Blade Runner 2049

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

I never really like the first one or got why it was such a cult classic. Any point in watching this one?

No.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

So I may be reading to much into this movie.... but there is so much more to think about in this one then the first film. So many angles, but I didn't see a scene that didn't serve a purpose.

I don’t think you are (at all). This movie was one of the most deliberate and subtext-laden films I’ve seen in a long time, done by an incredible director, and from my perspective I think you’ve got it spot on and Itse just didn’t really get a lot of it.

It’s why, almost contradictorily, I called it good but not great. Not a lot happens, and as “Blade Runner 2” it was missing something. I wasn’t necessarily prepared to go into a movie where the bulk of the message and the story is going on below the surface. I appreciate how artistic and well-done it was, but it was so much deeper than the first that it took me by surprise and had me constantly waiting for the moment when it would fall back into a Ridley Scott recipe. It never did, and while that is good, it also left me feeling different than I thought I would.

Like it or not, this movie will likely be a film-class favourite for analysing subtext and vision.

[icecube]

I'm not crazy about the original. It looks absolutely gorgeous but that's about it. I found it boring and I have tried to watch it a few times. I just don't get it.

I'll watch this one sometime this week. Hopefully I enjoy it better. I will also give the original yet another chance.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I loved it. Slow and methodical like the original. Beautifully shot. So much to think about.

[djsFlames]

It's incredible. This film is a clinic on how you do a sequel. It felt justified and didn't throw callbacks to the original wherever it could (TFA..). It took its sweet time on that front and carved out its own immersive story. Even if you don't appreciate the story and themes explored (poignant if I do say so), you can't help but appreciate the awe inspiring visuals throughout.

Dunkirk and BR2049 are neck and neck right now for me for film of the year.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

Nothing gratuitous about that Joi ad at all, sure.

Seriously? That was the point. That actually was gratuitous, but only within the actual context of the film. Joe had just lost his lover, and then a sleazy ad brings her back to him, only devoid of character or meaning, and he's confronted with her face and voice as this empty vessel tries to seduce him. That scene is ####ing heartbreaking, and parallels Wallace bringing Rachel back to torment Deckard.

Whoosh.

[Thor]

Haunting and so incredibly well done considering the original is still so impactful on sci fi films to this day.

For those looking to watch for the first time the original, please make sure you watch the Final Cut, not the directors or theatrical cuts.

[PsYcNeT]

Saw this on Saturday, but I've been chewing on it for a few days.

Firstly, 2049 is 100% a Villeneuve film. The movie has that sweeping grandeur and excruciating set control that Villeneuve is basically the patron saint of by this point. The ability for the movie to express themes, emotions and even foreshadowing through visual storytelling is nothing short of exceptional.

Secondly, there is far too much in this movie to absorb in a single theatrical viewing. I think by the end I had a bit of a fatigue from the overall impact of the film, and really look forward to enjoying it in my own home. Not being able to pause and re-watch portions really grated on me with this one.

Lastly, anyone considering Country Hills recliner seats, please be aware that Theatre 16 has 2 blown sub-woofers (direct centre and centre right) and a broken mid (90 degree left). Like most modern films, 2049 takes great advantage of the sub-120hz range, and when it does, the centre sub in particular flaps like a prolapsed anus after a night of Chipotle and K-Y. Get some goddamn caulking on that thing Landmark.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Thor

Haunting and so incredibly well done considering the original is still so impactful on sci fi films to this day.

For those looking to watch for the first time the original, please make sure you watch the Final Cut, not the directors or theatrical cuts.

Agreed. The final cut is the only version I ever watch. Never did like the narration in the theatrical cut. To me it always seemed kinda forced, and Ford's clunky delivery didn't help.

[blankall]

Just got back. Loved it. Haven't seen an actual good big budget sci-fi movie in a while. Will definitely need to rewatch. So much going on, and the plot is explained more by atmosphere than dialogue.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Seriously? That was the point. That actually was gratuitous, but only within the actual context of the film. Joe had just lost his lover, and then a sleazy ad brings her back to him, only devoid of character or meaning, and he's confronted with her face and voice as this empty vessel tries to seduce him. That scene is ####ing heartbreaking, and parallels Wallace bringing Rachel back to torment Deckard.

Whoosh.

Yeah yeah I got that, I mean come on, it's not exactly subtle, more like a freaking hammer to the face in execution. That's pretty much why I didn't like that small scene, even though I like the idea behind it. The idea of the scene and the execution of the scene are after all two very separate things.

The scene didn't hit home for me as I didn't feel it reflected the desires of K or his relationship with JoiI didn't see the relationship as very sexual, especially on the part of K who never seemed that interested in sex. For me that overtly sexualized ad just seemed very out of place, like they were going for kind of a cheap shock instead of a more subtle approach.

I'm not saying that dissonance could not have been the very point or that others should feel the same way I do, I can only comment on how I felt about what I saw. To me it felt gratuitous and unnecessary and I would have preferred a more subtle approach.

(It's spelt Joi btw, trust the people who see films with subtitles I was kind of wondering whether the filmmakers knew Joi is also an acronym for Jerk Off Instructions. Seems very appropriate whether it was intentional or not.)

About the food for thought part;

I'm sure this is purely a matter of taste, but I much prefer films like the original which take a very small number of themes and explore them with depth, instead throwing a ton of questions around without even trying to give any answers to them. I'm not denying there's merit in the latter approach, which is pretty much what 2049 did, but to me it has always felt kind of shallow, like the film makers ultimately don't have that much to say, or don't dare to say it.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

Yeah yeah I got that, I mean come on, it's not exactly subtle, more like a freaking hammer to the face in execution. That's pretty much why I didn't like that small scene, even though I like the idea behind it. The idea of the scene and the execution of the scene are after all two very separate things.

The scene didn't hit home for me as I didn't feel it reflected the desires of K or his relationship with JoiI didn't see the relationship as very sexual, especially on the part of K who never seemed that interested in sex. For me that overtly sexualized ad just seemed very out of place, like they were going for kind of a cheap shock instead of a more subtle approach.

I'm not saying that dissonance could not have been the very point or that others should feel the same way I do, I can only comment on how I felt about what I saw. To me it felt gratuitous and unnecessary and I would have preferred a more subtle approach.

(It's spelt Joi btw, trust the people who see films with subtitles I was kind of wondering whether the filmmakers knew Joi is also an acronym for Jerk Off Instructions. Seems very appropriate whether it was intentional or not.)

About the food for thought part;

I'm sure this is purely a matter of taste, but I much prefer films like the original which take a very small number of themes and explore them with depth, instead throwing a ton of questions around without even trying to give any answers to them. I'm not denying there's merit in the latter approach, which is pretty much what 2049 did, but to me it has always felt kind of shallow, like the film makers ultimately don't have that much to say, or don't dare to say it.

The first film is notorious for not answering the central question as to whether or not Ford's character is an android. It throws all sorts of random themes concerning the nature of humanity. I found the second film far more focused. It also provided far more answers. Both films let the viewer come to their own interpretations on many issues, but the first moreso.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm not saying that dissonance could not have been the very point or that others should feel the same way I do, I can only comment on how I felt about what I saw. To me it felt gratuitous and unnecessary and I would have preferred a more subtle approach.

(It's spelt Joi btw, trust the people who see films with subtitles I was kind of wondering whether the filmmakers knew Joi is also an acronym for Jerk Off Instructions. Seems very appropriate whether it was intentional or not.)

Well, you seem to be in the minority on this one.

Joe is Ryan Gosling's character, incidentally. Also K, but considering she called him Joe - and does in that scene, by coincidence - seems appropriate to continue using it.

I didn't think there were many significant questions left afterwards, except "is Deckard a replicant", which is actually just an unanswered question from the first movie rather than some new twist they put into this one.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I didn't think there were many significant questions left afterwards, except "is Deckard a replicant", which is actually just an unanswered question from the first movie rather than some new twist they put into this one.

It wasn't a twist this time, but they teased that we would get an answer and then just left us with more to ponder.

I may be wrong but I always thought the first one didn't really lead us this way and it was more a fan generated theory that got legs and drove a cult following for the movie. I never even thought he may be a replicant until years later when internet chat rooms got going.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I believe the replicant rumours picked up when some of the deleted unicorn scenes were added back in later for the director's cut and the final cut.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Right, but it was supposed to be in there to begin with. I think most people consider the final cut to be definitive. I do. Given that, I leaned towards "Deckard is a replicant". However, if he is, he should be long dead by 2049, so now I lean the other way.

At the end of the day it's more a curiosity than something central to the movies themselves. The uncertainty does more thematic work than an answer would.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Right, but it was supposed to be in there to begin with. I think most people consider the final cut to be definitive. I do. Given that, I leaned towards "Deckard is a replicant". However, if he is, he should be long dead by 2049, so now I lean the other way.

At the end of the day it's more a curiosity than something central to the movies themselves. The uncertainty does more thematic work than an answer would.

The survival issue definitely leans towards him being a human. However that scene where they go on about his relationship being by design leans back the other way. Perhaps he was one of the first replicants designed with a longer life span for the purpose of reproducing with Rachael, who also had a long life span.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I believe the replicant rumours picked up when some of the deleted unicorn scenes were added back in later for the director's cut and the final cut.

I think I'm going to have to rewatch soon. I can't remember which cut I have. Director's most likely.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

If you've had it for longer than 10 years, it's directors almost for sure.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, you seem to be in the minority on this one.

It's kind of interesting this doesn't seem to be a thing in the NA, because lots of people I know from the Nordics see the same problems.

Different cultures affect how people see things I guess.

Originally Posted by blankall

The first film is notorious for not answering the central question as to whether or not Ford's character is an android.

Nah, I always felt the origami unicorn and the unicorn dreams (which are more prominent in the Directors/Final cut) makes that rather decisive. It's also decisively answered by the director and I believe the script writer too. Just because Harrison Ford never really understood the movie (which he himself has openly admitted) doesn't mean much.

It's also pretty central to much of what happens in the movie. Many of the scenes and characters can only really be fully understood with the knowledge that these are people interacting with someone who they know is and android, but who doesn't know it himself.

It throws all sorts of random themes concerning the nature of humanity. I found the second film far more focused. It also provided far more answers. Both films let the viewer come to their own interpretations on many issues, but the first moreso.

Well I'm honestly glad that some people think more highly of it than I do, because it's so clearly a huge labour of love.

Maybe I'll learn to appreciate it with less comparison to the original.