Blade Runner 2049

Small Screen. Bigger Screen.
User avatar
Prey
Admin
 
Posts: 9377
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:16 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Prey » Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:51 pm

The only thing that spoils the overall experience for me personally is the somewhat gratuitous Tyrell head crushing scene. I just can't...nope.

User avatar
Medicine Man
 
Posts: 10001
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: Under the stairs

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Medicine Man » Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:40 pm

Sly Boots wrote:Wow, I didn't even see the last 2,047 Blade Runners! :shock:


That's surprising. It's a very popular franchise.

User avatar
Achtung Englander
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:29 am
Location: Dodi dodi di-do

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Achtung Englander » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:08 pm

seeing it on Sunday

Rewatched Blade Runner (Enhanced Edition) just now. Had not seen it in over 7 years. Still holds the magic of why it is considered one of the best SF films ever made. The Enhanced Edition is the best, even though I did recognise the new or better edited bits added in because I saw it so many times as a teenager. Not keen on the green filter they used in the Holden interview scenes and in Bryant office scenes but the added stuff really does improve the movie.

9/10

small trivia - watching the Blu Ray version you obviously see new things (you wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire...) where was I - oh yes, in the scene when Deckard is rifling through Leon's bedroom and opens his chest of draws, the newspaper in one of the draws has the same headline about mining on the moon that Deckard was reading just before he went for his noodle dinner. Props obviously reused the same paper.

I am ready for Blade Runner 2049
Games playing : Doom / Dirt 3 / Rochard / RTW 2

User avatar
Dr@gon-UK
Forum Fossil
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:08 am
Location: Still Here

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Dr@gon-UK » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:51 am

Saw it yesterday, given it's length I expected it to be padded out by unnecessary and obviously cgi action sequences - it wasn't.
Thoroughly enjoyed it, had a real deja-vu moment of sitting in the cinema 35yrs ago for the first one.I think this was the sequel it deserved, just my opinion ofc.
Terry Pratchett wrote:Humans would do anything to see if it was possible. If you put a large switch in a cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.

User avatar
Achtung Englander
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:29 am
Location: Dodi dodi di-do

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Achtung Englander » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:44 pm

As a sequel to a film that did not require one all I can say is well done to Hampton Fancher. This is a good natural conclusion to this cinematic franchise.

No spoilers

The good
- The story. This is the strongest aspect to the film. As I said this feels a lot more solid than the plethora of rubbish sequels we have gotten of late. Fancher took the story of Deckard and Rachel and thought - OK - what makes sense but also add drama and a story. Hats off to him.
- The pace. Similar to the first film it has action but it is not smothered in it and a lot of the time, it moves along at a steady pace
- The cinematography. Done by Roger Deakins, need I say more.
- The concepts of the future. Good but there was some repeat of Minority Report and Ghost In The Shell. The snake is being to eat itself, but there was enough originality to just keep its head above water
- Blade Runnerish - plenty of nods like the Tyrell building and the sounds. It did feel like the same parallel universe (even had a nod to the Soviet Union which is amusing) and it did feel LA 30 years on from the first film but that is where we hit some bricks (for me)
- The nice bits. It had some nice future noir elements to it like songs and visions from the 30s - 70s. Nice touch.

The Bad
- The sense of crowds, grime and grittiness of the first film is gone with something that is more sterile and functional. The first film had an eye that all that tech was covered in grime and looked old. That was replaced here with shiny shiny and a bit too Apple for my liking.
- The music. Just not a patch on Vangelis wonderful score. In fact I would say it was trying hard to keep in the spirit of the first film while trying to be modern and it kind of failed. Case in point - the Blade Runner theme was used in the last scenes and you cannot help but think - yep - that is the best use of music in the whole film. Why they did not get Vangelis to score it is beyond me.
- The direction. Ridley Scott made LA feel seriously overcrowded and dirty by using close shots. Here there were too many wide angle shots and some of the backlots did feel like back lots instead of feeling street level real.

watch this on a masterclass of why BR1 is brillant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkGo3hymPg&t=133s

Spoilers
Spoiler: show
The idea of Deckard and Rachel having a baby is perhaps the only way Fancher could have extended the story and it did work very well.
I did not like the Wallace character, he felt like a cliche and not as interesting as Tyrell. The angel Replicant based on the skull of Rachel and they got an actress to look like Sean Young was sublime. That was my favourite bit of the film - really loved it. A superb call back. Nice cameo from Gaff as well


I hope this is the end of the franchise as it can end here now on a high

7/10
Last edited by Achtung Englander on Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:30 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Games playing : Doom / Dirt 3 / Rochard / RTW 2

User avatar
Mantis
Admin
 
Posts: 26788
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: Nobody's Here

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Mantis » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:47 pm

Seeing it next weekend and have managed to avoid basically every bit of info on it so far. Very much looking forward to it.

User avatar
Achtung Englander
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:29 am
Location: Dodi dodi di-do

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Achtung Englander » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:48 pm

Games playing : Doom / Dirt 3 / Rochard / RTW 2

User avatar
DjchunKfunK
 
Posts: 24146
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:52 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby DjchunKfunK » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:26 pm

I would not like to see what a PG-13 Blade Runner would look like. Thinking you could just adapt it to that rating and a lot of the problems with finding an audience would go away is frankly misguided.
Check out my new gaming blog Player State. Updated every Wednesday.

User avatar
Mantis
Admin
 
Posts: 26788
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: Nobody's Here

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Mantis » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:33 pm

I'm sure it would have done better nevertheless. Make it PG-13, add in a significant amount of action and you've instantly got a more accessible film.

Problem is that, then you don't have a Blade Runner film. I'd rather it didn't do as well at the box office but maintained its integrity as true sequel.

User avatar
Achtung Englander
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:29 am
Location: Dodi dodi di-do

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Achtung Englander » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:15 pm

I agree. The original bombed as well.
Games playing : Doom / Dirt 3 / Rochard / RTW 2

User avatar
Dr@gon-UK
Forum Fossil
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:08 am
Location: Still Here

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Dr@gon-UK » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:56 pm

Mantis wrote:I'm sure it would have done better nevertheless. Make it PG-13, add in a significant amount of action and you've instantly got a more accessible film.

Problem is that, then you don't have a Blade Runner film. I'd rather it didn't do as well at the box office but maintained its integrity as true sequel.


Agree completely.
Terry Pratchett wrote:Humans would do anything to see if it was possible. If you put a large switch in a cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.

User avatar
Subway Diet
 
Posts: 12839
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Crush. Kill. Destroy. Swag.

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Subway Diet » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:54 pm

I hate to admit it, but Blade Runner 2049 is the first film I've ever walked out on.

Don't get me wrong. Was really liking what I saw. Just that the onset of motion sickness and a panic attack that distracted me. :(
Had excitedly watched the original twice in the lead up to this, only for my body to give out on me 15/20 minutes in.

Speaking of watching Blade Runner again. It's funny how teenage me thought it was a dull and boring movie. Wish I could have said I was taken on the first viewing, but at least I wised up and tried it again. And every time I've seen it since, these last two included, I've found myself enjoying it more and more.

But yeah. Not exactly relevant to the conversation. Will check back in 6 or so months when it's out on home video.

(Oh, an nobody cares, but the film looks amazing on in 4K with HDR. The films is so dense with details and the lighting is so rich, it really shines on UHD.)
End of an Era

User avatar
Animalmother
 
Posts: 5400
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 1:46 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Animalmother » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:33 pm

Probably go see it this evening. Is it really 3 hours long?

User avatar
katarn
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:44 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby katarn » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:41 pm

Subway Diet wrote: Just that the onset of motion sickness and a panic attack that distracted me. :(

Is it the depth of detail that caused the motion sickness? Or just being in the cinema itself?

I've read of there being an increase in cases of vertigo with modern cinema goers, due to digital films cramming in endless detail at varying distances (that and 3D obviously). For some people, the eye just can't find a focal point or something.

User avatar
Dr@gon-UK
Forum Fossil
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:08 am
Location: Still Here

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Postby Dr@gon-UK » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:08 pm

Animalmother wrote:Probably go see it this evening. Is it really 3 hours long?


2hrs 44m if I remember correctly.
Terry Pratchett wrote:Humans would do anything to see if it was possible. If you put a large switch in a cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.

PreviousNext

Return to TV & Film

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron