serious sci-fi filmgoers. The Arrival released just shy of mid-November last year and did OK domestically ($104M n a $47M budget), maybe they took some release date inspiration from that. It's definitely on my list and will be nice to have something to look forward to other than some lame Halloween-time movie release.
  • Soulchilde
    Soulchilde
    GT Member edited August 2017
  • farley2k
    farley2k
    GT Moderator
    Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford Lose It at Hilarious Interview! | This Morning

  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member
    That interview is fantastic.
  • Blackjack
    Blackjack
    GT Member edited October 2017
    I'm catching this at 7:45 p.m. tonight. I really did NOT want to see a 3D show but due to timing and commuter traffic around here, I didn't have a choice if I wanted to see it nearby.

    To be honest, when I saw Blade Runner at age 17 opening weekend in late summer 1982, my couple friends and I were bored. Scratch that -- my best friend got excited when Darryl Hannah wrapped her thighs around Harrison Ford's neck/head. <3 Think we expected something more like "Indiana Jones: Android Bounty Hunter."

    E.T., Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Tron and John Carpenter's The Thing were probably my favorite sci-fi films that summer. Blade Runner just felt overhyped at the time, and in retrospect mismarketed.

    Hopefully as a middle-aged moviegoer (52), I'll respond to the new film better. It's crazy long -- 2 hours and 45 minutes.

    And while I liked the director's The Arrival, I also dozed off during that at least a couple of times. So we'll see.

    Due to the prohibitive (nearly $20) ticket price, the 3D screenings tonight at my theater have far fewer tickets reserved so far, compared to the 2D screens.
  • Blackjack
    Blackjack
    GT Member edited October 2017
    So I found Blade Runner 2049 mostly riveting, sometimes touching. Also for a long stretches the pacing is ponderous and the speed of watching extra thick pancake syrup drip down a wall. =) It certainly looks great.

    I think the music (purposely Vangelis-like, but not really Vangelis) is fine but at our screening seemed turned up WAY TOO LOUD to the point of making the Regal auditorium's speakers frequently buzz and rattle. At times I felt like I was at a 1970s screening of Earthquake in Sensurround. :p

    I was glad to have avoided spoilers and any specific plot rundowns. Though it's not like it's an M. Night Shymyalamadingdong pull the rug out form under you late surprises movie.

    I'm not sure I really like any of the characters in the movie enough to want to sit through it again. If I see it again, it's because I had to run to the restroom 3 times during the movie. Maybe 2nd time I'll skip the drink and salty food. :D

    Not many people at our 3D screening or the 2D screening from what I could tell. It'll be interesting to see how the movie does, because it's so long (2 hrs 45 minutes) so sluggishly paced at times, and I think it's kind of a dense movie to follow at times. While I think it's slightly more audience friendly than the 1982 film, and thankfully has no turgid voiceover by Gosling, it's really not blockbuster type material.
  • drifter
    drifter
    GT Member
    I enjoyed the movie but almost left because of how loud some of the "music" was being played in the theatre. It was at a ridiculous level.
  • uxFOOL
    uxFOOL
    GT Manager
    Completely blown away. Honestly overcome with how much I loved it. I'm glad I got MoviePass because I will be going back to see this again.

    Mike Dunn
    Executive Producer & Editor-at-Large
    GAMING TREND

  • EngineNo9
    EngineNo9
    GT Member
    What would you guys say to someone who doesn't really have any affinity for the original? Still a very good movie? Or not as worthwhile?
  • Blackjack
    Blackjack
    GT Member edited October 2017
    I think if you have a moderate interest in the 1982 film's characters, you'll get more out of 2049. Denis Villeneuve isn't Ridley Scott, and I don't think one has to Love Blade Runner to get something out of 2049 -- it just helps to have a basic grasp of the original film's story and characters. Though I never make any guarantee that anyone's going to like a movie. :)

    I think anyone would say Blade Runner 2049 is a good movie, and more than likely will be in the Oscar Best Picture/Best Director running at year's end. It doesn't mean everyone's going to enjoy it. I'd sort of liken it to this summer's Battle for the Planet of the Apes, which was well reviewed. I liked it but at times it felt like it just ran on too long, and the box office was a steep drop from its predecessor in the new Apes trilogy. Maybe audiences just felt like they'd had their fill in Reeves' first two Apes movies.

    Movie news sites already deem BR 2049 a box office flop ($31M Fri.-Sat., compared to the $45M projected). I was always puzzled by the October release date though the June 25, 1982 prime summer week release date for Blade Runner didn't work out for it then.

    As a 17 year old I found Blade Runner grim and generally dull. I warmed up to it as I got older, especially for its visuals but it was never really any favorite of mine. BR 2049 has imho more heart to it, and on occasion more exciting action sequences. However, I do feel like some of the midsection just meanders on too long for its own good. And I suspect the 2 hr 45 minute run time is crimping the # of showings and helping limit its box office.

    The reviews are generally outstanding, and the audience Cinemascore was fine (A-), which tends to just reflect that the surveyed audience felt the movie delivered what it promised. If the movie's underperforming, I'd tend to say this is both a lousy movie year and October is a lousy month to open a movie, it's an R-rated sequel to a 35 year old (!) movie, it's crazy long (2 hr 45 mins) and not an easy movie to sit through, and Ryan Gosling is arguably a great actor who's simply not a big box office draw, while Harrison Ford's 74 and isn't the box office draw he was decades ago. It's not based on some big IP (not a novel, graphic novel, short story etc.) that might draw a non Blade Runner aficionado into the theater. Which are not knocks on a great movie -- it's just maybe it was always going to be a hard sell to market BR 2049 to a broad audience.

    Think it's like an emotional art house film wrapped in sci-fi trappings. I guess the problem is the sci-fi FX trappings cost a lot of money and the studio probably was hoping for more than art house type box office.

  • MonkeyFinger
    MonkeyFinger
    GT Member
    +1 to what Blackjack said. We saw it yesterday afternoon to a very sparsely packed audience in one of AMC's Dolby (Atmos, I assume) theatres. Gorgeous and glad it was not 3D but damn was it LOUD at times, the bass literally vibrating the crap out of the seats like it was Sensurround / Earthquake time again. And glad we had managed to avoid spoilers (as much as is possible anymore) before seeing this!
  • Blackjack
    Blackjack
    GT Member edited October 2017
    Glad it's not me on the music. :) Let's blame Hans Zimmer, co-composer on it.

    Oh, since they still haven't removed the ability for us to edit other peoples' posts, I've added a 'movies' tag to this thread and the general movie trailers thread so that they show up when you click the Movies tag. I had a devil of a time finding these threads. :)
  • uxFOOL
    uxFOOL
    GT Manager
    Blackjack wrote: »
    Oh, since they still haven't removed the ability for us to edit other peoples' posts, I've added a 'movies' tag to this thread and the general movie trailers thread so that they show up when you click the Movies tag.

    That should be fixed now.

    Mike Dunn
    Executive Producer & Editor-at-Large
    GAMING TREND

  • rittchard
    rittchard
    GT Member
    I really enjoyed the movie, including the slow pacing. My partner said I fell asleep but I really didn't think I did lol. Either way I intend to watch the movie again at some point. I did find a few elements (unnecessarily?) confusing/convoluted, but for the most part I loved it.

    How do you all want to handle spoilers for this thread? It's easier to discuss without tagging every plot point, but I also respect that some people wouldn't want to see something and have any part ruined. With that in mind I will keep all plot discussion spoilered for the time being.
    I'm curious what you all think about Deckard as a human or replicant. My partner said it was explicitly revealed he was a replicant, but I thought they purposely played it either way (again). He also thought Ryan Gosling died at the end, where it never occurred to me that he was dead lol. Fun to see how differently we interpret the same scenes.

    I had asked in another thread why they left out Sean Young from this sequel (I may have referred to her as Rachel Ward by mistake). Clearly that was a major plot point of the movie so I guess I have to forgive that. But it was such a great moment to have her mentioned and then (kind of) show up at the end. Honestly I think they could have worked the story differently to allow her to be in the movie more, but oh well. And while I loved the idea of the AI girlfriend, I didn't feel like it paid off with the way they summarily ended the plot (and her "life"). I think what I'm getting at is that the original movie was as much a powerful romance to me as it was a brilliant sci-fi thriller. But this movie didn't achieve that the way the first did on an emotional level, which is surprising given how beautiful the director made The Arrival.

    Last thing, I was confused at what the bad guy chick's motivation was. Was she just planning to kill everyone or did she want Deckard for something else? Was she working for Jared Leto or not?
  • Roman
    Roman
    GT Member
    My answers/thoughts in bold within your spoiler
    I'm curious what you all think about Deckard as a human or replicant. My partner said it was explicitly revealed he was a replicant, but I thought they purposely played it either way (again). He also thought Ryan Gosling died at the end, where it never occurred to me that he was dead lol. Fun to see how differently we interpret the same scenes.

    Deckard a replicant? : I'm still torn on this one. I've read where the writers in the original said that he was a replicant while at the same time Scott was saying that he wasn't. So if he was a replicant how does he live this long? If he wasn't and IS human that explains it.

    I believe that Gossling dies at the end %110

    I had asked in another thread why they left out Sean Young from this sequel (I may have referred to her as Rachel Ward by mistake). Clearly that was a major plot point of the movie so I guess I have to forgive that. But it was such a great moment to have her mentioned and then (kind of) show up at the end. Honestly I think they could have worked the story differently to allow her to be in the movie more, but oh well. And while I loved the idea of the AI girlfriend, I didn't feel like it paid off with the way they summarily ended the plot (and her "life"). I think what I'm getting at is that the original movie was as much a powerful romance to me as it was a brilliant sci-fi thriller. But this movie didn't achieve that the way the first did on an emotional level, which is surprising given how beautiful the director made The Arrival.

    Last thing, I was confused at what the bad guy chick's motivation was. Was she just planning to kill everyone or did she want Deckard for something else? Was she working for Jared Leto or not?

    Leto was not able to 'crack' the challenge of replicants being able to pro-create and thus give him an unlimited supply of 'workers' so he charged her with kidnapping Ford and take him off world to experiment/torture him into revealing what he knows
    [/quote]

  • uxFOOL
    uxFOOL
    GT Manager
    I LOVED that they kept the "is Deckard a replicant" question unanswered, and in fact maintained the ambiguity. As far as life-span, it was established at the beginning of the film (with Sapper) that post-Nexus 6 models were capable of open-ended life-spans.

    Gosling dies at the end. There are even musical cues from Batty's scene at the end of the first one playing during his final scene to bring it home.

    I actually liked the Joi conceit- her actual artificialness enabled K to understand how he had transcended his own programming. The Joi AI line was not as sophisticated as a replicant, and I loved the layers of artificial human -> artificial intelligence hologram -> toying with the idea of love. Joi was programmed to show love, K was not. K feeling love for Joi was the first indication that he was transcending his programming.

    Mike Dunn
    Executive Producer & Editor-at-Large
    GAMING TREND

  • rittchard
    rittchard
    GT Member
    Caution, Game of Thrones spoiler within Spoiler :)
    I submit that this is an era where "dead" is relative.

    When Jon Snow was "stabbed to death" IN THE BOOK, everyone I knew argued with me that he was "dead." All I could say was when I read it, it never occurred to me he was actually dead/gone. I went back and reread it recently and it does seem fairly convincing, yet the first time I read it my instinct was 100% that he would be fine. I had the exact same feeling in this movie. Not to mention Ryan's a replicant, and he's got both Harrison and his super daughter whoever created that magic bubble right next to him. They might as well have had Melisandre standing in the back room lol.

    Of course I also insisted that Thelma and Louise survived, I mean we never saw a car crash or dead bodies. They could have easily landed on a tree or a ledge :p
  • MonkeyFinger
    MonkeyFinger
    GT Member
    Looks like spoiler tags need to be added manually?
    I'm in the "not a replicant" camp, otherwise seems to me that Deckard could have easily escaped drowning at the end. And just watched the 2007 "Final Cut" version of the original where Scott in his intro says they added the unicorn dream sequence "to suggest Deckard might be a replicant". (emphasis mine) In other words, just to screw with us. :p

    Also assuming K is dead, what with the "sacrifice" speech he got from the replicant leader and all, never mind the bleeding out reveal and his silent version of a Tears In Rain scene. Well, in snow. lol

  • farley2k
    farley2k
    GT Moderator
    Saw this last night and enjoyed it.
    I don't understand the whole is Deckard a replicant debate because it doesn't affect my thoughts/feelings about any of his actions whether he is or not. If he is then what would be the scene that "changed" how you see it? The fight in the club? The refusing the fake Rachel? If he isn't then what would be different?

    Sometimes in a movie something happens and after you get that piece of information the film changes. Earlier actions that seemed odd make sense, the character's plan/motivation become clearer.

    For me nothing about Deckard changes depending on his status
  • uxFOOL
    uxFOOL
    GT Manager
    Looks like spoiler tags need to be added manually?
    I'm in the "not a replicant" camp, otherwise seems to me that Deckard could have easily escaped drowning at the end. And just watched the 2007 "Final Cut" version of the original where Scott in his intro says they added the unicorn dream sequence "to suggest Deckard might be a replicant". (emphasis mine) In other words, just to screw with us. :p

    Also assuming K is dead, what with the "sacrifice" speech he got from the replicant leader and all, never mind the bleeding out reveal and his silent version of a Tears In Rain scene. Well, in snow. lol

    it's in the paragraph dropdown in the WYSIWIG

    Mike Dunn
    Executive Producer & Editor-at-Large
    GAMING TREND

  • MonkeyFinger
    MonkeyFinger
    GT Member
    Gotcha, thanks.
  • rittchard
    rittchard
    GT Member
    In response to Farley's comment:
    For me, Deckard's "status" was a critical part of both movies. If he IS a replicant,
    he is proof that androids can dream, fall in love, have a soul - and now in this movie, they can PROCREATE.

    It's HUGE, it means they as a "species" or whatever you want to call them, have evolved and transcended their original programming/design/creation. He's like Data with an emotion chip AND sperm. If he's "only" human, his actions/flaws can all be chalked up to, well, being human. His fatherhood status is still a miracle, but the baby is something of a hybrid between human and replicant. It's still interesting, but very different.
Sign In or Register to comment.