New Blade Runner Movie NOT a remake!

[Doctor Damage]

HOLY SPOILERS BATMAN!

It's looking great visually, but on the other hand, the more material that gets released the more it appears this new film will be based on one of those "this could change everything" plotlines, with some single key thing determining the fate of history and whether humanity will be ruled by one megalomaniac or will rise up to grasp its freedom... etc etc. I liked how the original film didn't have anything like that; it was just a boring humdrum story about a big corporation slowly improving its products but wasn't interested in ruling humanity, only making profit, and whose products sometimes went haywire and had to be hunted down and shut down by the police, represented by a tired, alcoholic, retired cop pulled in by the police chief who probably didn't want to risk any of his regular cops on a shitty, dangerous job like hunting down homicidal replicants.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Too much of the Gosling-thing in the new, just to get much much girls into cinema.

 

[Feraud]

It's looking great visually, but on the other hand, the more material that gets released the more it appears this new film will be based on one of those "this could change everything" plotlines, with some single key thing determining the fate of history and whether humanity will be ruled by one megalomaniac or will rise up to grasp its freedom... etc etc. I liked how the original film didn't have anything like that; it was just a boring humdrum story about a big corporation slowly improving its products but wasn't interested in ruling humanity, only making profit, and whose products sometimes went haywire and had to be hunted down and shut down by the police, represented by a tired, alcoholic, retired cop pulled in by the police chief who probably didn't want to risk any of his regular cops on a shitty, dangerous job like hunting down homicidal replicants.

Exactly!!

 

[Doctor Damage]

I saw Blade Runner 2049 last night and to my pleasant surprise, they didn't mess it up. It's actually a decent sequel. They got the tone right, they got the music right, they got the themes right, and not in a exactly the same, repetetive unoriginal way, but with fresh ideas, perfectly weaving new and old. The storytelling I actually like better in this one than in the first one which I still remember watching the first time and and scratching my head afterwards. Cinematography is great, acting is good, sound editing.. mhm I felt it was too loud at first but I grew to like it. For anyone who liked the first one, I can recommend it. It's certainly not for everyone though, I watched it with a bunch of friends and not all liked it. If you're into easy entertainment and fast-paced action, you know, stereotypical hollywood movies for a fun night out, this won't be for you.

Re-posting that from the main movie thread. Thanks for that review. Has anyone else seen this film? I'd like to see it in the cinema but it's 2 hours 44 minutes in length and I can't go that long without a "break" these days, ha ha

 

[Big J]

I'm looking forward to seeing this, but yeah, over two and a half hours without a toilet break? Sheesh, Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia had much needed breaks.
How long will the directors cut be?!?

I'm not holding out any great hopes though. The well imagined world of the original played on 80's anxieties of Japanese economic and cultural dominance which didn't come to pass. It's 'a future that never happened', not a future we're still waiting to happen.
It's kind of like Thunderbirds vision of the future; very much of its time.
Bladerunner still had public pay phones! How anachronistic does that seem now? Why didn't Deckert have an iPhone?
TBH, after the Prometheus/Covenant debacles, I'm kind of bored with directors throwing out very shallow takes on god/creation/identity ideas. I'm all 'intelligent design'ed out!
Does Gary Numan have a cameo?

 

[Otter]

Just back from it, overall I enjoyed it. Some very nice call backs to the original in some scenes (the square whisky glass in particular) including a near Priss clone. Pacing I felt a little slow in points , the music was good without totally apeing the Vangellis sound track. Sound wise I found the audioscape to be exceptional, crisp, clear sound effects, Crystal clear dialogue, never did I struggle to hear anything
All over a good sequel. Is it as good as the original? Imo no, is it a good film yes.

 

[Big J]

Just back from seeing this tonight.
Deeply disappointed.
Never has a movie with such a long run time had so little story to tell. Slow? It's GLACIAL!
Yes, the fake Vangelis soundtrack is well done.
Yes, the cityscapes are spectacular as they were in the original.
But the unnoticed army of unregistered rebel replicants waiting for (well, for what exactly? Film couldn't be bothered to tell us).
The pathalogical god-like CEO who needs billions of replicants for (again, the film doesn't bother to explain- 2D villain at its 'finest'), all points to the movie being a set up for a TV franchise.
Don't bother on my account.
Clumsy 'god' and creation themes trotted out again, not even subtle.
Westworld covered all this ground, was visually stunning, thought provoking, suspenseful, and highly entertaining.
Bladerunner is a sad pompous cash in on the original. Oooh! Cityscapes! Oooh! Fake Vangelis! Again, again, again...
Oh yeah, I forgot, with such a long runtime and so little story, how come I have to start by reading a screenful of exposition? How come I bought a ticket, but they included stuff that was related to the three 'prequel' short movies that were released on the internet which I didn't see?
Badly made film then too.

 

[Doctor Damage]

^
Thanks guys.

BigJ, I'm with you on the "god" stuff and the 2D oligarch bad guy. I could see those elements in the trailers and it made me wary. As for a television series, that's been done: check out Total Recall 2070 series from 1999, which had little to do with Total Recall and a lot to do with Blade Runner; in fact, I think of it as Blade Runner The Series, since that's what it really is once you ignore the token references to the Total Recall film. And it actually explored really thoughtfully the issues around robots, a.i., etc.

 

[Big J]

@Doctor Damage, I think if I'm honest, I have to blame myself for allowing my expectations to be grow so high for this movie. The original was so visionary and groundbreaking, becoming a cultural and cinematic cult milestone that I felt sure a sequel wouldn't be done if it couldn't live up to expectations.
But unfortunately I think the director expended all of his effort on background visuals and sets, and the storyline was just an afterthought. The 'world' he created was the most beautiful dystopia I've ever seen, and from looking at the peripheries I could see many things that I thought must have had an interesting story in them, but he didn't tell it, and instead I have to watch Gosling expressionless for the better part of three hours playing off 2D secondary characters. Sad.
Conversely, my wife and I just got back from Atomic Blonde tonight which is set in Berlin in the 80's, and we both agreed that it felt much more 'connected' to the original Bladerunner due to its fetishized 80's nostalgia than Bladerunner 20whatever did last night. And now I'm wondering if that isn't the main point? Maybe the 'magic' of the original Bladerunner isn't in its vision of the future, but in the way it says so much about the 80's? Maybe.

 

[MisterCairo]

my wife and I just got back from Atomic Blonde tonight

I loved that, we're definitely getting it on disk!

 

[Trenchfriend]

Please, moviemakers, the next time, I will see an prequel with this title:

"Eldon Tyrell"

or

"Tyrell"

!!

 

[HudsonHawk]

I watched a movie called Bladerunner 2049 on the plane the other day, but apparently it was a completely different film from what others saw. There was no "army of unregistered rebel replicants", and the only not so subtle god and creation themes were...well, the entire point of the story, as they were in the original. Both stories are "who do you think you are, and what makes you think that?".

It's not a great film, and Ryan Gosling is not a particularly good actor. But it's not horrible.

 

[Doctor Damage]

I'm 1/3 of the way into this film and I'm 50/50 on whether to bother finishing it or not (over the next two nights, roll eyes). I can see it being exactly what Big J said, i.e. Gosling standing there looking blandly at whatever happens to be in front of him. The evil bad guy is cartoonishly evil. Oh well, we'll see.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I have never been a big fan of the original Blade Runner (visually stunning and highly influential, sure, but it's always left me cold)… and I really didn't like the new film at all. Ironically, it mainly enhanced my appreciation of the original.

Stories of androids questing to figure out their "humanity" just don't interest me: I also find the HBO Westworld series an exhausting slog. Sure, it's beautifully made... but I don't really care much about any of the character arcs. Anyway, Blade Runner's Harrison Ford MAY be a replicant: that's kind of interesting. Blade Runner 2049's Ryan Gosling IS a replicant: that's not interesting.

The only positive aspect of the new film for me is that Roger Deakins FINALLY won an Oscar after decades of being arguably our greatest working Director of Photography (and my longtime personal favorite cinematographer).

 

[Doctor Damage]

Stories of androids questing to figure out their "humanity" just don't interest me...

I found the presence of such issues interesting in that Total Recall television series, but it was never the focus of any of the shows, and replicants in the series were just machines or other characters; kind of hard to explain, but much different (and I think more realistic) than in Blade Runner and it's sequel. It's almost like the replicants in Total Recall series were just trying to get through their day with a minimum of hassle, just like the humans, and had no time for pondering self-actualization or god or meaning-of-life stuff. Would a true artificial human really be any more self-aware or self-reflective than a real human?

 

[Doctor Strange]

I never watched that series, but I'll admit that Commander Data on Trek:TNG had some interesting moments in trying to understand and become more human. (Though this trope eventually wore itself out on later Trek series like Trek:VOY, with The Doctor and Seven of Nine both taking whacks at this plot.)

But in general no, I doubt that an AI would want to become "more human", nor would it expend processing cycles on philosophical questions. Sure, the whole beauty of SF is that it allows us to ponder such issues about ourselves from the distance of other civilizations and magical machines... and in films like Ex Machina and Her, these ideas are well handled. But not in Blade Runner 2049 or Westworld... IMHO.

 

[Doctor Damage]

I got through the rest of this film last evening and it was pretty good but obviously the storyline was incomplete/half-baked. If one accepts the film as a visual extravaganza then it delivers. Unfortunately as other have said it seems the filmmakers spent most of their time on the visuals and 'phoned in' the rest of the film.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Stories of androids questing to figure out their "humanity" just don't interest me.

Bladerunner and the sequel are about *humans* questing to figure out their humanity.

 

[Doctor Strange]

If you insist. But I'm still never watching either film again.

 

[MisterCairo]

Who else wanted to be just like Rutger Hauer in the first film?

Or was that just me???