f13.net

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/jared-leto-blade-runner-sequel-1201840363/

Jared Leto Joins ‘Blade Runner’ Sequel


Cunts. Why can't they leave old good films alone?

[edit] The thread title should reflect the name of the Film. Otherwise chaos wins. -rattran

The only thing giving me any hope whatsoever for this is that it's Denis Villeneuve, who has a pretty decent run of good movies under his belt. I had a few issues with Sicario, but Prisoners and Incendies are amazing, and the rest of his stuff I've seen is also above average. I sort of expect Arrival to break that trend, but we'll see...

Because film making has become almost exclusively about making profit and the costs of making AAA films are now so high that the money men are highly risk-averse. So we get endless sequels and remakes.

I've not seen anything by Villeneuve, I'll hunt some out and see what I think.

(http://harry.enzoverder.be/cats/donotwant.jpg)

Also, what apocrypha said about risk-averse money men wanting sure things.

Not that I think this is, in fact, a sure thing.

Blade Runner is one of my top 10 favorite films, but Villeneuve is an outstanding director so I'm giving this the benefit of the doubt.  After all, if it sucks, I still have Blade Runner, and I'll just ignore that this ever happened just like the other reboots/sequels I don't like. 

I think this has been in the works for awhile.  Also feel warm and fuzzy about the original (Director's Cut, EU Release TYVM).  I just don't know how they will come close visually, story and score-wise to the original.  Current films being set for international releases (hallo CN!) are pretty antithetical to the original film's production, story, score, direction, visuals...  I mean, the original had several unclear story threads.  I don't see any desire today to repeat that kind of openess in SciFi (good films like Moon being the exception).

edit: So yeah.  Not much to look forward to.

I'm slightly excited (thanks to the director) but I fear it's going to be another Total Recall/Robocop style remake (failing to comprehend what made the original movie a classic)

They are getting so adverse to "new ideas" that they are remaking Clue.  Fucking *Clue*. I expect a Battleship remake announced any day now, why wait a generation to shit on something you already screwed up?

Oh, and a another live action Godzilla. This one with CGI rendered rubber suited humans. Because obviously the problem with the others was that the CGI was too good.

--Dave

Really?  Hrrmm.

I'm of two minds.  On the one hand, Clue was an awesome movie and I have  very little faith at this point that they can recreate what made it so fun (perfect mix of deadpan dry humor and slapstick).

On the other hand........It's one of those movies I could see several different directors/writers remaking amazingly.  It's a fun premise that somebody could make an awesome version of.


Edit:  Oh, as to the topic at hand.  Bleeeeeeeh.  It's going to be another Total Recall/Robocop fuckup remake.  They always fail at doing these sci-fi remakes.

This 80's nostalgia rape is getting so bad though, I'm very afraid they may finally do the unthinkable.  Attempt to remake the Princess Bride.

Hmm, Denis Villeneuve is the director.  That just increased the chances for this not to suck.  I really like his other films Sicario and Incendies.

Watched Enemy last night. It was excellent. We had to go back and check bits of it out again as we tried to make sense of it, which I think we did eventually. Sicario queued up next.

That's the problem really. The original doesn't lend itself to a sequel made 30 years later.

Even if it wont be Prometheus-level-bad I expect a "SF Film that's would have been decent on it's own but not compared to the original Blade Runner"


Peter K. Rosenthal analyzes the issues of sequels loveingly in this review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9d09JLBVRc

People forget that BladeRunner was an utter flop at the box office.  It flat out sucked in that regard.  Even if this movie were to pay homage to the original in "quality" and so forth, it'd likely fail.  That right there should tell you that it will be NOTHING like the original; which became a classic much later in life (ala 5th element).  No studio will take the risk, because people are still too fuckstupid to appreciate a good sci-fi product.  Just like they were back then.

To that end, I don't want it to be like the original, because if it was... it'd fail.  I do not want it to fail.  So, it needs to stand on its own 2 feet and be a modern masterpiece right out of the gate.

So far we know Leto and Gosling are in this?  That right there does not give me a warm and fuzzy.  Once again, they're casting these movies too "clean."  They need dirtier, smarmier, actor/actresses.  Not these chiseled statues.  Shit, Gosling has to be a replicant if he's in this.

Too "clean"?  Blade Runner starred Harrison fucking Ford.  The man who had, in the five years prior to Blade Runner, played Han Solo in Star Wars/Empire and Indiana Jones.  He was one of the hottest actors in Hollywood, if not the hottest at the time.  He was far more bankable than Jared Leto or Ryan Gosling will ever be.

Also, have you seen Drive?  You really should if you think Gosling is just a chiseled statue.  He was amazing in The Nice Guys, too, which no one saw, unfortunately.  And what big movie has Leto ever been in besides Suicide Squad or Fight Club?  He's an offbeat b-list actor that makes a movie every one or two years to little fanfare.

Yeah I liked Gosling in Drive.

Given the nature of today's comics it's going to be all high-energy people playing-up the sexual aspects much, much more and including a lot more body humor. None of the dryness of the original.

Media as Miss. Scarlett. That's the tone we'll get.

Blade Runner 2 should be some kind of cross between Star Wars IV and Requiem for Dream. Replace Harrison with Jared Leto, Rutger Hauer with Michael Fasbender and Darryl Hannah with JLaw!

uhg not JLaw

or is that a joke? I've lost track of the current meta here

Joking.

I don't see why that stupid ice skating movie needed a sequel in the first place.  Jon Heder isn't funny.

Well, bankable yes, but I believe the point was that Goslling and Leto are "clean" in terms of prettiness on screen at odds with the tone trying to be achieved.

Neither Star Wars nor Jones are set in anything approaching a "clean" environment and Ford worked well in both (Jack Ryan, Sabrina, etc). In fact, Ford kinda never works well in a clean environment, the opposite of the chiselled statues who seem to be genetically engineered for it.

So Ford in Blade Runner works because of Solo and Jones, not in spite of it.

Exactly.  Matter of fact, if you ever tried to cast Ford in anything like today's canned underwear-model Hollywood, he'd likely tell you to GFY...  like literally.  He hates that shit.
Leto and Gosling have to be there to portray the more manufactured side of cyberpunk; wherein people get perfect through tech.  I hope.

I prefer more realistic castings (the only metahumanesque actors were Rachael and Pris).  Most everyone else were Ford and Olmos types.  Gritty.

What Leto and Gosling movies have you two actually seen?  Because it certainly isn't what I've watched.  Both have starred in gritty films in which they were anything but pretty boys.  Drive?  Requiem of a Dream?  Only God Forgives (which isn't good, but is dark and dream-like)?  Suicide Squad (also not good, but not because of Leto and he isn't "clean")?  Dallas Buyer's Club?  Half Nelson?  Fight Club?

This sounds like a complaint from someone who has merely seen a picture of Leto and Gosling, but not any of their actual movies.

It's not that they've haven't both been in gritty films, it's that both are very pretty and/or handsome.  Neither has a ruggedly handsome look the way Ford did.  He wasn't conventionally handsome (by the current standards of today) and so he fit the role well.  Leto and Gosling are more in line with the current aesthetic for pretty/handsome rather than just good -looking.

We have a title:

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/rzgr2tcidvvjedecyadu.png)

Won't Harrison Ford be dead by then?

See, I figured it was going to be "Blade Walker". Or maybe "Bladeroller", about how Deckert gets involved with the weird new sport that's a big thing in the future.

Blade Mobility Scooter

I propose this forum introduces a one-strike-and-you-areout Instant-Lifetime-ban policy on the use of gratuitous sarcasm.  ;D

That would leave it almost entirely devoid of regular posters in a week.  :why_so_serious:

In my defense they did a horrible job on the design of that title graphic. By putting the "2049" below "Blade Runner" and making it a less contrasty color they are implying it's separate from the actual title. Only the fact that it's in the same stylized font keeps the two parts together when everything else is trying to split them apart.

I.e. to me, if I squint even more than usual, it looks like they were trying to display:
Blade Runner
(Coming) 2049

Instead of:
Blade Runner 2049

I'm just happy they gave it a different name.

Sequels with the same name as the original film annoy me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9d09JLBVRc

I did post this before, but I  don't care, you fucks.

And his name is Calafuckingpine.

Alcohol is one hell of a drug.  :oh_i_see:

If you watch the review you'll see the "you fucks" was sarcastic. I am not calling you fucks!  :heartbreak:

So..um..Blade Runner:

‘Blade Runner 2049,’ Disney Characters Coming to Oculus Virtual Reality Headsets (http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/blade-runner-disney-oculus-virtual-reality-1201880510/)

But... we are fucks.  :?

Teaser trailer (https://youtu.be/S_JAMRKzEHs).

Trailer looks good.

True, but I think we know that Scott is still good at creating worlds and visuals. That department certainly wasn't why Prometheus was less than stellar.

Anyway, I am not trying to be negative. Just...saying..

Ridley Scott's only producing. Dennis Villenueve is directing (he did Sicario and The Arrival).

I know, that's why I very carefully just said that the trailer looked good. I'm far too old and cynical to have high expectations of anything any more.  :grin:

Sounds good.

This may save it. both were good flicks.

The teaser was almost nothing, no way to get an impression either way imo.

I wish Deckard weren't in this. Not just because I've never been particularly taken with Harrison Ford, and I'm sick of Hollywood's obsession with nostalgia, but also because his presence probably means they're going to pursue the whole "Deckard is a replicant" angle, and I don't actually want or need that spelled out for me.

But whatever, even though I think he peaked with Prisoners, and has been trending downwards since, I like Villeneuve. He's yet to actually do something I didn't enjoy, and it looks like they're probably going to set this at least partially on the off world colonies (the desert scene seems a bit too orange tinted to be anything but Mars), which could be fun.

The only thing I can think of that would make Harrison Ford's return worth it is if they in some way turned Deckard into the book's Mercer character but I doubt they are willing to take any risks when it comes to the new movie's plot so Ford is there just for nostalgia's sake. At least the lead actor (Gosling) and the director (Villeneuve) are competent so it hopefully won't turn out to be a Total Recall remake type of disaster...  :oh_i_see:

It looks like this is supposed to be set much later than the original, so wouldn't that make the Deckard is a replicant theory completely ridiculous? Since replicants were only supposed to live 5 years, even the ones that didn't know they were a replicant?

Maybe it was a change in the final cut, but the secret replicants didn't have the expiration date according to the closing Harrison Ford voiceover on the one I watched recently.

--Dave

Yeah I remember that from Fords voice over from the first time I saw blade runner. I think, it was something like "But the doc told me she was special, no maximum life span. I don't know how long we had together, but..."

Personally all that "Ford is a Replicant" stuff is bs anyway. Whether he is or not makes jack difference to the plot of the movie, its just for people to be smug about as they "understand"

Edit - I spel gud.

Isn't there like a 7 bluray set that has every version of the film released?  I feel like Ryan Gosling has half of Collin Farrell's acting range. So he's gonna be a robot person right?

There was a 5 disc collectors edition released in 2007 that had all of the various versions, including a new cut of the film with some unreleased footage.

https://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner-Five-Disc-Ultimate-Collectors/dp/B000K15VSA (https://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner-Five-Disc-Ultimate-Collectors/dp/B000K15VSA)

There's also a 30th Anniversary 4 disc blu-ray/dvd release what comes with a fancy picture book, and a silver model of the cop car from the film that I will apparently be buying momentarily.

Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4

Wow. I'm excited for this one, more than I thought I would be. After seeing Arrival and Sicario, I like the director choice. It feels right thematically, too.

There seem to be lots of characters, which seems out of place. The original really only had a handful of people and that helped to grow the story.

Now that's a good looking movie.

Ridley Scott should let other people direct his sequels more often.

I'm cautiously pessimistic. They definitely got the tone and the visual design down, but the story could really torpedo this one.

This has all the hallmarks of a film that has just enough promise to give you hope ... only to crush that hope at release. 

I actually felt like the trailer was terrible. But I didn't think TOO MUCH of the Arrival's trailers either. That might just be this directors MO, give away nothing in a trailer.

This thing made it look like a summer blockbuster, which is most certainly should not be.

Not sure why it shouldn't look like a summer blockbuster.  The original Blade Runner was intended to be exactly that.  It was released in the summer of '82 by the same producer who released Star Wars and Alien and was released against other summer blockbusters like Wrath of Khan.

I should be more clear then.

A summer blockbuster in the vein of Armageddon rather than in the vein of the original Bladerunner.

More pointedly, while not a summer blockbuster, this trailer made it feel like Ghost in the Shell. But people on the inside are saying the movie is fucking amazing. So, basically, I'm not too concerned based on the trailer.

It looks just OK to me. It has the look a little off for me though. The first movie had the look of a Society that was trying to be clean but was dirty, whereas this is very clean but its put a haze over it to try and make it look dirty, if you know what I mean. I guess a good sequal moves on from the story and this looks like it will wallow in it. We will see.

Villeneuve gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

Basically this.

A benifit of the doubt trailer for me. No because it's blockbustery, but because it's very "philosophy out loud". Didn't seem very subtle.

I had the exact opposite reaction.  From, "I want to ask you some questions", to the line about being "special", I feel like they already gave away the whole damn movie.

Looking too clean while trying to be dirty is the vibe I got from the trailer (and have always gotten from this movie since hearing Gosling was the lead).  I've always been a stickler for this and is why I really push more "analog" forms of filmmaking.  Kind of partly why the BlackMagic cinemacam got so popular... it just produced a more gritty realism image, though it's digital.

Movies like the original BladeRunner, The Crow, and Apocalypse Now, for instance, really achieved an "effed up reality" that is tough to find these days due to the cost of filmmaking in art.  Film is expensive and the rarer it gets the pricier it gets.  So I don't think it'll ever make a comeback tbh.  That said, there are tricks to mitigate this that producers are seemingly unwilling to try.  It's almost like they'd rather just tell a story rather than focus on the medium. 

But, the trailer hints at some really profound stuff that might work (akin to the subtlety of Arrival).  If they go the stylized angle, rather than pure cyberpunk action, I do think it'll be a great flick.  The key to good cyberpunk has always been style; that's the whole point of that type of existence in the 1st place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ

Pretty cool short about the movie.

My wife thought this was a movie about vampires.. :drillf: :drillf:

(http://i.imgur.com/2ExFsTM.jpg)

reviews are starting to come in for this now.

- It may seem premature to ascribe the word 'masterpiece' to a legacyquel of a heady sci-fi head-scratcher from the '80s, but its audacity and formal perfection - not to mention its thematic weight - leave no other alternative.

- Even when its emotions risk running as cool as its palette, 2049 reaches for, and finds, something remarkable: the elevation of mainstream moviemaking to high art.

- Forty years after his death, people still argue over which Elvis, the slim young Adonis or the portly middle aged crooner, was better. Forty years from now, people may be having that debate about these Blade Runners.

- A meticulously made visual wonder that should put any other filmmaker dabbling in sci-fi futurism on notice.

- Villeneuve's dazzling sequel is on its own march to screen legend. Gosling and Ford are double dynamite in a mesmerizing mindbender that asks new questions meant to tantalize, provoke and keep us up nights. Would you have it any other way?

- A ravishing visual colossus, "Blade Runner 2049" more than lives up to its predecessor's legacy as a groundbreaking mixture of sound, images and mood.

- It just has to be experienced on the biggest screen possible. Blade Runner 2049 is a narcotic spectacle of eerie and pitiless vastness, by turns satirical, tragic and romantic.

- One of the most spectacular, provocative, profound and spiritually staggering blockbusters of our time..

The only negative review's some complaint is too much style over substance, but said looks great and has solid performances.

Would've been way easier to just link this: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/blade-runner-2049

I, for one, appreciate Stewie's work.  It has increased my hype for this movie.

There are also 3 fantastic shorts on YouTube that Denis Villenueve asked other directors to make that take place between the original and the new one.
Id recommend watching them in order, the first is an anime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrZk9sSgRyQ&t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9Os8cP_gg

I just saw it. I'm a huge fan of the original, saw two of the versions which were released in theaters, I have the five disc collector's edition Blu-ray and watched each of the versions I hadn't seen, I screencapped and cropped this  for the only wallpaper my PS3 ever had, etc. 

Blade Runner 2049 is fucking great.

I saw it in "XD" which size wise is just what big screens used to be, but the sound system engulfs you and I watched in a recliner with my feet up. That was new. Of course I still had random moviegoers all around me, but everyone was actually really quiet. Although the lady next to me was fighting a cough, opened a crinkly bag of something to eat from, and seemed restless in parts. Then when the film was over and I was still soaking it in during the credits, she told her unconvinced boyfriend about everything which was perfect about the film and seemed a little emotional about it.

 
I'll be going back to see it again this weekend.

Is the plot retarded?

No, it's good enough. But what makes Blade Runner Blade Runner isn't plot per se, it's how the story elements support character, and the relationships between characters, and their natures, and the world they live in.

I liked it well enough. A bit of time is going to have to pass before I can really say how good I think it is though.

I liked it well enough.

I found it played the plot too lightly and the philosophy a bit heavy/didactic, but hey.

Not a classic I'd say, but good.

Edit: After a bit more reflection I'll push it even more to the 'shiny but empty' side of the equation. Like the JJ Star Wars, except less fun, and less stupid, but still style over substance.

Both good movies and worth seeing.


Fairly, yeah.

Not as retarded as Leto's whole character though. He does his best with it.

Duplicate....

Enjoyed it. I find myself liking Gosling more and more as an actor, despite his nearly overwhelming smugness.

Meh, if you were Gosling you would be smug too.

I would never ever be smug with a marginally lazy eye regardless of the rest of me.

I like Gosling, but it's a valid complaint.

It's apparently bombing at the box office. Still, the original did too so it's in good company.

Gosling was very good, I thought Ana de Armas nailed her role also.

Went Friday night on a date. 9:45 showing and there were only 15 seats sold.  (Pick your seat theater). Yes, I’d call that bombing.

It felt very much like a “middle” episode and that’s not really a good thing. It didn’t ask a lot of questions and the ones it did ask were too subtle, buried beneath the arc of it as a middle movie. That hurt the movie more than anything for me. Not that it was bad because of it, but it definitely weakened it. 

Some gorgeous cinematography. Fantastic work and a few shots I’d like as my wallpaper at the office.

So I went to see this yesterday and I'm still processing it. I can say that while it was utterly gorgeous, the style/design/aesthetic seemed to lack the organic nature of the first, most likely because it was aping someone else's style rather than being this director's personal vision. Perhaps it was the XD nature - it's so crisp, sharp and clear that it feels antiseptic. The story was more complex/complicated than the original and I think that's where it really failed. The ending was an utter cockup, mostly because after almost 3 hours, the resolution we got didn't feel like an ending so much as setting us up for a sequel. Jared Leto's Wallace as the main antagonist was good (even if he chewed the scenery left and right) but none of his story or arc was resolved at all and the disposition of the main protagonists felt incomplete. The "twist" (if you could call it that) wasn't even surprising since they'd pretty much telegraphed it from the get-go.

I will say that the story arc for Ana De Armas' JOI character was fantastic and she did a fantastic job with that. Of all the stories and character arcs, that was actually the most interesting one and the one that felt most organic and complete. I will also say she is so goddamn hot, she's distracting as instead of being immersed in the story, I'm constantly thinking "GODDAMN IS SHE HOT." Which goes to tell you just how good her acting was in that despite that distraction, I still think her arc was the best.

It wasn't quite the soulless corporate cash-in I'd expected when I heard it first announced, nor the worthy successor to the original. It was a good but flawed movie, with an ending that didn't do its best parts justice.

I enjoyed this tremendously.  Also, the theater was mostly full for a Friday night showing at 9:30pm.  My anecdotal experience counters yours!

Worldwide $85M so far, production budget $150M.  It'll likely get there, but they have to be disappointed.  I think they were hoping for $85M domestic opening weekend when they were putting this together...

Enjoyed the movie.

Not another special one was great.

It about the questions raised.  Ford's ask the dog is a good example.

Small story about people and agency.

You smell burnt toast?

Saw it, liked it a lot.  For a strongly visual movie I was delighted that the plot was coherent and characters stayed within their characterizations.  I'm not a Ryan Gosling fan, but I think he did a great job, as did Harrison Ford and Princess Buttercup.

3 hours for an ok movie. My wife was pissed. We talked about it, talked about it some more and generally came to the conclusion that they wrote the new blade runner meets old blade runner scene first and had a move sprinkled in for good measure. Beyond the scenery and the not so distant future syfi check boxes, ie "the world is dying and corporations are soulless constructs", the movie offers nothing. Sprinkle in some chosen one,  sprinkle in some plucky resistance, sprinkle in evil corporations/empire, and here you go syfi classic.

What made the original blade runner so special is that the tropes were at least given a twist or a rich flavor. The chosen ones and his merry band of resistance fighters are mass murders escaping punishment for fighting against slavery. The evil corporation isn't evil just amoral, no more concerned or unconcerned with the life they mass produce as we would be the farming of cows. And this is layered over a story we're suppose to find genuinely dis concerning the death of robots.

Blade runner 2049 just plays it's tropes straight, minus the constant barrage of explosions and exposition dumps that the common audience is used to. And while the lack thereof makes this movie ok, that doesn't excuse the lack any real threat from the generic villain or the bland themes. Ultimately the toothless nature of this movie will be reason why it bombs.

I feel like Wallace's motivations didn't really make much sense, or at the very least, just weren't explained enough. "We need to make replicants breed like humans to meet production quotas/vague lofty expansionist goal" seems like a weak justification. Does it really take longer than 9 months to make a new replicant?

I'd imagine the difference is that the existing replicant factories are not themselves self-replicating.  Linear scaling vs geometric scaling.

Now that I think about it, you are correct. So if it takes literally a few days at most (judging by that replication however flawed), it does not make sense that doing replicatants the old fashioned way is a necessary thing other than to Wallace's own vanity. I mean, I suppose that could be a motivation, it's just not a good one. We don't really get to see enough of him to do anything other than guess at whether his motivations are what he says they are.

Except Replicants still eat, drink and use resources don't they?

And the more I think about it, the less it makes sense to make replicants that have a normal human lifespan anyway. Why the fuck would you make something that gradually wears down and dies if you can just enforce an arbitrary time limit on them (the forced obsolescence of Microsoft Windows in fleshy form) both as a means of selling new models and keeping the current ones in line?

None if it makes sense, don't try to force it. Just try to internalise Leto and Wright's monologues and feel the power of your deep philosophical insights.

No.

IIRC he mentioned something along the lines of trillions needed and the point was to colonize the galaxy but I can't remember the exact line or how explicit that was.

If replicants take a year to make and only last 4 years, then you are better off with just using humans, especially in an overpopulation type environment.

Replicants can do heavier labour in much harsh environments with less supply needs. Also I don't think we know if 2049 replicants have 4 year lives still. Did they say that about Gosling's character?

The opening text crawl says that they've done away with the four-year lifespan bit.

I got the feeling that Wallace's motivation was pure ego/god delusion.

Overall, I loved the movie. I thought it was brilliantly crafted and acted. Even though it was longer than the original, to me it felt tighter. Like every scene mattered and was there to drive the story. Nothing dragged.

Ive seen some reviews complaining about the Joi plotline and saying that it was irrelevant (one even said something along the lines of "dont even try to make sense of robots falling in love with other robots...") I felt that that plotline was integral to K's journey and being able to realize what Joi is and the contrast to what he is/wants to be.

I also loved that the movie left a lot of unanswered questions. Even though it feels like it is set up for sequels it was apparently written with no intentions of any further squeals and teh unanswered questions were intentional. The fact that it left me thinking about it much more so than I do with other movies is just more icing on the cake.

I think the Joi storyline was not only the most interesting part of the movie (see Ana de Armas's utter hotness), it was absolutely vital to K's character arc. Even if I didn't like the ending, anyone who thinks it was irrelevant is not thinking very hard and missed the best part.

I do agree, she was completely and almost distractingly hot in this movie. *note I kinda felt that way about Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. That whole movie I just kept thinking, JFC is she hot.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some deleted scenes that gave at least a little more time to Wallace's storyline.  The only thing that really bugged me is how he just disappears at the end.

I thought it was well worth the watch, if you can see it in Imax and don't you are screwing up. Still need a few more nights sleeping on it and of norcal not burning down to pull some more thoughts on it together.

Worth a watch.  In some ways better than the first (more story), some ways less (less arresting, less novel).   Ana de Armas owned the film. 

Most amazing scene to me was the set with the two women "becoming one".

That was equal parts insane, disturbing, novel and amazing.

I loved this movie. It's going to definitely become a once a year watch for me.

I think I loved every single part of this except sound.  I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but the echoey dialog was very difficult to catch, and that irritatingly loud shit separating a lot of scenes was just unnecessary.  I am, however, fully willing to chalk that up to the podunk Tennessee movie theater here.

I saw it in an IMAX theater and it was goddamned deafening  :why_so_serious:

I've started taking earplugs with me to theaters. I like loud, but it's like they're catering to the deaf. Especially in Arizona, where I suspect it's so the dead and semi-dead can hear it.

Not only are most movies loud but they're getting super obnoxious with whisper-dialog then BwwwWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA horns or explosions immediately afterward.

As somebody who is now hearing impaired, I feel they don't pump the volume up near enough.   :why_so_serious:

Sound design was a weakness and the score was a major major weakness. It contributed greatly to the feeling that you were just on the verge of something that would plunge you back into the original movie and kept you thinking about the original movie way too much which was unneeded because the callbacks and story were fine and the new movie was good enough to stand and do its own thing.

While it wasn't the perfect film the only thing that really let down the other parts for me was the soundtrack. Though I could be talked into Leto's character being a weakness especially if you didn't watch the short films that bridged the new to the original.

Why would we watch the short films?  We were supposed to do homework before going to the movie?  How much time do I need to invest before I find anything of value in Leto('s performance)?


If I need to see some online shit or read a comic before I enter the theater in order to get the movie, the movie is a failure.

 :oh_i_see:

Read what I wrote, I can accept that you didn't like his character and that's fine and while I had no major problem with it personally I allow for it not being the strongest bit. I even tried to be diplomatic and imagine that the short films that all dealt with him and his company helped me in that regard. That the movie was a failure because of that or any reason really just proves you have taste that is as bad as your posting style.

Leto barely had any impact at all.  It sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to hate something he's in.

I expected more Leto in the film, honestly.  When he essentially compared himself to god, a couple huffy old people got up and left muttering about heresy or some shit.  That made everything worthwhile in my book.

Frankly, as little as he was in the movie, it might've made more sense to have his replicant over-interpret his ideas and do all of the rest on her own, thinking that she was carrying out his will.

I just saw this tonight and I am goddam overwhelmed. Like literally, I'm replaying parts of it in my head and it's hitting me in emotional ways.

I'll agree with the criticisms of the music, it wasn't bad music (Alien: Covenant, I'm looking at you) but I was definitely listening for callbacks to the Vangelis theme from the original and constantly being disappointed by the fact that they weren't there. Also, the music was almost permanently doing high-drama, danger music. Which is partly due to the very dense nature of the film with very limited pauses between plot beats, but it meant that it tended to undersell the truly suspenseful scenes as a result.

The plot was fine but this is a movie driven by characters and not by plot. It was coherent and the twists were genuinely good. I bought K being the child and was trying to figure out how to rationalise that, I realised it couldn't be rationalised so there had to be something else (mostly because I couldn't imagine how a known replicant with no serial numbers gets to be a Blade Runner). I didn't figure out that it was Stelline though until K and Deckard were talking after the fight.

Visuals were great. I liked the bleaker, colder visual design for this one. I liked the original's set design too, but this showed an evolution in fashions and also in the general environment that made sense to me given the 30 year gap in the timelines of the two. There were some nice callbacks such as Mariette having a similar look as Pris, the Tyrell buildng and the flying cars. Ridley Scott sure does like his mind-blowingly rich guys living in an austere Zen palace theme though.

It was a very long movie but I really didn't feel that it was padded at all, if anything I thought it was too dense, there were no pauses to let the viewer assimilate the latest plot beat. I didn't really get what Leto's character was doing either but he was clearly not on the same plane as everyone else so him being fairly inscrutable was fine. I think it would have been weaker if he'd had a mundane motivation that was laid out clearly.  He and Luv made a good nemesis I thought. Wallace as the guy who's playing a game you don't know the rules to, and Luv as his hyper-competent executor. I disagree with the statement that the villain was toothless. They demonstrated early on in the movie that they can do pretty much whatever they like up to and including murdering police officers inside a police facility. From the time that K first meets Luv, it was clear that these are not people to fuck with.

In the end though the film is more than just the characters progressing through the story. It opens questions and it made me think about the issues raised in the film. It's been a while since that happened - and the last time was also a Villeneuve movie (Arrival).

Just saw, first, raw and slightly drunk impressions, before reading the rest of the thread to avoid opinion-contamination:

Liked it
Felt different than Blade Runner, but that was to expected, not a negative thing
Actually the scenes it mimiced Blade Runner 1 too much were the weakers
The scenary starting with the Harris Ford part felt slightly too slick and "scenery for the scenery sakes" scence
Same about the ending, including bringing up the same music score
Strangly I felt Gosling was better in this than Ford.
Some of the twists and plot point points (and scences)  was a bit too telegraphed (or just too spelled out), like if the studio/writers didn't think too highly of the audiences mentally faculties.
As said before, generally liked the set piecing, especially at the start, which had a genuie Science-fiction-based-on-reality feel. The New-Tyrell-Corp settings were pushing it a bit.
I understand why they didn't use another old actor for New-Tyrell-Guy, (as it wouldnt work) but blind-Wallace felt too "try hard" and didn't work either. He didn't feel menacing or brillant

In a broader sense:

There was no real moral grey zone in the film. But I didn't need and it wasn't really the films fault either. It's pretty obvious there so Edit: no intrinsic difference between a human, an AI and replicant. Which why the entire idea of building "bilogicial-androids that think like humans" is a BAD IDEA and should have been obvious from the beginning. But that fault that origins with the first film really.

What issues, if I may ask?

Watched this tonight.  It felt like it was trying too hard.  Gosling was good.

As someone that loved the original, I was quite underwhelmed. 

Just saw this.  Light years ahead of the original (which I thought was fairly bland and boring).  May be one of the be best sci-fi movies of the decade or more.  Had parts I didn’t really like, but man.  I’m not sure I’ve seen a more powerfully depressing film than this.  The whole last half/ending really made it.  Trying to sleep on this, but having a hard time getting it out of my head.

I felt that not only was it better than the original, it was a better meditation on the themes of the Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep than the original was. Loved the cameos (Ford, for example, didn't phone it in like he did in the original) and the magnificent (if ridiculous) visuals.

Weakest part for me was Leto, but I'm not sure how he could have done the character justice. It needed an older man. A brilliant guy who totally revolutionized agriculture and revitalized a completely different company shouldn't be in his 40s. The archetype is wrong.

Leto was clearly the weakest part because I'm sure the only direction he had was "Chew scenery" because his character was so underdeveloped and his motivations so odd and inscrutable, as well as just being dumb.

Anthony Hopkins would have been perfect for that role.

Oh sure, but any older scenery chewer with menace would have been better than Leto. Imagine the same role, the same performance even, performed by Geoffrey Rush, Peter Stormare or Udo Kier.

this is the thread where f13 reached peak f13 is gobshit fucking insane when it comes to movies for me

I like the original. I even own the box set with every version ever made. This film was so slow and terrible after what felt like the first 5 hours (90 mins) we turned it off.

In what way is BR2049 slower and more tedious than Blade Runner classic? 

I mean, other than the Jared Leto scenes.

In all the ways.

What he said.

That’s a pretty amazing observation for me, but the internet has shown me a long time ago that this world has a very diverse spread of opinions.   :why_so_serious:

I thought the original movie may be one of the most boring and uncaptivatving ‘not-total-shit’ films ever made.  Acting was bad, almost zero action, zero character or plot development, ect.  It has some great style, but both the original time I watched it, and when I rewatched it ahead of the sequel, I had to struggle to stay awake or keep interest.

Now, in that regard, this film is a perfect sequel.  It has a lot of long drawn out shots of dystopian dread, with heavy music and amazing scenery, at a slow pace.  So its a perfect sequel, and I can see why some might not like it for that reason (similar issues to the original shit movie).  But on every level, be it writing, acting, directing, cinematography.... I felt it was superior.  It was a thousand times more intellectual and philosophically hard hitting than the original, and as pxib stated, did a better job of hitting the original themes of the story.  The pacing was way better, and drew me into the movie.  The evolution of emotions of the main character trying to deal with his situation, between all the predudice and hate, and how what he thinks are life changing revelations changed him, was nothing short of perfect.  Mind you, I like depressing movies, and I can think of very few movies where the main character ends the film where he has had so much fucked up shit done to him mentally as this film did, and I’d almost certainly be killing myself.  It is just a perfectly bleak ending.

So, I can totally understand why many wouldn’t like this movie because of its slow place or far to heavy bleakness..... I have a hard time understanding how you could like the original and not this.  Because man, even after multiple viewings, the original........ was not a very good movie I felt.

What he said.

PHILISTINE! UNCLEAN! UNBELIEVER!

Like the first Star Wars, the film is intertwined with nostalgia.  It's hard to separate the two objectively.  When you have fond personal memories of an era associated with an original, it's natural to have inflated expectations of a sequel no matter how irrational those expectations may be. 

I did not see the original Blade Runner until the early '90's and wasn't really even into cyberpunk as a genre until then either. It being awesome has nothing to do with nostalgia - it's just a well-put together visual masterpiece. The acting being what it is has always seemed to be very intentional to me, and likely was meant to be contrasted with the inner monologue that was removed in later cuts of the film.

2049 had decent performances - Gosling and Ana De Armas being the highlights. I actually felt like Harrison Ford phoned it in but I also felt his part in the story felt horribly tacked on, and that entire plot line about the replicant who can have babies was illogical and dragged the movie down. Gosling's interactions with De Armas as his virtual girlfriend and what that said about him and our own digitally-induced isolation was so much more powerful than the main plot. The ending was just lazy balls - both the baby reveal and the bleak "did he die on the steps" last shots. To me the real climax of the movie (see what I did there) was when he saw the giant JOI hologram and realized how alone he was.

In short, it would have been a much better movie if it didn't have to fall into the Blade Runner universe as a direct sequel to Decker's story.

Im not a big fan of the original. It was ok.

I just think the sequel is worse.

Yes, but can robots make babies?

In the future, you can 3D print anything.