Blade Runner 2049 (2017) (No Spoilers Thread)

[Paul_C]

I'm in two minds about it - it looks good but I still fear the Deckard is a replicant nonsense, and I won't stand for any of that

 

[ctg]

I'm excited even though I'm thinking can they ef up this with trying to build upon that single thread that was left open. Everything else was closed in the original movie. But from what I can see they certainly has moved on with times and tried their best to move the world ahead in time. It's just I'm sad to see so much of decay and not a single thread of hope in this world.

 

[Lumens]

For me, almost nothing can live up to the original bar a miracle. I'm not expecting it to surpass the original but I am still excited. Aiming straight for the ground, as it were, so I can't miss.

Hopefully not shooting myself in the foot.

 

[ctg]

I'm not expecting it to surpass the original but I am still excited.

That's the thing with Ridley Scott's other movies. People expect them to be better than the original as it is with the case of Alien movies, especially with the Prometheus saga. They don't accept the expansion, because some of the thrill has already faded away for being something original.

 

[Lumens]

I enjoyed Prometheus, but it fell flat in many ways. In the end it didn't work for me, even as a standalone movie. The tie-in with the Alien movies does not work either, expansion or not. It just didn't add up.

Ridley Scott has always been great at creating atmosphere but that didn't happen in Prometheus for me. I think that was my biggest source of disappointment. Honest mistakes are forgiven though. Onwards and forwards.

 

[HanaBi]

Alien: Covenant to Blade Runner 2049 – why does Hollywood keep ruining the mystery of sci-fi?

(Wasn't quite sure where to post this since it's a bit of a general comment. So Mods, feel free to repost to somewhere pertinent )


The writer feels, like most of us, that Hollywood is ruining the magic of classic SF films by turning it into a money-making franchise with prequels, reboots and sequels.

I suppose it could also be argued that some sequels/remakes can be superior over its original; but by and large it's reverts to the law of diminishing returns. But you try telling Hollywood that!

 

[Dave]

The problem is (and I'm no exception) that we still keep going to see these sequel/remakes despite knowing about the 'law of diminishing returns,' otherwise known as, being unable to strike Gold twice. It is much the same as someone continuing to give support to a rubbish Football team; we are unable to help ourselves.

Having said that, the visuals in this look stunning. Even if there is no story at all, then for the sake of cinematographic art it probably warrants going to see it?

 

[Lumens]

I think it is perfectly possible to play in a universe created by a first movie. The problem seems to be with the ingredients. Why does every single Alien movie have to have an evil corporation in it? Plus all the other things on the list. Are we really that dependent on familiar elements as viewers? I don't think so. Again it boils down to the accounting department being too much in charge.

Of course, they are playing with big money, so I guess we can expect the same to happen in BR2049 too. Anything beyond that is a bonus to me, cinematography included.

 

[Amelia Faulkner]

I swore to myself that I'd go see Ghost in the Shell. But then it was released and it reviewed so poorly that I didn't bother.

C'mon, Blade Runner 2049: Please be the intelligent cyberpunk blockbuster we're hoping for!

 

[ctg]

 

[TWErvin2]

Looks intriguing.

 

[Calum]

The problem is (and I'm no exception) that we still keep going to see these sequel/remakes despite knowing about the 'law of diminishing returns,' otherwise known as, being unable to strike Gold twice. It is much the same as someone continuing to give support to a rubbish Football team; we are unable to help ourselves.

Having said that, the visuals in this look stunning. Even if there is no story at all, then for the sake of cinematographic art it probably warrants going to see it?

Honestly the CGI looks pretty underwhelming to me. As far as I'm concerend the original set a standard for effects that still hasn't been matched. I first saw Blade Runner on its re-release in 2007 and was blown away by how convincing it looked. I saw the Golden Compass a few weeks later and was mortified by how ropey the CGI was in comparison. It didn't help that the Golden Compass was a big stemaing pile of Elephant jobbys.

 

[ctg]

Honestly the CGI looks pretty underwhelming to me.

Back in the eighties they didn't had much in the way of CGI and most of the probs were real or you saw actual models and thought they were real. To me the world looks very intriguing and very true to the original vision. The only thing that breaks the mould is the desert scenes as there were hardly any places in the Blade Runner that you could have claimed to be dry. Even Deckert's apartment was a bit foggy (not because Rachael was smoking in it).

The biggest problem with it is the lack of mobile phones as back then neither Ridley Scott or PKD saw them to be a big part of the future. People in their world don't carry them around but they use clunky looking video phones that are very much alike in the original Alien movies.

I suspect we are going to see quite a few updates to the Blade Runner world. Hopefully they also reveal a little bit about how people get to the "offworld colonies."

 

[Dave]

The biggest problem with it is the lack of mobile phones...

I can't say about this film, but I'd think that in reality we will move away from carrying phones. No one wants to be tied down to objects, be that a wallet or a phone. Apart from forgetting them or leaving them behind, in light summer clothing they are restricting. I'd say we would even move beyond watches to implanted chips that are hardwired to the internet and our brains. However, we will still speak into cameras and look at faces on screens because we communicate using facial expressions as much as words. So, maybe, the original Blade Runner was not that wrong.

 

[Calum]

Back in the eighties they didn't had much in the way of CGI and most of the probs were real or you saw actual models and thought they were real. To me the world looks very intriguing and very true to the original vision. The only thing that breaks the mould is the desert scenes as there were hardly any places in the Blade Runner that you could have claimed to be dry. Even Deckert's apartment was a bit foggy (not because Rachael was smoking in it).

The biggest problem with it is the lack of mobile phones as back then neither Ridley Scott or PKD saw them to be a big part of the future. People in their world don't carry them around but they use clunky looking video phones that are very much alike in the original Alien movies.

I suspect we are going to see quite a few updates to the Blade Runner world. Hopefully they also reveal a little bit about how people get to the "offworld colonies."

I knew they were models. That's kind of my point, that despite all the new digital muck we have nowadays it still doesn't hold up compared to practical effects from 1982.

 

[HanaBi]

Still not sure about this despite the various tasters on offer. I think it's going to be all style over content; although I am hoping the ending will be inconclusive, thus leaving the door open for follow-ups

 

[Brian G Turner]

Trailer 2:

 

[ctg]

Much better than the first one. I have faith on Ridley Scott's talent to make this happen. The only thing I'm scared about is that this is going to be like new Total Recall and not a dark crime noir. At the moment I don't see that happening, but instead there's a manhunt and a war.

 

[ctg]

2019: Blade Runner Rick Deckard flees Los Angeles with a replicant named Rachael.

2020: The Tyrell Corporation introduces a new replicant model, the Nexus 8S, which has extended lifespans. (Dave Bautista plays one of these Replicants in 2049.)

2022: An EMP detonation causes a global blackout that has massive, destructive implications all over the world.

2023: A Replicant prohibition is put into effect.

2025: A new company, Wallace Corp., solves the global food shortage and becomes a massive super power.

2030: Replicant prohibition is repealed.

2049: Life on Earth has reached its limit and society divides between Replicant and human.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-a-brief-history-of-whats-happened-between-blade-r-1797159511

LOL. I wonder what PKD would say.

Depending on what version of Blade Runner you’ve seen or preferred, it’s possible to make strong arguments that main character Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a human or an artificially created Replicant himself. It’s a question fans have debated since the movie came out in 1982—and it’s a debate the star and director are still having to this day.

“Harrison and Ridley are still arguing about that,” Blade Runner 2049 director Denis Villeneuve said yesterday. “If you put them in the same room, they don’t agree. And they start to talk to very loud.”

http://io9.gizmodo.com/blade-runner-2049-director-says-harrison-ford-and-ridle-1797156876

 

[Foxbat]

I recently read an interview with the director (Denis Villeneuve) and I'm kind of less cynical and a little more hopeful after reading it. From what I've heard of it so far, I love the soundtrack and the way the composer has kept the Vangelis vibe.

Let's wait and see though