Blade Runner 2049 (2017) (No Spoilers Thread)

[Judderman]

Seems like some good vibes coming from the lucky few journalists who have seen sneak previews prior to its release.

"Good news!" tweeted Guardian scribe Jordan Hoffman. "Blade Runner 2049 is a terrific continuation and expansion of the orig[inal]."
...

Very positive to see those comments though this review sounds more reasonable. 2 and a half out of 4.
Review: Gorgeous ‘2049’ breaks the ‘Blade Runner’ spell

 

[HanaBi]

Very positive to see those comments though this review sounds more reasonable. 2 and a half out of 4.
Review: Gorgeous ‘2049’ breaks the ‘Blade Runner’ spell

Am always wary of reading reviews because some critics just love to reveal too many spoilers from the film, thus diluting the experience somewhat. Guess its' a thin dividing line between giving a concise review of the story, but without giving too much away.

 

[Dave]

Am always wary of reading reviews because some critics just love to reveal too many spoilers from the film...

Not just some, but "most." This should probably be the subject of another thread, but reviews used to be about the quality of the writing, the special effects, the character development, plot holes and whether the story held together. Now, reviewers seem to just abridge the story.

My other problem with reviews is that they are partisan. I can't trust them when people are paid to do them, or when someone is deliberately trying to trash something. As I said in the Star Trek: Discovery thread, I'd far rather read an honest review here from one of you. I trust people here.

 

[HanaBi]

Not just some, but "most." This should probably be the subject of another thread, but reviews used to be about the quality of the writing, the special effects, the character development, plot holes and whether the story held together. Now, reviewers seem to just abridge the story.

My other problem with reviews is that they are partisan. I can't trust them when people are paid to do them, or when someone is deliberately trying to trash something. As I said in the Star Trek: Discovery thread, I'd far rather read an honest review here from one of you. I trust people here.

Well perhaps this goes back to an earlier post regarding having a separate BR49 thread that will include spoilers and scene-be-scene opinions. And perhaps keep this thread more or less for just general comments. I really don't want to inadvertently find a spoiler lying around that could possible kill my enjoyment of the film prior to seeing it.

 

[Dave]

I could change the title of this thread to (spoiler free) and then someone creates another called (spoilers.) We have done that for other films before.

 

[Alexa]

One of those reviews made me add Blade Runner 2049 on the wish list for this year. As a warning: this movie is for adults.

 

[HanaBi]

I could change the title of this thread to (spoiler free) and then someone creates another called (spoilers.) We have done that for other films before.

I like that idea.

I am still unsure of whether to watch BR49, despite the good reviews. There is something rather "perfect" about BR that I really don't want despoiled with a follow-up. But a separate thread would certainly help those that want to be in intentionally "ignorance" from this much heralded film.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

There is something rather "perfect" about BR that I really don't want despoiled with a follow-up.

Not trying to be mischievous here, but that's an argument I don't understand. Do you mean that BR 2049's story could irredeemably ruin elements from the first film (eg. if they retconned some of the mythology into something different), or that a poor sequel would forever spoil your opinion/enjoyment of the original?

I've heard this argument an awful lot when the notorious Ghostbusters "reboot" came out last year (was it last year?). People were saying that if the movie was bad, they would never look at the original Ghostbusters movie the same way. I also hear it a lot when a book adaptation comes out on the silver screen and fans of the book say a bad adaptation would ruin the book for them. Why? Can people not just decide that they only like one and not the other, and that it's perfectly okay? Can we not overlook a prequel/sequel/reboot/adaptation that we don't like?

No one can force me to like The Phantom Menace, but it will never ruin my enjoyment of A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back. I can just decide that midichlorians and Jar Jar don't exist in my Star Wars mythos. That's okay.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

So the verdict is in, although I think I still need to process the whole thing and will watch it again in 10 days or so.

It's good. It echoes the first in many ways, yet also turns it on its head. I don't think it is as "deep" as the original, or rather, I would say that it is less about existential dread and more about a journey of personal discovery. Yes, the running time can feel off-putting on paper, but the movie's actually put together in a way that allows every single scene to breathe and develop organically, free from editorial artifices. There's still plenty of action in there to keep you entertained. It evokes the atmospheres conjured up by many science-fiction novels from the 70s. In that way, it is closer to a Solaris than it is to, let's say Ghost in the Shell, for the most recent example that comes to mind.

And of course, it looks and sounds great. No, better than great. It looks and sounds awesome. A word that has lost its power lately, I know, but it is the most appropriate I can think of.

 

[MontyCircus]

One of the worst movies I've seen this year. I didn't like the original either. But I hated this one.

 

[Alexa]

One of the worst movies I've seen this year. I didn't like the original either. But I hated this one.

Why ?

 

[Paul_C]

Not trying to be mischievous here, but that's an argument I don't understand. Do you mean that BR 2049's story could irredeemably ruin elements from the first film (eg. if they retconned some of the mythology into something different), or that a poor sequel would forever spoil your opinion/enjoyment of the original?

Because I am steadfast in my belief about Deckard and the is he? isn't he? debate, I don't want to see the film if it disagrees with me as it would make me grumpy

If it remained ambiguous then I might be able to live with it, but even then I might find it annoying. I'll listen to a review or two and maybe buy it when it comes out on DVD*












*and then put it on a shelf and never watch it, just in case.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

Ha ha, well, rest assured that the movie does not lean towards one side or the other. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that it leans towards both options being true!

 

[Dave]

...If it remained ambiguous then I might be able to live with it...

Ha ha, well, rest assured that the movie does not lean towards one side or the other. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that it leans towards both options being true!

Since Replicants (in the time Deckard was hunting them) had a genetically engineered life span of only four years (which was the reason why they were revolting anyway), please explain how Deckard's appearance in this film can be anything but ambiguous?

"Oh! He might be some special kind of Replicant!" This here, in a nutshell, underlies my problem with the sequel, without even watching it.

 

[Paul_C]

Since Replicants (in the time Deckard was hunting them) had a genetically engineered life span of only four years (which was the reason why they were revolting anyway), please explain how Deckard's appearance in this film can be anything but ambiguous?

"Oh! He might be some special kind of Replicant!" This here, in a nutshell, underlies my problem with the sequel, without even watching it.

IIRC In the version I like (original cinema release with voice-over) Rachael has no insep date. Having said that, I don't see Deckard as a replicant anyway, so I'm fine with anything that agrees with my view

I did look at Wikipedia and inadvertently picked up hints about the new film (difficult not to, but I was unaware of this ).

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

Since Nexus 6 Replicants (in the time Deckard was hunting them) had a genetically engineered life span of only four years (which was the reason why they were revolting anyway), please explain how Deckard's appearance in this film can be anything but ambiguous?

I fixed your post to provide the answer.

I don't think there's a problem with this, since even the first movie implied that this limited life span had been added to newer generations of replicants to address the potential threat they represented to humanity, hinting that the first generations of replicants (Nexus-1, 2, 3, 4, 5...) may have had longer or perhaps even open-ended life spans.

 

[Vince W]

I like that idea.

I am still unsure of whether to watch BR49, despite the good reviews. There is something rather "perfect" about BR that I really don't want despoiled with a follow-up. But a separate thread would certainly help those that want to be in intentionally "ignorance" from this much heralded film.

2049 does nothing to despoil the perfection of Blade Runner. Quite the opposite, I think. It only builds and enhances the original in completely logical and unique way. Deckard is not just there for nostalgia, but he's central to the entire plot. Without him, the film would fall down.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

If only I had the time, I'd get out to see this.
Will probably have to wait for the DVD.

 

[MontyCircus]

Why ?

Well, here's my Criticker mini-review of the original film:

""Terminator: The Art Film". Ridley Scott somehow managed to take a story about cops in the future hunting down rogue killer robots from outer space and make it boring."

Discussing why I didn't like the sequel would be impossible without spoilers, I'll see what's cooking over in the spoiler-friendly thread.

 

[Alexa]

Well, here's my Criticker mini-review of the original film:

""Terminator: The Art Film". Ridley Scott somehow managed to take a story about cops in the future hunting down rogue killer robots from outer space and make it boring."

Discussing why I didn't like the sequel would be impossible without spoilers, I'll see what's cooking over in the spoiler-friendly thread.

I asked why because you seem among a few who doesn't like it. And I was curious about 2049, not the original.

I'll avoid the spoiler thread for the moment and make an opinion for myself.