Blade Runner 2049

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by ponkine, Dec 19, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SuntoryTime

    SuntoryTime Forum Resident

    Location:
    Winooski, VT
    And Scott's companion to that commercial, the swimming pool with Vangelis music, has been my favorite television commercial for over thirty-five years. It haunted me when I was a 13 year old kid back in 1979.

     
    Vidiot, Solaris and Olompali like this.
  2. Time Is On My Side

    Time Is On My Side Forum Resident

    Location:
    Madison, WI
    I thought it was worth seeing. But it is nowhere near as good as the original.
     
  3. So explain Sean Young. Looked good looked real not fake like that last crappy CG Peter Cushing in Star Wars.

    Didn’t look like an old scene. outtake from the original ? Lookalike with some cg enhancement?

    Bottom line she look great and was convincing. Except for the wrong colored eyes. :tiphat:
     
  4. Pipi3

    Pipi3 Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    As for the color of eyes, I always thought Rachael had brown eyes (I don't remember her having green eyes at all).

    [​IMG]

    Another link showing the brown eyes: http://cdn1.thehookmag.com/wp-conte...de-runner-sean-young-rachael-hd-wallpaper.jpg

    I actually wonder if Deckard made that reference about the green eyes just to let Wallace knows his trick won't work on him. In any event, the plot in this new movie contains quite a few caveats, that I am not too keen on. Visually nice, but nowhere near the quality of the original movie.

    Sorry for being so picky :tiphat:

    Though I am not that crazy, see the comment section for this YT link. Some people are also wondering the same issue:



    One guys mentions the following:

    She wore Green tinged contact lenses. Although her eyes still appear very Brown from a distance, because contacts mostly don't cover the entire iris, she was wearing green lenses. It's only obvious in the extreme close ups. Young has stated she hated wearing them many times. And the line was partly a joke, because that clone is actually also being portrayed by Young without the lenses!!

    Another guy says this:

    a lot of people have yet to realize this, but Sean Young actually played the clone in 2049.She famously hated wearing the Green Contacts for the original film, so for her scene in the sequel they decided to make an injoke by letting that be how Deckard realizes the clone isn't perfect, just have Sean play the part with her natural eye colour... if you know Sean's eyes are natural brown, you'll pick up that the clone is being played by the same actress sans-contacts(and with CGI De-Aging techniques).That's why it looked much better than that fully CGI Peter Cushing in Rogue One.... Young was really standing opposite Ford again, but with CGI making her look like her 1982-self.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
    Robert C likes this.
  5. SuntoryTime

    SuntoryTime Forum Resident

    Location:
    Winooski, VT
    Sean Young was in the scene and was digitally de-aged.

    See here and here.
     
  6. Thank you. They pulled it off.
     
  7. agentalbert

    agentalbert Senior Member

    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    That's exactly what I think it was. And maybe even a bit to try and force himself not to go for it.
     
  8. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    Well, I just saw it. About halfway through I was ready to jump up and scream "Hallelujah! I have just seen the greatest sci-fi film in decades! Nearly an all-time: a classic!" It was beautiful, artistic, well-acted, smart and visually blissful! Then the film just started dragging...

    I'm a huge fan of "talky" film. I love dialog and long insightful conversations, but the pacing of every scene just seemed three minutes too long. My incredible sci-fi epic just got way too laborious. Even the fight in a Las Vegas Club with a wonderful hologram show in the background (please see my posts about holograms in the Frank Zappa thread -- here was the concept I prophesied in that thread on display in "Blade Runner"!) just went on for way too long. Every scene became a little laborious. I had to fight back yawns for about half the movie.

    But did I like it, I certainly did. Was it perfection? No. Too slow and not enough story. Is it stylistically the "Blade Runner" of this generation? Certainly! Gorgeous, smart, and visionary. Villeneuve puts some tremendous images on the screen to be sure (although some were just too visually indulgent and felt cloying -- all those water reflections). Halfway through I was ready to get on my knees and say "I forgive you for doubting you about "Arrival" (which I hated) you are truly the master!" But then "Blade Runner 2049" started dragging. Just too damn flaccid in the end. Oh, yeah, hated Jared Leto.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
    Rufus McDufus, Vidiot and The Hermit like this.
  9. Pretty much how I felt all around. Yeah Jared Leto so wrong.
     
  10. Greg Smith

    Greg Smith Forum Resident

    Film was overlong and not perfect by any stretch, but I loved it. Not many films after the credits have finished have I ever wanted to watch again straight away. Stunning to look at, will definitely go back and watch it in 3D!
     
  11. It's a 2D film so why would anyone want to watch it in 3D?

    I didn't find it long at all but then I'm used to foreign language "talky" cinema and not 15 edits per second modern day Hollywood. Try some Tarkovsky movies and then come back to this. I did think the two unnecessary fight sequences were borderline interminable though. That's probably just me though. I expected better, more sophisticated behaviour from my replicants!

    On the subject of Tarkovsky, did anyone else notice the visual references to him? The silhouette of the dog walking past, the constant wet, fog, the water reflections here and there and especially the room in which K meets the gang at the end reminded me of The Room in Stalker. Maybe the lighting was a contributory factor as well?
     
  12. The Hermit

    The Hermit Wavin' that magick glowstick since 1976

    Visually breathtaking for sure - a movie made for IMAX, although the 3D added nothing and lamentably darkened Roger Deakins' radiant cinematography - but I agree, it could have done with some tightening up in editing, for sure... there's luxurious and there's laborious, 2049 leans a little to the latter, but it was never outright boring, just quietly and methodically paced... and there's nothing inherently wrong with that; like it's predecessor, it isn't at all an action adventure flick, it's essentially Philip Marlowe set in Mega-City One, and I guess some members of the audience now were as put off by that as others were in 1982.

    Still, it was nice to have a wider view and exploration of that world, although I hope there's no third film, and any time a big-budget release treats the audience like adults, balancing both substance and spectacle, is to be welcomed. Denis Villenueve is undoubtedly a master craftsman, one of the most exciting voices in mainstream cinema now, and I cannot wait for his adaptation of Dune...
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
    IronWaffle, The Revealer and Vidiot like this.
  13. well it wasn't the law that took him.
     
  14. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Spielberg didn't rewrite the script of A.I. -- that was actually Kubrick's original ending. A lot of people erroneously believed because it was sentimental and kind of corny, it must have been written (or changed) by Spielberg, but it's not. Kubrick's script is out there on the net -- go check for yourself.
     
  15. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    OMG. This is straight out of my youth - one of those long forgotten memories that most certainly captured my teenage imagination. Like having a Penthouse spread happen on TV. Disturbingly subliminal considering how familiar it seemed to see it here - even in French. Great catch!
     
    SuntoryTime likes this.
  16. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    I'm really enjoying the variety of reactions in this thread now. Lots of stimulating discussion that make me both question the film's quality, yet reinforce it's basic value as good science fiction. And really, that is all I wanted this film to be. Good sci-fi. Something beyond the adolescent scope of almost all blockbuster movies - especially the comic stuff and the "Sci-fi lite". I'm not putting those other efforts down. I just needed this to be several cuts above all that. I thought Arrival had much of the same kind of appeal. Bring on Dune! (Though, I'm fully ready for that to disappoint like I was for 2049).
     
  17. Rocker

    Rocker Senior Member

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Saw it with a buddy on the weekend... we both thought it was excellent.
     
  18. I wonder why they're re-making Dune. It was a David Lynch film but a total unmitigated box office disaster. What's up with the re-booting of failed epics these days? I mean Cleopatra is next for heaven's sake!!!!!

    Talking of heaven, why don't they remake Heaven's Gate whilst they're at it.
     
    The Revealer likes this.
  19. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    It's literally human nature to keep retelling stories we like. Crass commercialism is also an extension of aspects of our human nature. The payoff when it's done really well is, well, more human than human!
     
    Ghostworld likes this.
  20. Captain Caveman

    Captain Caveman Well-Known Member

    The film is 2 hours 32 minutes without credits, so not 'nearly 3 hours' like all you whingers seem to think.

    But either way, it could have been twice as long and I'd have been just as glued to it.

    I bet most of you who couldn't sit through it are also the ones here who spend weeks analysing the bass patterns on infinitesimally different releases of the same old Beatles tracks.

    Film of the year, easily.
     
    SuntoryTime and keef00 like this.
  21. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Nah - it was stupid loud at the theater I went to as well!
     
  22. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    To be fair, some movies build an audience that surpasses their original box office. Look at the original "Austin Powers" - it was only a mild box office success but it grew on video and became a mega-franchise.

    I don't think it was crazy to believe the cult of "Blade Runner" had grown enough over the years to make the sequel a big hit...
     
  23. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
  24. nojmplease

    nojmplease Host, You Can't Unhear This

    Location:
    New York, NY
    Interesting tidbit: Villeneuve wanted David Bowie to play the role of Wallace, which probably would have been spectacular. But obviously that didn't work out, so he had to settle for Leto instead.
     
  25. Captain Caveman

    Captain Caveman Well-Known Member

    Bowie would have been ace.

    But Leto's a great turn - a bit heavy on the evil ham for sure, but the film kind of needs that for jeopardy purposes. And he at least has those cool floating eye drones - unlike Tyrell, who despite his genius at designing perfect replicas of human eyes, couldn't even make contact lenses for himself.
     
    The Revealer likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine