Blade Runner 2049

[Amir]

 

[Black Sabbath]

Overall I thought it was great and would give it a 9/10. I'm all for long movies, but I did find myself thinking it could have shaved off at least 15 minutes.

 

As for the whole plot and why it was happening, I too was trying to figure out "What's the issue?", other than the fact that if the Replicants can reproduce, then they could ultimately continue to do so and possibly take over. So unless I missed something, my idea was they wanted to find the child and do tests on it, to possibly determine how it was even possible and maybe how to stop it from ever happening again?

Also, the Replicant Uprising subplot was a little unnecessary, unless they plan on making a sequel (which would be a risk unless Ford plays a bigger part and if Gosling's character is indeed dead and wouldn't be coming back).

 

I thought the score was great and in all honesty, this may have been the loudest movie I've ever seen in the theaters, if only from the score alone. 

[Black Sabbath]

Also, Ana de Armas is the epitome of perfection.

[Black Sabbath]

So as for the plot, I discussed it a bit with some people on blu-ray.com

Here's a reply from another member:

The fact that Replicants are capable of reproduction would probably make them more “human” in the eyes of the world if that fact became public knowledge.  That would upset the delicate co-existence of humans and replicants by changing public perception, and also make it more difficult for human authorities to hunt down the rogue replicants and/or prevent a takeover in the future.  Also, on the end of the manufacturers, the ability to give newer replicants the ability to reproduce would enable Wallace to make millions more of them in order for him to help humanity expand into more off-world star systems by using them as slave labor.

In other words, the human police wanted to destroy all evidence of a replicant birth, while Wallace wanted to take advantage of it for his corporation so that he could manufacture millions more of them.  

There's a slight contradiction in logic in my above assessment, because, if reproducing replicants altered the public perception so that they are seen as more human, then that would make it more difficult for them to be employed as slave labor.  I just sort of dismissed that while watching the movie, though.

 

My reply:

So the police wanted to destroy it to protect the public from the knowledge and hopefully prevent any kind of takeover in the future due to reproduction, but Wallace wanted it so he could figure out how to make it possible himself to help production (which in turn would lead to exactly what the police wanted to prevent?!).

So there's certainly contradiction in the plot, but I have a hard time believing they accidentally let that bit slip by, and am almost inclined to think it was intentional, possibly to further the story for a sequel - which as others said, the end of this movie almost seemed like another beginning, instead of an ending.

[Powerage5]

I do agree that it really seems like there's too many loose ends for there not to be another sequel coming, especially

the fact that Wallace's character 

literally disappears before the climax of the film

[Amir]

Box office isn't looking great for this :/

Hopefully this doesn't restrict Villeneuve in any way on his Dune adaptation. I'm not the biggest fan of Dune (I gave up on the book after about 300 pages and have only seen the Lynch version once when the DVD came free with a copy of The Observer) but I'd love to see a talented director such as Villeneuve get to make (more) films in my favourite genre, science-fiction (though Dune is more "soft science-fiction", or "space fantasy").

[The Glow Inc.]

It made 50 millions in three days and the week-end as just started. While not as amazing as they should be the numbers are not bad either. Not yet at least. 

Let's have some hope as most viewer reviews are pretty good, unlike Alien : Covenant for which they were mixed at best.

And yes, a Villeneuve version of Dune would be amazing. Probably miles better than the masterpiece in the making that was Jodorowsky's version would have been. Fingers crossed. 

[The Glow Inc.]

21 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Visuals were impeccable and had some standout moments of genuinely cool imagery. Sound also had a lot of attention to detail, I thought the deliberately lousy sound quality of the video calling in the car was a nice touch.

Anyone saying this is better than Blade Runner is just wrong lol that is just being swept up in hype. This film won't hold up well at all. Plot sucks. Characters suck. This film has nothing to say. It bombards the audience with a spectacle because it is all style, no substance.

2.5/5

This is what I don't get though.

I have massive respect for the cinematography, the mood, set pieces, soundtrack and atmosphere of the original Blade Runner but I can't see what was so amazing about its plot though.
I mean sure, the setting and the general intrigue was interesting but the plot itself ? There barely is an investigation in there. Some of the dialogues are kinda awkward ( the scene where Deckard pretends to be an inspector from the commitee on moral abuses with a dumb nasal voice ), the scene when Deckard is reminded what a Nexus 6 is by his former boss despite being a Blade Runner...

While not amazing, I was way more captivated by the story of 2049, simply because it took the time to establish good emotional connection between the audience and K so the theme of loneliness worked rather well to explain most of the character's actions and reactions. I understand that Deckard's grumpiness and darkness was supposed to be a throwback to film noir male characters but I felt way more connected to Ryan Gosling's character.

While the plot-twists ( if you can call them that ) were not amazing in 2049, they worked well enough to keep me engaged throughout my first viewing, which is way more than I can say for the original Blade Runner ( during which I was, as I said, way more impressed by the visual experience ). 
 

[Powerage5]

2 hours ago, The Glow Inc. said:

This is what I don't get though.

I have massive respect for the cinematography, the mood, set pieces, soundtrack and atmosphere of the original Blade Runner but I can't see what was so amazing about its plot though.
I mean sure, the setting and the general intrigue was interesting but the plot itself ? There barely is an investigation in there. Some of the dialogues are kinda awkward ( the scene where Deckard pretends to be an inspector from the commitee on moral abuses with a dumb nasal voice ), the scene when Deckard is reminded what a Nexus 6 is by his former boss despite being a Blade Runner...

While not amazing, I was way more captivated by the story of 2049, simply because it took the time to establish good emotional connection between the audience and K so the theme of loneliness worked rather well to explain most of the character's actions and reactions. I understand that Deckard's grumpiness and darkness was supposed to be a throwback to film noir male characters but I felt way more connected to Ryan Gosling's character.

While the plot-twists ( if you can call them that ) were not amazing in 2049, they worked well enough to keep me engaged throughout my first viewing, which is way more than I can say for the original Blade Runner ( during which I was, as I said, way more impressed by the visual experience ). 
 

I mean, the interesting thing about Blade Runner is, it's a film where the visuals and the sound are SO overwhelming that it's hard to take anything else in. It's a film where the plot and characters truly take a backseat to the look and feel, and I've never found another film like that. I agree that the plot of Blade Runner is nothing particularly special - it's not bad per se, but it's not enough to warrant it being one of my favorite films - that's strictly because of the experience of watching Blade Runner. And in that sense, 2049 recaptured that magic perfectly. 

 

I saw someone summarize my feelings on the plots perfectly on Reddit - it was something along the lines of "Blade Runner felt like 'a weekend in the Blade Runner world' - this one has a lot more worldwide consequences". I mean, the biggest thing about the plot of the original is, how does it really matter for almost any of the characters what the outcome is? Deckard faces the same risk he always did on the job, Tyrell obviously ran the risk of getting killed by giving Roy the answer he didn't want to hear, and all of the replicants are going to die regardless. The movie could have not happened at all, and nearly all of the characters could've had the same outcome. In this one, at least both for the characters and the rest of the world, it feels like more is at stake. 

 

The more I reflect on the film, the less my nitpicking in my first post after seeing it bother me. This was an excellent film, and a very worthy successor to Blade Runner. 

 

Also, on the topic of attendance figures, I can't pretend I'm not a bit worried too. My theater for the Thursday 7:30 preview had 8 out of about 200 seats filled. That's fucking abysmal for a film of this magnitude, let alone pretty much any non-independent film on a Thursday night preview. 

[Amir]

20 minutes ago, Powerage5 said:

My theater for the Thursday 7:30 preview had 8 out of about 200 seats filled.

What the actual fuck

Thinking about it, there weren't that many people at my Thursday night screening, either. I was sat next to a mum and her teenage son; he was constantly asking her whether stuff related to the original or not since he hadn't seen it. I'm surprised at the number of film fans who haven't seen Blade Runner. I wasn't even born when it came out but I always thought it was one of those films that people would see at some point in their lives.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Amir

[Black Sabbath]

Unfortunately, for the casual viewer, this film is going to feel long and drawn-out and that's going to deter a lot of people away I believe.

[Powerage5]

2 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

Unfortunately, for the casual viewer, this film is going to feel long and drawn-out and that's going to deter a lot of people away I believe.

So people going to see a Blade Runner film are disappointed they get a Blade Runner film. I mean it did feel just a hair long to me, but pace wise it's the same as the original. This is the epitome of "if you liked the original you'll probably like this, and if you didn't you won't" to me. 

[appetite4illusions]

That was the most photorealistic CGI character in a film, yet. At least, I'm pretty sure CGI...

I could detect no "dead eyes," at all.

[Black Sabbath]

4 hours ago, Powerage5 said:

So people going to see a Blade Runner film are disappointed they get a Blade Runner film. I mean it did feel just a hair long to me, but pace wise it's the same as the original. This is the epitome of "if you liked the original you'll probably like this, and if you didn't you won't" to me. 

Yeah, but what I'm saying is about someone who's never seen the original or doesn't know anything about them going "Hey, let's see that Blade Runner movie - it looks really good!", I think the average, casual viewer will likely complain about the pace and length.

That said, I didn't get a big "Hollywood" vibe from the movie at all. The trailer for the new Pacific Rim movie had way more of a big-budget Hollywood-vibe than the entire Blade runner 2049 movie.

[Nosaj Thing]

On 10/6/2017 at 12:48 PM, Black Sabbath said:

Also, Ana de Armas is the epitome of perfection.

Loved her in "El Internado."

[Amir]

RedLetterMedia review:

They make a good point about Officer K doing a lot more actual detective work in 2049 than Deckard ever did in the original.

[Amir]

Roger Deakins piping in on how he thinks the film should be viewed: https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/blade-runner-2049-2d-or-3d/

[Silent Jay]

 

 

[DieselDaisy]

The original film only did decent. It is a hard sell Blade Runner to an American public, especially an American public force fed a diet of rebooted superhero films. I have not see it yet by the way but always loved the first film.

[appetite4illusions]

It is insane to think that the film got green lit with a budget of $150 million.

The studios don't allocate money like that unless they have very good projections of what they can get back. 

They must have made the bet on the European and Chinese audiences. Few Americans have seen the original film and I think even fewer remember it. A huge budget for a thirty five year old cult film, indeed.

[Silent Jay]

Loved the book and the movie.

Still think this sequel is unnecessary.

If I had any more respect for Hollywood I would pay to watch this. I will download it later.

[The Glow Inc.]

6 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

Loved the book and the movie.

Still think this sequel is unnecessary.

If I had any more respect for Hollywood I would pay to watch this. I will download it later.

Way to ruin your experience of one of the only movies worth paying for and supporting in the last few years...

[Silent Jay]

Just now, The Glow Inc. said:

Way to ruin your experience of one of the only movies worth paying for and supporting in the last few years...

Sound design and visuals might be great, but I'm all about the plot.

[Amir]

At least it's doing well in the UK and Australia: http://deadline.com/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-it-movie-horror-record-despicable-me-3-kingsman-never-say-die-weekend-results-international-box-office-1202184382/

There are posters EVERYWHERE here in Sydney. Every bus stop, every advertising stand, it's the Blade Runner 2049 poster. Shame it's not a more artful poster but it seems to be getting the job done.

[Dazey]

On 08/10/2017 at 5:11 PM, Silent Jay said:

Sound design and visuals might be great, but I'm all about the plot.

Saw it yesterday and absolutely loved it. As a movie in terms of plot and narrative it's better than the original. Give it a chance in the movie theatre because the visuals are also absolutely stunning.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dazey