Blade Runner 2049

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

  1. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    Damn I liked & develop sympathy for K. Hell, I did for the very first replicant he meet in the film, especially considering the ending of the film. I really liked Joi too. Deckard & Robin Wright's character as well. There weren't too many characters I found all that likeable in the original now that I think about it
     
  2. ssmith3046

    ssmith3046 Forum Resident

    I watched it tonight. Can't wait to watch it again this weekend. Really liked it.
     
  3. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Ford's character needed to be away from the city-he was an ex BR and would be pretty easy to recognize and track down with street snitches, cops, surveillance cameras and such. And "nto the dustbin of history?" I don't think you get to make that call, although some folks were calling the equivalent for Blade Runner way back when.
     
    SuntoryTime likes this.
  4. Kassonica

    Kassonica Well-Known Member

    This :)
     
    Old Rusty likes this.
  5. Diskhound

    Diskhound Well-Known Member

    One of the most important aspects of the original movie was the presence of an underground, alternative economy trading in biotech tech etc. Something completely missing from this version. Another missed opportunity.
     
  6. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    How so-why is it a very bad thing if the underground biotech references were absent in this film? And there were underground market references in 2049, maybe not biotech.
     
  7. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    The original was a classic.
    New one ..overrated, way overrated.
     
  8. Jim B.

    Jim B. Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    If you are missing that one small aspect so much then watch the short 'Nowhere to Run' they made with Dave Bautista.
     
    cwd and The Panda like this.
  9. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    over-rated by whom?
     
    SuntoryTime and ssmith3046 like this.
  10. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Critics, who collectively reviewed it in such a way that it earned a score of 81 on metacritic.com. By comparison, the original has an 89. I know these numbers quantify something that isn't really quantifiable, but still . . . no way this new movie is within 8 "points" of the original, or 8 miles, or 8 whatevers. It's good-looking, well-made sci-fi but not much more.
     
    Runicen likes this.
  11. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    did you see the original when it came out?
     
    SuntoryTime likes this.
  12. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    I don't think I saw it until about 1988. Can't remember when exactly. I actually dislike the voice-over narration in the original theatrical release -- it is too heavy-handed. It was probably not until about 20 years ago that I really started to appreciate the film. How about you?
     
  13. cwd

    cwd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    If you were aware of the critical reception, which was mixed at best, did that influence your decision to see it or not in 1982?
     
  14. Jim B.

    Jim B. Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    That is your opinion, don't state it as fact. I think it's better than the original, and I love the original.
     
    SuntoryTime likes this.
  15. Claude

    Claude Forum Resident

    Location:
    Luxembourg
    A bit off-topic, but to me it looks like sci-fi movies benefit from a bonus of at least one point on the total average rating on IMDB (ratings by viewers), compared to movies in other genres. So many average movies have a 8+ rating, like the big classics and recent masterpieces in other genres.

    Sci-fi fans seem to be less critical, more forgiving and willing to give top ratings, just because they are happy to see a movie of their favorite genre, or a sequel to a cult movie. The same effect could exist among critics as well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
    SBurke likes this.
  16. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    No -- I probably should have said this the first time, but wasn't sure where you were going -- I was 9, so I was very unlikely to be taken to see it in any event. :)

    Not at all surprised the reception on release was mixed.
     
  17. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    I think you're right! Though maybe they take more extreme views generally -- it seems sometimes as if there is hysteria over perceived sacrilege as well. Either way it is interesting.
     
  18. robertawillisjr

    robertawillisjr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Hampton, VA
    Yes, there were only 3 people in the smallest theatre of the multiplex. The reviews were almost universally negative. I thought it was very good at the time.
     
    carrick doone likes this.
  19. carrick doone

    carrick doone Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I can't remember how many people were in the theatre when I watched it. It was probably a matinee screening the first week it came out - so I am going to say not a lot. I remember it not getting a strong review and most people I knew didn't get into it. It was compared to more flashy Star Warsy type of Sci-Fi films. It is a very specific type of film - more similar to Alien than it was to Aliens.

    I would also say comparing the 81% of the new film to the 89% of the old one is fair if you consider that many mainstream films I read about get glowing endorsements and push it into the 90% range. Both films are slower, thought provoking movies. I think 89% for the first film is generous for most film watchers but coming from critics it's a fair score. Similarly, to rate the new one good but not nearly as good as the first one is fair. Just my thought about it.
     
    SBurke likes this.
  20. johnny moondog 909

    johnny moondog 909 Forum Resident

    Watching the sequel to the original Blade Runner on cable right now. About 1 hour into it.

    Wow, what a flick. Very worthy successor to the original. Looks & feels much like the original. Obviously my esteem for the picture will grow or fade over time. I've only seen the first 35-40% of the film.

    Wife interrupted my viewing with a short tirade on the time of night. Otherwise I'd never check into Hoffman with this thread.

    After 36-37 years I don't watch Blade Runner very often. I've seen it 8-10 times. I've seen portions of it a scene or two, probably another 30 times. It's not like a Beatles album I can play 1700 times over my lifetime. Films can only be viewed so often

    Having said that, the older Harrison Ford-Decker character hasn't entered the film yet. But already at 45 minutes to 55 minutes, it's similarity in look & feel to the original is heavily imprinted & obvious in a good way.

    Unless you are anti SciFi, anti modern film, go see this right now !!! Best SciFi sequel in history. Gorts, please merge this, if a Blade Runner 2049 thread already exists.

    I'll post in a couple days when I've seen this 2-3 times. Stunning, if you liked the original you'll love this !!! 36 more years of film technology make the visuals better !!! And yet the whole look of the film feels like the first film.. the sets, lighting, dialogue, wardrobe, plot,

    If you remember say how the film 2010 bore little resemblance to 2001, this is the total opposite.

    If you hated the first Blade Runner, you'll probably hate this one. But if you liked it, good chance you'll like this 2nd one better. Compared to Ridley Scott's recent Alien film sequels, which are a 5 on the 1-10 scale, Blade runner is better than the original in 81. If that was a 9 the sequel is eleven !!!!

    Course I haven't seen the ending, or even Harrison Ford's entrance in the supporting role.

    This flick offers the rare thrill of another Bond with Sean Connery, or finding a lost Beatles song. It's very rare to get a sequel that tops a classic original, this, so far anyway beats the original.

    Ok see ya later, maybe fans that have seen it will chime in !
     
  21. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    I saw it twice in the theater. :D
     
    johnny moondog 909 likes this.
  22. johnny moondog 909

    johnny moondog 909 Forum Resident

    Just looked it up. Did well a ton of business. Unhappily it cost more than a ton to make it. Ticket sales & the production budget were neck & neck around 250 million in tickets & about the same for budget.

    BUT I would think they'll sell a ton of DVDs & a mint on rentals. Make at least some profit in the end. Not enough to ever do Blade Runner 3.

    It's a shame good Sci Fi movie.. in my initial excitement during first half of the movie I was reveling & posting Greatest Sci Fi movie ever made ? A strong 11+ on a 1-10 scale !!!

    Now that I've calmed down & seen the whole film, I'll walk that back a little bit. But it was really cool & good.

    I liked it much more than The Planet of the apes & Alien reboots. For example.

    Visually a stunning film truly, and a lot in common visually with the original Blade Runner. I really like that it's a sequel instead of a reboot. It's a long film. Harrison Ford's character doesn't enter the picture until somewhere between 1.5 & 2 hours. But he's onscreen about an hour or close to it, the film is around 2.45-2.50.

    Some of the supporting actors in the first film come back for the new one. The interior of The Tyrell corporation building. Looks to be the same location or set as the first film.

    There are some action sequences & violence. But it's kind of slow paced for long stretches. If the film isin't cerebral it's at least thoughtful & visually a lot is going on, even when the dialogue is sparse. Lots of holograms way more advanced than film one. But some of the scenes of shabbily & weirdly dressed crowds, of post apocalyptic people. Are very similar. Weird post punk, knife wielding thugs on crowded streets, while aircars fly overhead. In multi colored blue, brown & orange skies. From post apocalyptic pollution.

    I liked it ! Going to watch again !!!: Now before bed & returning it to Redbox. Ryan Gosling is good as the male lead. Robin Wright ( Sean Penn Ex ) is good as the Police Captain. But I think Harrison Ford as Decker & the female lead, playing a living feeling hologram steal the show !!
     
  23. ssmith3046

    ssmith3046 Forum Resident

    Loved it. Bought it from Comcast a few weeks ago. Plan on watching it again soon.
     
  24. Jim B.

    Jim B. Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    It was expensive but as they say the budget was all on the screen so it was a film you really needed to see at the cinema. I'm not sure a TV screen does it justice.
     
  25. robertawillisjr

    robertawillisjr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Hampton, VA
    The 4k UHD BD arrived yesterday and it looked great. I have a 65" TV and my first thought was that the screen was too small. I enjoyed the movie both in the theater and at home. Watching it at home caused me to reconsider one of my first impressions -> the movie is not too long, everything seems to have a purpose in evolving the plot and what I am assuming is a YABR sequel.
     

Share This Page