Jump to content
englishbob

Blade Runner 2049

Recommended Posts

I dont disagree with the complaints over leto being a bit 2d (and in the film), but I have to wonder if tyrell was much different.

There's only so much you can squeeze in to a couple of scenes - rather, I think the complaint should be that there werent more of them. No doubt that 4hr cut would be relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain LeChuck said:

Ha, when was the last time you saw it?  For the longest time I considered it a bit shit. But a few years back I bought the blu-ray, on a whim, and fucking loved it. :)

 

It was on VHS put it that way. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st viewing at home tonight, 4th altogether. Awesome stuff! Great blu ray, incredible sound and some decent extras. I'm glad they put the prologue movies on here. There's a good making off and you can see some stuff being filmed that didn't make the Cut - one with K walking through some kind of homeless squat and another of joi dressed like a 50's pin up in the street set where K talks to the prostitues. Another where K speaks to Wallace security from the spinner stating reasons for his visit. 

Shame Vileneuve has ruled out an extended cut. 

 

 

My Mrs said

 

can you believe Stelline was not only under Wallaces nose the entire time but she was also on his payroll

 

 

Can you imagine his face if he ever found out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2018 at 19:55, Down by Law said:

 

That art of book is like rocking horse shit, I ordered it on Dec 21st at Amazon and it hasn't come back in stock yet!

 

really? its been on my wishlist since the film was in the cinemas, i should of picked it up when i got the soundtrack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man.  Second attempt.  Fell asleep again.  The pacing is so soporific.  And portentous.  And this is coming from someone who fucking loves Drive...

 

At one point when I was rewinding it after nodding off, I thought I'd paused it.  Nope.  Just Gosling being all still and dreamy.

 

I'm going to crack it on Monday.  Then watch it one morning when I've had coffee and can give it full adult brain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fell asleep the first time I saw it in the cinema. It is slow in places, but that’s also part of its charm. Second time, it gripped me from start to finish. Absolutely adored it. 

 

Reading this thread has highlighted a few niggles that I didn’t notice or didn’t care about. So can you all stop that please? Ta. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched for the first time last night and could easily be one of my favourite movies of the last few years. 

 

Can't wait to watch again. Probably helped that I watched on a very nice screen and sound system, stunning AV.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2018 at 09:03, clippa said:

I wasn't going to mention it, but I didn't notice the music, just all the cod/battlefield advert BWAAAARMPHS that were too high in the mix, drowning out the mumbling.

 

Is that the ship noises? I really like the acid bass ship noises. (also the balls in Oblivion and the big robots in Terminator Salvation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2018 at 21:22, Down by Law said:

I'm glad they put the prologue movies on here.

I'm glad they called these prologues, because I'm actually going to murder the next person to call this sort of thing a "prequel".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? The? Fuck? Was? That?

 

As I rose, somewhat confused and shell shocked to the sound of the credits bwarping, I turned around to see my wife spontaneously giving the screen the wanker sign.  I think in-between our reactions is the truth.  

 

Some sections are astonishing looking.  It's just so luxuriant and textured and polarising.  How the fuck did Villeneuve pull it off?  I'm pleased he did somehow.

 

So yeah.  It's some Blade Runner ass Blade Runner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bucky said:

What? The? Fuck? Was? That?

 

As I rose, somewhat confused and shell shocked to the sound of the credits bwarping, I turned around to see my wife spontaneously giving the screen the wanker sign.  I think in-between our reactions is the truth.  

 

Some sections are astonishing looking.  It's just so luxuriant and textured and polarising.  How the fuck did Villeneuve pull it off?  I'm pleased he did somehow.

 

So yeah.  It's some Blade Runner ass Blade Runner.

 

 

I like the cut of your wife's jib.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched this for the second time tonight on BR. In contrast with when I watched it in the cinema, the 2hrs45mins seemed to go by a lot more quickly, but that's probably because I was able to keep up with what was happening this time. The sound wasn't as good as it was in the cinema, obviously, and the picture seemed really small sat 8ft away from a 42inch screen. A third viewing, sat closer with the volume on max, is in order, therefore.

 

Few things I still don't understand:

Spoiler

is Deckard definitely not a replicant, then, solving the conundrum from the original film? Is the fact that everyone is so excited about the baby due to the fact that it's a human (Deckard)-replicant (Rachael) child, or the fact that it's a child born of a replicant, or both?

 

Also, why does Wallace even want the baby in the first place, or the grown adult as she is by 2049? I understand that he wants his replicants to be able to reproduce, but I don't see how Ana can especially help him with that, or certainly the way in which she potentially could is never properly explained.

 

Andis Wallace himself a replicant who is willing to enslave his own kind, or is he just a human with lots of replicant-esque upgrades? His eyes, and the floating black fish things that follow him everywhere, for example.

 

Watching it again has also reaffirmed my belief that the producers definitely wanted to leave things open enough for a sequel, too. Whether it'll ever get greenlit following this one's box office performance, however, is a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GMass said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 

1. Conundrum remains in my eyes. Excitement could be a human/replicant  or rep/rep. 

2. He would learn something from it. 

3. Human

 

 

My opinions. 

 

I'm happy for it to end. A sequel is not necessary.. It feels like a sequel would  need to be a different type of film. 

 

At the end of the original film, though, Gaff says to Deckard about Rachael, "She won't live - but then again, who does?", suggesting that replicants have a limited life span. If Deckard is a replicant, therefore, he wouldn't have survived the 30 years since the end of the last film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jamie John said:

 

At the end of the original film, though, Gaff says to Deckard about Rachael, "She won't live - but then again, who does?", suggesting that replicants have a limited life span. If Deckard is a replicant, therefore, he wouldn't have survived the 30 years since the end of the last film.

 

Yes but Tyrell made Rachel special, it's likely he didn't put an expiry date/time on her and if Deckard is also a replicant it's safe to say he is also like Rachel without an expiry date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think really the answer to is Deckard a replicate all depends on what version of the original you watch.  If you watch the normal version then no he is not - but if you watch the directors cut then it def points to that he is - the whole unicorn dream sequence and Gaff's unicorn origami that he leaves  at the end pointing to that he knows Deckard is a replicant etc.. - have they said (I prob have missed it ) which cut of the first blade runner this movie follows on from?  if so then then that will answer the whole what is Deckard in the sequel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Minion said:

 

Yes but Tyrell made Rachel special, it's likely he didn't put an expiry date/time on her and if Deckard is also a replicant it's safe to say he is also like Rachel without an expiry date.

 

Is this confirmed in any way - Tyrell making Rachael special - or is it just speculation? It seems to remove a lot of the ambiguity of the first film if it's true.

  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jamie John said:

 

Is this confirmed in any way - Tyrell making Rachael special - or is it just speculation? It seems to remove a lot of the ambiguity of the first film if it's true.

 

Tyrell states in the first film that she is special doesn't he, when he admits to Deckard that she's a replicant but doesn't know it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Minion said:

 

Tyrell states in the first film that she is special doesn't he, when he admits to Deckard that she's a replicant but doesn't know it?

yeah he does I believe 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you guys on about? BR2049 spoilers:

Spoiler

Of course Rachel is special, that's what BR2049 is all about. And also, you see that replicants age like regular humans as well e.g the one-eyed woman that looks after the kid.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pob said:

What are you guys on about? BR2049 spoilers:

  Hide contents

Of course Rachel is special, that's what BR2049 is all about. And also, you see that replicants age like regular humans as well e.g the one-eyed woman that looks after the kid.

 

 

 

Are Rachael, Sapper, Fresia (and potentially Deckard) all the same model of Tyrell-era replicant? As opposed to K, who is a newer, Wallace-era replicant who is supposed to be a lot more obedient than the earlier models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jamie John said:

 

Are Rachael, Sapper, Fresia (and potentially Deckard) all the same model of Tyrell-era replicant? As opposed to K, who is a newer, Wallace-era replicant who is supposed to be a lot more obedient than the earlier models.

Sapper and Fresia and Nexus-8. Same as Nexus-6 but with natural life spans. K is a new, compliant Wallace-made replicant as you say. Rachael is a (probable) one-off Nexus-7 with the ability to reproduce. It's never explicitly stated but the serial no. they find on her remains has N7 in it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, If Deckard is a replicant, then surely he's a 7 too, with him and Rachel being the proto-types?

 

2 hours ago, ultraviolet said:

all i will say on the subject is: [in 2049] where has Deckard been hiding? and what where the people wearing [who where not replicants] when they kidnapped him? 

 

Las Vegas. Not sure what they were wearing but it was mentioned that people thought nothing could live there but when K arrives he finds bees so that's not strictly true. There's also the dog but as Deckard says, it is real? Maybe the bees are artificial too?..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed Rachel was the only N7 and able to

Spoiler

reproduce and have a natural lifespan. Her unique tech was lost in the blackout in 2022-ish. Leto can’t replicate that in his new versions.

 

The pre-blackout N8s like Sapper are considered dangerous and so are retired by the new, Leto-built (N9?) Blade Runners.

 

The question is, is Rick an N7? The answer is, it doesn’t matter.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2018 at 06:33, Hellcock said:

Watched for the first time last night and could easily be one of my favourite movies of the last few years. 

 

Can't wait to watch again. Probably helped that I watched on a very nice screen and sound system, stunning AV.

 

Worst "I've got a big fuck off telly and sound system because I'm minted" post ever.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.