Blade Runner 2049

[Shoes]

11 minutes ago, Captain LeChuck said:

  Hide contents

Yeah, the "sex" scene. However, I need to see the film again. In the earlier rain scene, I was left with the distinct impression that the emanator gave Joi physical form. Which is why I had such a problem with the sex scene needing a "real" woman. 

 

 

Holy cow, I loved that scene. Stunning imagery.

[Paulando]

14 minutes ago, Captain LeChuck said:

  Hide contents

Yeah, the "sex" scene. However, I need to see the film again. In the earlier rain scene, I was left with the distinct impression that the emanator gave Joi physical form. Which is why I had such a problem with the sex scene needing a "real" woman. 

 

 

Spoiler

I figured it was just emulating the rain, as the drops were actually falling through her.

 

[Shoes]

8 minutes ago, Captain LeChuck said:

The imagery is not the issue I had with it...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

[Paulando]

Just now, Captain LeChuck said:

Heh, I've been over this already...

  Hide contents

They hug, and you can hear the scrunch of K's jacket. To me eyes it really did appear to be a physical thing.

IDGI.

 

Spoiler

I didn’t see that as them physically touching, the holograms are clearly very good at positioning themselves against (or even perfectly inside) real life objects. And I guess if you have a hologram that can make sounds, you’d make it emulate jacket scrunching sounds to make it as realistic as possible.

 

[DjSatansfur3h]

18 hours ago, Paulando said:

Just saw this at the IMAX Printworks. Please experience it on a proper IMAX screen, however far you need to travel, because it was an absolute joy.

 

 

I keep seeing people say this, and appreciate that what you're basically saying is "Watch this on the best screen possible". However, the film wasn't filmed in IMAX at all, so there is no benefit beyond the large screen format/resolution to go see it in IMAX.

 

So your VUE Extreme or whatever large format screen should be just as good if not the same.

[Paulando]

2 hours ago, DjSatansfur3h said:

 

I keep seeing people say this, and appreciate that what you're basically saying is "Watch this on the best screen possible". However, the film wasn't filmed in IMAX at all, so there is no benefit beyond the large screen format/resolution to go see it in IMAX.

 

So your VUE Extreme or whatever large format screen should be just as good if not the same.

 

Which is what I’d normally say about films not filmed for IMAX. But the slow pace made this easy to follow on the big screen, the picture was beautiful and incredibly sharp (other non-IMAX films I’ve seen have been soft and blurry), and the sound was chair-shakingly good.

 

It’s also displayed open matte on IMAX screens (1.90:1 vs 2.39:1) according to IMDb, so definitely worth it. The shots flying through the city with the soundtrack rumbling around you were phenomenal.

 

I’m not sure what VUE Extreme is. Is the size comparable to a real IMAX screen?

[Paulando]

So after a Google, Vue Extreme screens are 16M wide. That’s fine and all, and I’m sure the film is great on one of those, but the Printworks IMAX screen is 26M wide and several times taller. Definitely worth it for those external shots of the city.

 

36 minutes ago, DjSatansfur3h said:

there is no benefit beyond the large screen format/resolution

 

‘There are no benefits apart from these benefits’

[Chocky]

Loved it, especially the story and how the themes of the original were played out this time on screen.

 

Particularly liked K's journey of replicant knowing his role, thinking he may be different/have had a real life and through to the truth at the movie's end.

 

The plot being a mystery which gave enough information to get the answer yourself but still being surprised by the twist was a joy too.  

 

Easily as good as the original for me.

[Darren]

Just back from seeing this. Dragged my wife along who didn’t really like the original, and she thought it was really good. And so did I, of course.

 

I loved the way it echoed and mirrored the themes of the original, and with Joi took them even further. The emotional journey was subtly brilliant.

[Eric86]

 

 

Spoiler

This looked and sounded very good, explored some really interesting themes  (I thought the relationship between K and his holo girlfriend was one of the strongest parts of the film) and the ultimate reveal of the true identity of the child was unexpected.

 

But I had a few problems with it. I felt detached, I think in part because of a lack of development of K's character, but mostly due to Gosling's default monotonous performance. The emotional impact of some of the key plot points were damped down as a consequence.

 

And what's the deal with the rules for these new replicants then? One of the pre-release shorts had a replicant stab himself in the neck on Jared Leto's command, proving their complete subservience. But here both K and evil Mrs replicant lied and killed humans repeatedly.

 

Future LA felt quite sparsely populated too which was a bit odd.

 

Definitely set up now for future sequels.

 

[PaB]

Saw it today in imax . Not sure what more I could want from a blade runner sequel . 

[DjSatansfur3h]

5 hours ago, Paulando said:

So after a Google, Vue Extreme screens are 16M wide. That’s fine and all, and I’m sure the film is great on one of those, but the Printworks IMAX screen is 26M wide and several times taller. Definitely worth it for those external shots of the city.

 

 

‘There are no benefits apart from these benefits’

 

Well obviously those are benefits. My point was, for a majority of people IMAX or any other large screen format would suffice, rather than IMAX specifically.

 

Printworks and a couple of others are exceptions because they're 'proper' IMAX. Rest of the country has the Digital ones that people online like to call 'LIEMAX'. Metro Centre screen for example is 9.94x18, Norwich is 8.72m  x 16.16m, ditto Southampton.

 

Wasn't aware of the Open Matte being an IMAX only thing. So I'll stand corrected (though I suspect to the majority they probably wouldn't be that arsed when the tickets are twice the price!)

[Paulando]

2 minutes ago, DjSatansfur3h said:

Wasn't aware of the Open Matte being an IMAX only thing. So I'll stand corrected (though I suspect to the majority they probably wouldn't be that arsed when the tickets are twice the price!)

 

£9.99, actually!

 

Yep, I was surprised by that too.

[DjSatansfur3h]

Just now, Paulando said:

 

£9.99, actually!

 

Yep, I was surprised by that too.

 

I wish, the local was charging £18.50 a ticket. Fucking un-believ-able.

[Paulando]

Still worth it 

[gone fishin]

Saw this and maybe I had too much expectation, but... hmmm.. I'm just not sure...

 

Bit of background, I remember making my mum hire the original on the day it was released on video in 1982 (or 83) when I was 7. It was a Tuesday and although it might have been the fact that it was a sci-fi film starring Han Solo/Indiana Jones that made me so excited for its release, I ended up really enjoying it as it's own film. I was probably way too young, but the world it created seemed to immersive (and different). It basically became one of my favourite films of all time.... ahhh...

 

Anyway, last week I decided to watch the original again in preparation for this and despite my wife falling asleep (And then proclaiming what little she did see as "utter bollocks") I think it stands up really well - specifically as, what is essentially, a film noir detective drama - but set in a dystopian future (with a very strong 30s theme to it). Ah.. a "Future Noire"! 

 

What I've just seen with Blade Runner 2049, while looks (and sounds) stunning, it just didn't feel like it was that close to the original in terms of storytelling. It wasn't a film noir, it felt more like Apocalypse Now - but instead of Vietnam it was set in the Blade Runner universe. It didn't help that it felt like it was really bloated (like in recent Ridley Scott bloated terms, when there wasn't a studio breathing down his neck) and was stretching a really thin story over 2 and a half hours (at times, it felt like longer). Sure, it looked absolutely stunning, but Jesus it felt like most of the scenes were way too long - especially when you knew what was going to happen, but you had to watch 10 minutes of exposition just to get to it (as beautiful as it was). That made it feel so different to the original - yeah it's a little slow in places but it doesn't dwell too much on unimportant scenes. 

 

It also felt it really lacked the subtlety of the original with the storytelling - allowing you to build up backstory or images in your mind. There's no "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe" type speech here. No, you're explicitly shown every single detail of the story. I guess that's the problem with no budget limitations and CGI being able to do anything you want now. Unlike the original which had plenty of ambiguity, this just seemed to tell you everything with what felt like no questions after it (what did that mean exactly)?

 

I know this all sounds really negative, but after it finished while I felt it was a great film, to me it lost a lot of the subtleties that made the original a classic. I'll definitely go and see it again, but this time going in knowing it's not going to be a "Future Noire" film, I might feel a little better about it. 

 

I also dread to think what the running time of Denis Villenueve's version of Dune is going to be like. Judging by the running time of this, I'm guessing something like 18 hours... 

[Dr Nookie]

Saw this last night - both me and Mrs Nookie loved it.  A real cinematic event which definitely benefits from a mega screen. 

 

It's good they said - and it was....by jove  it was.

[monkeydog]

6 hours ago, moora said:

I also dread to think what the running time of Denis Villenueve's version of Dune is going to be like. Judging by the running time of this, I'm guessing something like 18 hours...

 

Each to their own and all that, but I think I'd quite happily sit through Villenueve's 18 hour version of Dune.

 

 

[krenzler]

 

[DeciderVT]

7 hours ago, moora said:

Saw this and maybe I had too much expectation, but... hmmm.. I'm just not sure...

 

Bit of background, I remember making my mum hire the original on the day it was released on video in 1982 (or 83) when I was 7. It was a Tuesday and although it might have been the fact that it was a sci-fi film starring Han Solo/Indiana Jones that made me so excited for its release, I ended up really enjoying it as it's own film. I was probably way too young, but the world it created seemed to immersive (and different). It basically became one of my favourite films of all time.... ahhh...

 

Anyway, last week I decided to watch the original again in preparation for this and despite my wife falling asleep (And then proclaiming what little she did see as "utter bollocks") I think it stands up really well - specifically as, what is essentially, a film noir detective drama - but set in a dystopian future (with a very strong 30s theme to it). Ah.. a "Future Noire"! 

 

What I've just seen with Blade Runner 2049, while looks (and sounds) stunning, it just didn't feel like it was that close to the original in terms of storytelling. It wasn't a film noir, it felt more like Apocalypse Now - but instead of Vietnam it was set in the Blade Runner universe. It didn't help that it felt like it was really bloated (like in recent Ridley Scott bloated terms, when there wasn't a studio breathing down his neck) and was stretching a really thin story over 2 and a half hours (at times, it felt like longer). Sure, it looked absolutely stunning, but Jesus it felt like most of the scenes were way too long - especially when you knew what was going to happen, but you had to watch 10 minutes of exposition just to get to it (as beautiful as it was). That made it feel so different to the original - yeah it's a little slow in places but it doesn't dwell too much on unimportant scenes. 

 

It also felt it really lacked the subtlety of the original with the storytelling - allowing you to build up backstory or images in your mind. There's no "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe" type speech here. No, you're explicitly shown every single detail of the story. I guess that's the problem with no budget limitations and CGI being able to do anything you want now. Unlike the original which had plenty of ambiguity, this just seemed to tell you everything with what felt like no questions after it (what did that mean exactly)?

 

I know this all sounds really negative, but after it finished while I felt it was a great film, to me it lost a lot of the subtleties that made the original a classic. I'll definitely go and see it again, but this time going in knowing it's not going to be a "Future Noire" film, I might feel a little better about it. 

 

I also dread to think what the running time of Denis Villenueve's version of Dune is going to be like. Judging by the running time of this, I'm guessing something like 18 hours... 

 

Absolutely hit the nail on the head. I'm a big fan of the original and went in with no expectations but it felt like I was watching a general sci-fi film wearing Blade Runner's clothes, so to speak. It had lovely visuals but the style and the dreamy atmosphere of the original had evaporated completely. It felt very flat and lacking its own identity.

 

I didn't hate it but I didn't especially like it, either. The worst thing I can say about it is that I don't feel compelled to see it again, which is fairly damning for a sequel to Blade Runner. A real shame. The soundtrack was disappointingly workmanlike too- solid bit lacking character, completely overshadowed when snatches of "Tears in the Rain" were played.

 

Spoiler

I also found Rachael's cameo a bit troublesome and I hope they paid Sean Young a fortune for conveniently sidestepping her, while having their cake and eating it.

 

One plot point sticks with me as well- are we to believe that Wallace has simply given up the hunt for the child because his right-hand replicant died escorting Deckard off-world? Deckard's assertion that to love someone sometimes requires you to be a stranger rings hollow if he knows that K was being followed, then agrees to go and meet his daughter with him, after the fight.

 

[Down by Law]

 

K was only being followed to Deckard's location, that's why when he's knocked out it shows the rescuing party remove the tracking device from his jacket. As far as Luv/Wallace's men are concerned he's been left for dead. After the climax K says to Deckard 'You died in the water' the likelihood of that pod ever being found to prove otherwise being virtually non existent.

 

 

So the likelihood of Wallace looking for two dead men in a remote location to find a daughter Wallace doesn't know about (he always refers to child so I'm assuming he doesn't know the sex) isn't a stretch at all. One could also assume that K knows he has little time left so wants to die knowing that he played his part in reuniting a father with his daughter, regardless of the fallout afterwards.
 

 

 

Can't wait to watch it again to be honest, I never felt it was overlong or was bored at any point which was incredible seeing as there were 30 fucking minutes of adverts and trailers before it even started. These cinemas really taking this piss with this now - it's getting worse every year.

 

Never thought i'd  miss the shit static trivia boards from back in the day and the ads for the local curry house but here we are

[DeciderVT]

Spoiler

So from Wallace's perspective, who tracks down and takes out three Spinners, killing his team and Deckard in the process? Not the Blade Runner conveniently left for dead, surely? And while we may see K's tracker being removed, Deckard and K himself didn't know how he was being tracked. From Deckard's perspective, K could still be followed.

 

We also see portable scanning tech locating the box under metres of soil at the beginning, so it's not exactly beyond Wallace to search for and recover that Spinner and find that Deckard wasn't in it, provided it hasn't been swept too far out to sea.

 

[Down by Law]

 

yes, but if he does find out it was officer K who shot down his team, then he'll be hunting for a guy whose already dead, and there's no reason for him to continue to look for Deckard as he is assumed dead in the spinner with Luv. Even if they found K alive, the other replicants told him to kill Deckard anyway so there's his reason for doing it. 

 

 

K's own motivations and making the choice to save Deckard is what makes the ending work

 

Edit: I see you edited your post so to address point 1 if K managed to get behind luvs spinner, shoot them down and have all that time to rescue Deckard without Wallaces reinforcements turning up then it's pretty obvious that he isn't still being tracked -  leading to the earlier point they think K is dead. Deckard himself witnessed him being overpowered by Luvs squad so he may have assumed he was dead himself before k showed up in the finale.As for tracking the drowned spinner thats a bit of a stretch compared to solid ground near a tree than a gigantic raging ocean that could be miles deep by the time Wallace realises that Luv never made it off world. 

 

[joemul]

How loud is it? Is it full of explosions and gun fights? 

I only ask because Mrs Mul is 32 weeks pregnant and doesn’t want to go if it’s too loud. (Dunkirk was ridiculously loud)

[lordcookie]

It's pretty loud, particularly Zimmer's drone-like soundtrack, but there are only a few scenes that have explosions and gun fights.

[sandman]

As pointed out in the Arrival thread I am now rather worried about this.  Not been a big fan of his last 3 films which felt over-hyped and for millennials (not that there's anything wrong with that, but it ain't me) 

 

Also very worried about the running time. The vast majority of Hollywood product is so bloated nowadays. 

 

The original is in my top 3 of all time and I so don't want this to disappoint.  

[Benny]

Blade Runner is probably my favourite film of all time. This feels like a film made by someone who shares that love.

 

If you're worried about running time, you're coming into it with the wrong expectations..

[SpagMasterSwift]

I tend to read too much into these types of films, but came out thinking that

 

Spoiler

there actually was no child. It’s all a construct to give the replicants something to hold onto, a religious foundation or miracle to help in their evolution. The amount of time the film spends showing the relationship with a hologram allows for the possibility that the daughter that Deckard believes he has could also be a construct, kept away from physical interaction. The choice to have the snow scene at the end makes her seem like she’s preserved in a snow globe herself. Deckard being a duped pawn in a much larger chess game. The artifice of her in the snow globe mirroring the artifice of K’s situation.

 

Enjoyed it.

[K]

I enjoyed this a lot. I'm not quite at the same place other people are, i.e. saying it's as good as or better than the original and it's one of the best sequels ever, but it's a fine film and full of clever ideas. The world felt absolutely real, both in terms of how it looked and in terms of the little details the film introduces. It was also staggeringly bleak for the most part, the first hour or so of the film depressed the hell out of me with its vision of a world where the ecosystem has completely collapsed. It's not as emotionally grim as the original film, but the world is portrayed as being nearly as bad as it is in The Road. 

 

I'll probably set down my thoughts in more detail later, but one thing did confuse me slightly at the end:

 

 

Why did K have Deckard's daughter's memories? I wasn't quite sure how or why he was so specifically linked to her.

Another thought - the recreation of Rachel at the end was amazing. Given how distinctive Sean Young's hair, makeup and clothes are in that scene, I suspected they'd just got someone who looked like her and let the costume do the hard work, but there was apparently some kind of Rogue One-style digital effects work too. The nu-Rachel looked a hell of a lot more realistic than Tarkin or Leia, though. Not quite as scarily real as the recreated Robert Downey Jr in Civil War, but still very convincing.
 

 

[K]

 

2 minutes ago, Captain LeChuck said:

  Hide contents

Deckard's daughter was working as memory specialist for Wallace/Tyrell. K's last words to Deckard were, I think, "All the best memories are hers".  

 

 

Yeah, but why use those ones?

 

She said that using real people's memories was illegal, and she seemed pretty good at making them up from whole cloth. Using that specific memory, with that hugely significant date, seemed to have been done with some purpose, but I could quite figure out what.