Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

[Macbeth]

Wow they really are doing the sequel.  I was hoping I was having a bad dream - but no filming starts in July.  Ridley Scott is not directing (still in therapy from filming the original)  Denis Villeneuve who directed Sicario is at the helm.  

 

Harrison Ford is back (his years of therapy from filming the original has convinced him that the movie was actually great and wiped out all memories of how miserable he was while filming it.)   Harrison this was the best movie you ever made.  (My heart still says Empire Strikes Back was -but no this really was his best movie.)  The original is really one of the best sci-fi movies ever.    

 

It did take Harrison more than 20 years for him to  acknowledge, grudgingly, that this was a good film.  His reaction for years was that it had potential to be more than a cult film.  (Imagine that Ridley and Harrison made an indie) And it took that long for him and Ridley to make up - I am not surprised that Ridley is not back given how bad  his relationship with Harrison was on set.  

 

Ridley has called Blade Runner his most complete and personal film (per Wikipedia).  From what I understand Ridley was completely obsessed down to the smallest detail- example - having large columns flipped (seen when Deckard meets Rachael) as it didn't please him aesthetically.  

 

The only hope I  have is seeing that  Roger Deakins (Cohen Brothers' man) is on as a cinematographer.  

 

What I never understood was why the American crew didn't have any respect for Ridley.  Apparently they questioned everything he was doing and didn't trust his directing.  It was a culture war between the Americans and the Brit.  The man had made Alien - nothing more needs to be said.

 

 

[blixie]

I don't want to be excited about this, it's a terrible idea for so many reasons, BUT: 

 

 

Denis Villeneuve who directed Sicario is at the helm.

 

 

Roger Deakins (Cohen Brothers' man) is on as a cinematographer.

 

 

I love both these guys, and I'm secure at least in the aesthetic, and this kind of moral business is Villeneuve's wheelhouse. I'm wondering if Gosling is going to be what everyone speculated about Deckard: an android Blade Runner.

[Watcher0363]

Seeing Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) trying to escape from Deckard by running through store front glass windows. Is still one of the best scenes ever shot. Her look of fatal desperation still sticks with me til this day.

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Watcher0363

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Wow they really are doing the sequel.  I was hoping I was having a bad dream - but no filming starts in July.  Ridley Scott is not directing (still in therapy from filming the original)  Denis Villeneuve who directed Sicario is at the helm.  

 

Harrison Ford is back (his years of therapy from filming the original has convinced him that the movie was actually great and wiped out all memories of how miserable he was while filming it.)   Harrison this was the best movie you ever made.  (My heart still says Empire Strikes Back was -but no this really was his best movie.)  The original is really one of the best sci-fi movies ever.    

 

It did take Harrison more than 20 years for him to  acknowledge, grudgingly, that this was a good film.  His reaction for years was that it had potential to be more than a cult film.  (Imagine that Ridley and Harrison made an indie) And it took that long for him and Ridley to make up - I am not surprised that Ridley is not back given how bad  his relationship with Harrison was on set.  

 

Ridley has called Blade Runner his most complete and personal film (per Wikipedia).  From what I understand Ridley was completely obsessed down to the smallest detail- example - having large columns flipped (seen when Deckard meets Rachael) as it didn't please him aesthetically.  

 

The only hope I  have is seeing that  Roger Deakins (Cohen Brothers' man) is on as a cinematographer.  

 

What I never understood was why the American crew didn't have any respect for Ridley.  Apparently they questioned everything he was doing and didn't trust his directing.  It was a culture war between the Americans and the Brit.  The man had made Alien - nothing more needs to be said.

The opposite was the case with James Cameron, while filming Aliens at Pinewood.

So Harrison and Ridley never talked it out, that's too bad.

[BetterButter]

Quote

Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. K’s discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.

 

[starri]

"Rachel...we're home."

[AimingforYoko]

Most reboots are not worth the effort, but Villenueve with Deakins doing the cinematography? Oh yeah, I'm in.

[MrsR]

How did I not know about this. I freaked everyone out when I let out a scream when Harrison emerged from the shadows.

[benteen]

New Blade Runner 2049 trailer, complete with Atari Logo!

[VCRTracking]

It looks fantastic. They really did recreate the future Los Angeles as depicted in the original. It does seem to give away that Ryan Gosling's character is a replicant. Or maybe it's a misdirect?

Also hilarious that just like the first Blade Runner, Atari is still a major company!

Edited May 9, 2017 by VCRTracking

[benteen]

Heheh, yes.  They talked to the president of Atari (I literally didn't know that company was still around) and he was happy to be associated with the movie again.

It looks like Blade Runner and it sounds like Blade Runner.  I can't wait to see it.

[starri]

Goodness, Dave Bautista is certainly getting around.

[Sticker Shock]

If Deakins can't win for this, he's never going to win an Oscar.

[SmithW6079]

Interesting that Ryan Gosling appears to have first billing. 

I wasn't keen on this, but a fellow nerd at work convinced me to watch the trailer. I'm in.

[supposebly]

It's funny. I never saw the original because it has Harrison Ford in it. He, together with Ryan Gosling is one of those actors that just make me yawn just thinking about them. And now they cast Ryan Gosling in the new one. I guess I won't be seeing this one either.

[magdalene]

I remember the original movie quite well.  My most vivid memory is of Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty, especially his final monologue.   Which, if memory serves, Hauer had a hand in writing.

[Zola]

BLADE RUNNER 2049 - "Time to Live" Featurette

 

Latest BR49 update, with a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the film, along with the usual talking heads - Scott, Ford etc. 

Due for premier October 6th

[BetterButter]

[BetterButter]

[Silver Raven]

Denis Villeneuve has authorized a series of official films that take place between the two movies.  The first one is out, called Nexus: 2036

[BetterButter]

[BetterButter]

Blade Runner Black Out 2022

[Cranberry]

‘Blade Runner 2049’ Early Reactions: ‘Breathtaking,’ ‘Masterpiece’

[VCRTracking]

This gave me a much needed laugh today:

Ford and Gosling were on the Graham Norton Show Friday night and Norton asked them about it:

Norton: "Is that the face of regret or is that "I've really hurt my hand'?"

Ford: "That's the face of "Oh shit, I'm in big doodoo!"

[BetterButter]

[Morrigan2575]

Thank You! 

I've watched both the original and directors cut and I just never got the genius of the movie. It looks great but, I just don't see the appeal of the story.

I'll probably end up loving the sequel while everyone else thinks it's crap and doesn't live up to the original ?

[Silver Raven]

A masterpiece.  The set design is a tour de force, the acting, especially from Ryan Gosling, is outstanding, the story telling is superb.  This movie really immerses you in the time and place of its setting.  Unfortunately, if you haven't seen the original, you will probably get lost.  I was shocked to see Sean Young, though I have to wonder if she was CGI.

Unless you consider that most of the female roles in this movie are not real human beings, this film would pass the Bechdel test with flying colors.

[Ohwell]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:58 PM, Morrigan2575 said:

Thank You! 

I've watched both the original and directors cut and I just never got the genius of the movie. It looks great but, I just don't see the appeal of the story.

I'll probably end up loving the sequel while everyone else thinks it's crap and doesn't live up to the original ?

I just finished watching the directors cut a few minutes ago.  I had never seen the movie and a friend of mine kept bugging me.  I was...bored.  And Harrison Ford's dull, monotone narration....well...he's no Morgan Freeman, that's for sure.  Best part of it was seeing Rutger Hauer's legs at the end.  Yowza. 

I'll probably end up loving the sequel too. ; )

[AimingforYoko]

38 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

Unless you consider that most of the female roles in this movie are not real human beings, this film would pass the Bechdel test with flying colors.

Silvia Hoeks was an excellent descendant of Rutger Hauer. (They're both Dutch, go figure.) Hope for big things from her.

[Robert Lynch]

She was CGI all the way because Sean Young aged badly in late 2010. Probably only the voice they use, but a stunt double does wonders, you know.

[MisterGlass]

I've had a complicated relationship with Blade Runner having first seen the original theatrical cut, which did not click for me.  When I saw the Final Cut a few years ago, I got it.  It's as dear to me now as Alien.  When I heard they were doing this sequel, I thought it was a horrible idea, but when they announced the director I become interested.  I shunned all spoilers and saw it today, and I was surprised at how good it is.

This is clearly descended from the Final Cut, and made with love.  It remains keeps a lot of the film noir atmosphere of the original, and the detective story concept.  The futurism is the same blend of the antiquated and the extraordinary.  They took the concepts about the nature of replicants and pushed out the boundaries. They play even more with what it means to be real, and to be a person, with the AI.  The cinematography is stunning, and the special effects work is flawless.

As with the original, it isn't a fun movie.  It's very serious. There were parts that were imperfect, but this was deftly made, and I will certainly see it again.

And just a note for those looking to watch the original - there are more than four versions.  If you start one and it has a voice over, stop and go to this one instead. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by MisterGlass
Spelling

[benteen]

I saw Blade Runner 2049 on Thursday night and thought it was great.  Far better than the original (which I also have a complicated relationship with) and one I think that was worthy of all the great reviews that it got.  I loved the world-building once again and how they bring the world to life.  Though Ryan Gosling was terrific as the lead K and so was Harrison Ford.  I thought Sylvia Hoeks was an awesome character who managed to steal the show every time that she was on screen.  Even the minor characters stand out like the guy running the orphanage. 

I'm disappointed the box office wasn't strong but not surprised.  This is a nearly three-hour film and Rated R which cuts down the amount of showings a day and the potential audience respectively.  It is also almost completely devoid of anything even resembling humor.  But I loved it and am glad that they made it.  I would definitely recommend it.

[Browncoat]

I just got back, and I liked it a lot.  I thought it was a very worthy sequel to the original.

But I do wonder what happened to the dog.  Even if it wasn't real.

[Joimiaroxeu]

I thought it was visually stunning but geez, it did not need to be almost three hours long. That's probably why it didn't do as well at the box office as expected.

Quote

She was CGI all the way because Sean Young aged badly in late 2010.

Very few people look as good at 57 as they did at 23. It wouldn't have made sense for a replicant to look decades older anyway. (So of course I'm on the "Deckard isn't a replicant" side of that debate.)

Edited October 11, 2017 by Joimiaroxeu

[Browncoat]

On 10/7/2017 at 7:26 PM, Robert Lynch said:

She was CGI all the way because Sean Young aged badly in late 2010.

 

IMDB lists Loren Peta as "Rachael Performance Double", which I took to mean that the Rachael that Wallace created was not CGI.  And the bits that were Sean Young were clips from the original movie.

[Epeolatrix]

I took it to mean that they did the same thing that the new Star Wars movies did with young Leia and Tarkin; mapped a vague and creepy approximation of someone's face onto a body double.

[benteen]

14 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

I thought it was visually stunning but geez, it did not need to be almost three hours long. That's probably why it didn't do as well at the box office as expected.

As much as I liked the film, yeah on the screentime.  Somebody should have reminded them that Blade Runner was a box office bomb when it came out in 1982 which became a cult classic so this isn't Star Wars we're dealing with in terms of demand.

[Jeebus Cripes]

I was fully immersed in the film and felt strange walking out of the theater into the real world. Every bit as stunning as the original with great performances all around. My heart broke for poor K/Joe. I'm just gonna pretend that he didn't die on those steps, since no one was around to proclaim, "He's dead!" My logic is infallible. 

[thuganomics85]

Finally made time for this (because seriously: it's hard to just randomly decide to watch a two hour and forty minute movie), and I really enjoyed it.  Despite that aforementioned runtime, it didn't feel long at all, and I much rather have a film like this take there time and build upon the world, then the various latest Transformer films that are almost this long, but I feel like nothing comes out of it.

Denis Villeneuve is definitely becoming one of my favorite directors now with this, Arrival, and Sicario.  The man is a master with scope and scale, and has mastered visual pictures.  I'm really looking forward to how he handles the Dune film (assuming this film underperforming doesn't put that in jeopardy.)  Of course, equal credit goes to Roger Deakins in the cinematography department as well.  When will the man ever get an Oscar? 

Ryan Gosling handled the lead role well and Harrison Ford definitely seemed to enjoy revisiting this character again.  Between this and Wonder Woman, I'm quite glad that Robin Wright is starting to show up in a lot of great films.  Despite the limited screen time, Dave Bautista impressed and I'm actually starting to think he might be my new favorite "pro wrestler turned actor" over Dwayne Johnson (Dwayne's still ahead in the charisma and star power, but I'm thinking Bautista has more range and is making smarter choices lately.)  Jared Leto was fine, if just a big campy.  Fun seeing other actors I know in smaller roles like Lennie James, Mackenzie Davis, Wood Harris, and Barkhad Abdi.  I thought the standouts where Sylvia Hoeks; who this is my introduction to; and Ana de Armas, who I've heard mention a few times, but never seen before.  I thought both took what could have easily been cliched roles and did something special.  Looking forward to seeing what they both do next.

Totally surprised by the Sean Young appearance since I remember hearing complaints from her that she wasn't involved.  But I'm guessing a lot of that was CGI, which was pretty damn impressive.

Glad I saw it.  Too bad it is underperforming, but then again, the original film did the same thing, so I suspect this was always a series that lacked mainstream appeal and would always be a cult one.  I know some where hoping for a Mad Max: Fury Road-like scenario (granted, even then, that wasn't a massive hit), but that had the advantage of a shorter run time and simpler story (woman takes wives from sexist asshole, sexist asshole gives chase, woman takes out sexist asshole, while Mad Max tags along.  Still love it though!)  I just hope it doesn't make studio get scared and go back to just the average generic sequels.

[KatWay]

I thought it had some cool ideas, the actors did well and the cinematography was outstanding.

However, it just felt. So. Slow. Every scene could have been cut my at least a minute and then the film wouldn't have been three hours long. I just kept getting annoyed at how chill everybody was being. Where's the urgency? Seriously, I talk/walk faster than that and I'm not on the run from some evil company/government/whatever! Everybody just kept staring at stuff for two whole minutes before asking the next question and I was just like, ugh I would've been done with this conversation by now.

[Jeebus Cripes]

3 hours ago, KatWay said:

However, it just felt. So. Slow. Every scene could have been cut my at least a minute and then the film wouldn't have been three hours long. I just kept getting annoyed at how chill everybody was being. Where's the urgency? Seriously, I talk/walk faster than that and I'm not on the run from some evil company/government/whatever! Everybody just kept staring at stuff for two whole minutes before asking the next question and I was just like, ugh I would've been done with this conversation by now.

I feel the opposite. When a film is that visually stunning, I relish all that extra time.  

Edited October 16, 2017 by Jeebus Cripes

[Bruinsfan]

I loved it, thought the acting was top-notch all the way around and the cinematography was breathtaking. It even managed to make me not object to Jared Leto in a movie, which indicates either genius filmmaking or subliminal mind control. I thought it was weird that everything seemed so sterile and deserted though—the stairwell in K's apartment building and the orphanage were the only places that felt truly inhabited, even when they showed flyovers of massive cities.

[BetterButter]

[Danny Franks]

First impressions? Wow. What a stunning, incredible looking movie. Denis Villeneuve managed to capture all the dystopian, filthy grandeur of Ridley Scott's original vision, and then expanded on it with some wonderful flourishes. I don't think I've seen a movie that looks as gorgeous as this in a long time. Immediately evocative of the original, with the dirty streets, the constant rain or snow, the giant advertisements, but also thoroughly modern feeling.

At first I thought, 'there's no way L.A. looks like this just thirty years from now', but then realised, it's not supposed to. It's supposed to look like it's thirty years from the 2019 of the original movie.

Villeneuve also captured the slow pacing and frequent vagueness that the original movie had in spades. Yes, there were plenty of scenes that could have been edited down (the scene where K finds the wooden horse springs immediately to mind. We knew what he was going to find, we didn't need to see him hesitantly tiptoe towards it), but I enjoyed wallowing in the visuals and the moodiness of the movie. There's not another film you'll see that looks like this (the Altered Carbon TV show should give it a close run, I hope), so enjoy it while you can.

Ryan Gosling's performance was a strong anchor that held it all together. A stoic, calm presence in the midst of all the dystopian jungle. But I was really impressed with Ana de Armas' utterly charming turn as his AI girlfriend. She was sweet, coy, sexy, mischievous, full of pathos and occasionally quite funny. This should be a star-making turn for her. And on that note, I wish Mackenzie Davis had been given a little more to do, because she's great in everything. Her resemblance to Daryl Hannah was obviously considered when she got this part, but she can do a lot more.

I only just figured out why Luv seemed so familiar - She reminds me of Tatiana Maslany, playing a mix of Alison and Rachel from Orphan Black. And she was convincingly batshit crazy and dangerous. Jared Leto, on the other hand, that was a self indulgent performance of the like I've come to expect from him. I'm sure he added a lot of the personality and speaking quirks himself.

What I found interesting was the juxtaposition of "more human than human" and the desire for Replicants to become free and self sustaining, with the casual way K was used by Deckard's friend as though he were nothing more than a tool. They set him up to either die or lose everything he cared about. And then there's the new level to the hierarchy, of Replicants looking down on AIs, Marietta taunting Joi. 

As I said before, it was overly vague in places. Didn't feel the need to explain things too much, and there are still some unanswered questions, which was probably another deliberate way of evoking the original movie. Why was K chosen to have that false memory implanted? When did it happen?

And really, how much of this is real? Did Joi really care about K, or was she just programmed to develop her responses like that? Was Deckard designed to fall for Rachel as part of some grand plan? Do any of them really have free will?

Will there be a sequel to this one? Seems like they left enough open to do so. I wonder if it will take another thirty years.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Danny Franks

[stealinghome]

I just got back from the movie and thought it was good, but lacked that extra something that would've made it great. It just didn't quite have the spark I wanted it to. That said, I agree that the visuals were absolutely stunning (between this and Arrival, DV is someone whose work I'll be watching closely from here on out) and the performances strong; the women kind of ran away with the movie, actually. I do agree that the movie was too long; it never dragged, per se, but I do wonder if a little more pace would've given it more spark.

It was also a deeply philosophical movie and I'd need to see it again at least twice to understand what it was doing with all the concepts it touched on. But I liked that--I liked that it was a more talkative, less action-y movie than you'd expect. I think I'd go see a sequel, but I'd hope the sequel was a shorter movie!

[Terrafamilia]

It's stunning, atmospheric looking movie but not without niggling problems. Like what was up with those bees in the ruins of Vegas? Were they natural? Replicant bees? What were they supposed to be pollinating and deriving sustenance from out there in an otherwise lifeless desert wasteland?

Also, with the level of T&A on display I couldn't help but ponder its presence in this and other movies in the wake of the Weinstein scandal. Not only have we become acculturated to expect its presence but we have also been trained to justify it to ourselves and others - "it's artistic", "it's integral to the story", etc. But really, would Gone with the Wind have been a better movie if Selznick and Fleming had insisted that Vivian Leigh appear in a topless scene (and if she balked at it pressure her by telling her she could be replaced)?

[Steph J]

On 10/7/2017 at 3:42 PM, Silver Raven said:

Unless you consider that most of the female roles in this movie are not real human beings, this film would pass the Bechdel test with flying colors.

I don't see how. The test is that there be at least two women in the movie who talk to each other about something besides a man. There's multiple female characters in the movie and a few scenes where two of them speak to each other, but they're always talking about Ryan Gosling's character.

Saw this today and was quite impressed with it. I had been on the fence because I didn't particularly care for the original film (can't remember which version I saw; it wasn't the one with narration) and I can't stand Jared Leto, but I've been a fan of Denis Villeneuve going back to Maelstrom and the trailers made it look visually stunning - which it absolutely was. Maybe this movie can finally win Roger Deakins his Best Cinematography Oscar.

[Bruinsfan]

I think Luv's confrontation with Lieutenant Joshi would qualify the movie for the Bechdel test, if Luv counts as a woman. Their conversation was really more about Rachel's remains and the missing miracle kid than K, though he was mentioned.

[Steph J]

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

I think Luv's confrontation with Lieutenant Joshi would qualify the movie for the Bechdel test, if Luv counts as a woman. Their conversation was really more about Rachel's remains and the missing miracle kid than K, though he was mentioned.

I saw that scene a little differently.  Luv goes to Joshi to ask/force her to tell her where she can find K.   They talk about his findings and what those findings mean, but the point of the conversation is still that Luv needs to locate K.  That's how I felt about it, at any rate.

[MisterGlass]

On 10/19/2017 at 7:20 PM, Danny Franks said:

Why was K chosen to have that false memory implanted? When did it happen?

I spent some time thinking about this one.  All replicants since Rachel (and possibly Deckard) have had implanted memories.  This grounds them emotionally.  Stelline appears to be one of several memory makers, but the quantity of memories must be limited.  There cannot be a unique childhood's worth for every replicant.  Some memories are probably given to several replicants.  Perhaps K was one of a hundred replicants with that memory, but he was the only one in a position to understand what it was, and what it meant.  Stelline said that she feels bad for replicants, that they lead hard lives, and that she wants to give them memories that help.  Most of her memories are manufactured, but perhaps this memory was such a formative one for her that she felt compelled to share it.  She wanted a little part of her to live on in the outside world.  It was a moment where she was strong, despite the consequences.  It was about having agency - something a replicant could dream about.  In that way sharing it was quite subversive, aside from the prohibition on real memories.