Blade Runner 2049

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reading all these responses to questions over bits of dialogue and the meaning of certain actions and the subsequent debates over what is intentional or not, just makes me believe the film is muddled and not simply artistically ambiguous. There is a distinct difference between a confused script which lacks clarity and continuity and one which is purposefully open-ended to invite interpretation by the viewer. I think the original film in any version has a slight identity crisis. It can't make up its mind if it wants to be a sci-fi with 'big ideas' or a simple chase movie set in the future. It is a painfully simple minded film and an unambitious script to say the least. Some call it "deep" and a thinking persons movie. I've never come away with that impression at all. In fact I think BR is actually plain dumb in many places, frustratingly so. It somehow manages to be a film about a pursuit without much action or drama or suspense. It was clearly written and re-written by too many people with different ideas and intent. Scott can barely make a coherent film on a good day - with BR he's now had 3 attempts and yet the basic problems with the film remain. The key to BR is in the visuals and the visionary look of the dystopian future. If BR had been set in contemporary L.A. without the stunning visuals and effects no one to this day would have given it a second look, let alone be talking about it 35 years later. It's reputation lies heavily on the set design and ahead-of-its-time visual look. This is where Scott excels. The rest of the story (as shallow as it is) is rather flat and uninteresting. I say this as someone who actually likes the film too - the visuals and music help create a universe that is unique to cinema and the experience of watching a movie. It is an unpleasant future but we want to stay with it for the duration as it captures our imaginations.

    I think BR2049 suffers from being in awe of the original film a little too much. With heaven knows how many hands to the pump where the script and original story development is concerned, it is just as confused and muddled as the original film. Once again the vision of the future and the stunning visuals are the key to appreciation. None of the characters have much appeal and there is curiously little to no suspense throughout its 2.45 hour running time. It's no wonder it's flopped quite so badly as it has. It's been made by a great BR fan for BR fans. It has the problem of being too much like the original when the original is so flawed. Maybe they should have had more courage to take the film in a completely new direction. As much as I can appreciate BR2049 (it has been directed by someone who makes generally very fine films) the more I think about it and reflect on my viewing experiences, the less surprised I am that the film has such a pitifully small captive audience. My guess is that Villeneuve will regret having made it within a couple of years.
     
    Wild Frank, Ghostworld and Runicen like this.
  2. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    The sheer upendedness of this whole review made me laugh out loud! I was actually thinking about the fact that the first movie was really a study in visual and aural textures around a perfectly serviceable noir plot just as I was going in to read your post. I wouldn't be as heavy handed in my criticism of a lack of coherence, but the point about inconsistency is well-taken.

    I really was involved in the sequel. I was perfectly ready to hate it, and I found myself really enjoying what I felt to be a very decent sci-fi venture. It's very much about the development of the world around the characters. If taking all the time to re-up the environment and parallel various aspects of the first film is 'in awe', I'm frankly for it. I was aware of sagging moments that could have been easily trimmed - the trek to the furnace, the fight in the car and water - but these are quibbles. Why shouldn't the movie take it's time? If you find the characters unappealing, well that's an answer in itself. I felt differently and let myself get involved in the little dramas of the supporting characters. Will I again? I'll find out this morning when I go see it again.

    I don't fully agree with much of your post, but I love it anyway!
     
  3. In my "upended.....review" (I don't honestly believe my post qualifies as either?), I never anywhere complained about the length of the film(s). In fact, I sat almost laughing to myself when in two separate screenings, folks started walking out at around the 2 hour mark (Not enough car explosions or chases for you, hey?). No, if anything, I would have preferred a 4 hour cut with better developed characters and a more deeper delving into the big questions of human v machine and the future we inhabit. I presume anyone walking out has never watched a Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr film!

    If the film was six hours long, I'd still want to cut out that stupid and unnecessary (beyond pandering to mainstream audiences) fight scene though.
     
  4. I read reviews of it and heard others mention that 2049 was "slow" - I completely disagreed and had the same thoughts you had... are people so used to constant stimulation in movies that if there isn't an explosion every few minutes it is considered slow???

    Or maybe I'm just used to watching some very out there slow movies. Hahaha
     
  5. Others here have mentioned age range of viewers for this movie too - I am approaching 32 and my wife and I appeared to be the youngest in the theater.
     
  6. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    I'm sorry, did I say you complained about the length? I was responding, though not clearly, to your implication that the film lacked suspense and coherence.

    And by upendedness, I mean in relation to the trend of most posts really getting in to the little nitty gritty points, you just turned it around and were, like, 'none of it means anything! Confused, muddled...". Please don't think I was laughing at you. I was laughing at the way it changed the tone in the way the conversation was going until that point.
     
    SteveM likes this.
  7. Well, yes, I do think it's possible for people to forensically chew this over for a very long time because there are many plot points that have gaping holes or lack clarity and there is a lot of talk on the internet about how different people interpret these anomalies here and there in totally different ways. A kind person might say it's great as it means the film can be endlessly re-watched and debated for a long time as it's not all spelt out for you and it's purposefully ambiguous. A less charitable view might be that it's a simple story line, not very well written!
     
    The Revealer likes this.
  8. The Revealer

    The Revealer Forum Status: Paused Indefinitely

    Location:
    On The Road Again
    I have only hours to wait to see how much I agree with this view!
     
    SteveM likes this.
  9. On both viewings where I saw it there were just a handful of people there and most were over 40. There were just two teenagers and they walked out halfway through.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017
  10. Very sad - I do not think anyone walked out of our showing (17 bucks for an IMAX ticket I hope not!).
     
  11. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    I know Luv said something like "I'm the best one" to k, BUT is everyone sure that's what she says to Deckard just before K makes like a great white shark?
     
  12. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN

    Please explain why you say a "captive audience." I strenuously disagree with your conclusions otherwise and see no benefit in discussion but this comment mystifies me, as to "captive."
     
  13. Hardcore fans of the original. They simply have to see the sequel and therefore they are, metaphorically speaking, a "captive audience" - the only audience for this film, it might appear?
     
    The Revealer likes this.
  14. agentalbert

    agentalbert Senior Member

    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    I disagree. Or at least I won't concede nobody wanted it and it didn't break immersion for me. Maybe it was "fan service", but what am I? I don't know when I first saw the original Blade Runner as a kid. Not in the theater, as it came out when I was 8 years old. But I saw it within a few years either on HBO or VHS and while I didn't understand it all, I loved the look of it and the basic story (guy hunting robots). To my 10-12 year old self, Rachel was like Princess Leia. Probably even more, as she was this other worldly beautiful creature like nothing else I saw on screen at the time. I wasn't expecting her to be in Blade Runner 2049 at all except maybe being mentioned or an old picture. So seeing her walk on screen and look so much like the old Rachel, even though I know its a different one, caused an emotional response in me and I wouldn't have wanted to miss that.
     
  15. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    I thought the initial fight was silly -- why would a blade runner, under any circumstance, disarm himself with a replicant he intends to retire? -- and the one between K and Deckard absolutely stupid; I hate hate HATE fight scenes where people are bludgeoned and then go about their business as if nothing happened and this one took the cake. As for the painfully drawn out fight between K and Luv in the sinking hovercraft, I half-expected the FAMILY GUY chicken to show up.

    The thing is, I think Ridley Scott is terrific at action. BLACK HAWK DOWN, GLADIATOR, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, even his debut film, THE DUELLISTS, all have harrowing action scenes, both individual and large groups, so I can't explain why similar scenes in BLADE RUNNER 2049 felt so . . . formulaic and forced onto the narrative.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017
    Runicen likes this.
  16. nojmplease

    nojmplease Host, You Can't Unhear This

    Location:
    New York, NY
    I find it odd that you seem to be suggesting that a "good" story line is one that answers all of its questions and has the audience in complete agreement. Aside perhaps from children's books, I can't think of any art form in which that would be the standard of a "good" work. Especially not in sci-fi.

    I'm thrilled that such a talented director made a film for the fans of the franchise, without conceding to "mainstream appeal". There is more than enough simplistic, uninspired schlock out there for the average moviegoer to enjoy. It's nice once in awhile to be treated to a spectacular cinematic work that has a budget to match a talented director's ambitions.
     
    The Revealer and agentalbert like this.
  17. drumzNspace

    drumzNspace Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Yuck City
    But remember, they are ROBOTS. Designed for rugged slave work and dangerous due to their strength and ability to take this kind of beating. That made this OK to me, otherwise I would totally agree (and considered that myself while watching).
     
  18. There are very many different kinds of great cinema but one kind might be a story-driven, character based drama that answers most questions by its end. What about The Godfather? I could think of several hundred other films but this one is "obvious" and well known to most.

    Thought provocation and ambiguity is great. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a great film but BR in either version isn't operating at that level. Both films are far more conventional and trying to tell a detective story within noir-ish conventions. Out of character behaviour, unexplainable contrivances, plot holes and loose ends are not the work of a great writer - they are just loose ends.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017
  19. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Maybe so...guess I'm a "captive" because I saw it twice in IMAX and will hopefully be going for a regular screen this week, if it lasts.
     
  20. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Thanks for telling me how to appreciate a movie-will you be giving such advice on albums in the near future, or did I miss that already? And just a question, what might be your age?
     
  21. Yes, indeed, you are now officially a "prisoner" of Blade Runner! I hope you enjoy it again. I can't watch it in IMAX as my only option is 3D and I'm not going there.
     
  22. Well, you did pose the "question" over the existence of an art form other than children's books where water-tight plotting / story could be considered "good" art. I gave you one example. Album advice is available too, yes. For the record I'm 137.
     
    Ghostworld likes this.
  23. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Never mind, then.
     
  24. Veltri

    Veltri ♪♫♫♪♪♫♫♪

    Location:
    Canada
    Maybe it could be explained by the fact that Ridley Scott didn't direct 2049.
    Denis Villeneuve directed 2049.

    I enjoyed the fight scenes.
     
    cwd likes this.
  25. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Did he disarm himself or take out the pistol and lay it on the table? Who was bludgeoned-if it was K, them ther replicants take a licking and keep on ticking. Luv and K? Hard-core fight between two superhuman-type human-like folks both committed to a goal. How would YOU have done that scene?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine