XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => This Year In Film => Topic started by: MacGuffin on September 29, 2008, 03:13:55 PM

Title: Blade Runner 2049
Post by: MacGuffin on September 29, 2008, 03:13:55 PM
Exclusive: Eagle Eye Co-Writers Working on Blade Runner 2
Source: Slash Film

This weekend I received an e-mail from /Film reader Tanner C. informing me that one of the screenwriters of Eagle Eye was working on a screenplay for Blade Runner 2. I spent the weekend trying to get confirmation, and thanks to my friend Frosty at Collider who was able to get in touch with a second person who was also at the event, I was able to confirm this to be true. But before you throw a hissy fit. let me fill you in on all the details and assure you that nothing is being developed by the studio itself, or with the studio’s involvement. Here is the original email:

“I recently attended a Q&A session with one of the writers of ‘Eagle Eye’ after a free screening organized by the magazine Creative Screenwriting. During the Q&A, the writer said that he and whomever it was that helped him co-write the ‘Eagle Eye’ screenplay were in the process of writing a sequel to Blade Runner, and had already contacted the producers of the original, etc., etc. This is probably a load of empty words/wishful thinking on his part, but I for one am appalled by just the notion of a Blade Runner sequel, and thought you’d be as well, so I thought perhaps you’d like to look into this yourself and perhaps use your soapbox to get some fanboys a little pissed, as well. If not, then at least you have a scoop.”

Okay first of all, lets make sure we know who exactly we’re talking about. The screenwriters in question are not Alex Kurtzman or Roberto Orci, but instead Eagle Eye co-writer Travis Wright (who was at the event) and his Eagle Eye co-writer John Glenn.

Wright produced a 2005 animated movie which spoofed disaster films, called Disaster! The Movie. While at UCLA, Wright won the Jack Nicholson prize in screenwriting for his WWII drama Hunting the Wolf. At one point Wright and Glenn were attached to write a remake of The Warriors for Tony Scott/Paramount and Louis Leterrier’s remake of Clash of the Titans.

Wright revealed at the Creative Screenwriting event that they have been working on various treatments for a Blade Runner sequel over the last couple years. And there is also the claim that recently the duo have been working with Blade Runner co-executive producer Bud Yorkin on the project. It should be noted that Yorkin likely doesn’t control the rights to a Blade Runner sequel, and all of this is being developed outside of the studio. But this isn’t just some small side project, Travis also claims that they are already working with a previsualization team on some of the hunter action sequences for their eventual pitch with the studio. I don’t believe that Ridley Scott is involved, but the screenwriting team has worked directly with his brother Tony Scott on projects, so their might be a possible connection.

All of this really scares the hell out of me. Blade Runner is one of the most beloved sci-fi films of all time, and it is a movie that doesn’t need a sequel. If Scott had an idea, and really believed it was worth making, then maybe MAYBE. But we certainly don’t need a sequel written by the second teir team of Eagle Eye. Lets hope to God this doesn’t happen.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: RegularKarate on September 30, 2008, 04:22:03 PM
Epilogue:  It's not happening... even these guys realized it wasn't a good idea.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: MacGuffin on October 19, 2011, 07:46:20 AM
Ridley Scott To Direct New ‘Blade Runner’ Installment For Alcon Entertainment
By MIKE FLEMING | Deadline
 
EXCLUSIVE: After revisiting his classic Alien with the upcoming 3D Fox film Prometheus, Ridley Scott is committing to direct and produce a film that advances his other seminal and groundbreaking science fiction film from the past. Scott has signed on to direct and produce a new installment of Blade Runner. He’ll make the film with Alcon Entertainment, producing with Alcon partners Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove. This would be the most high profile project for Alcon since The Blind Side. They got control of the franchise earlier this year, but it’s a whole different ballgame with Scott at the helm.

I’m not getting a clear sense at this point whether Scott intends to do a sequel or a prequel to the 1982 film that was loosely based on the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Also unclear is whether they start fresh or reach out to Harrison Ford. The original took place in dystopian Los Angeles in 2019, in which organic superhuman robots called replicants escaped and are hiding somewhere on earth.  Ford played Richard Deckard, a burnt out blade runner assigned to hunt them down. His tired life gets altered when he himself falls for one of the replicants and struggles to keep her from being destroyed.

The film was not a blockbuster when first released–it grossed $32 million in its original run–but the film has gained esteem over time. From the bleak but breathtaking  visuals to the complex storyline and themes of mortality, Blade Runner became a classic. There has periodically been talks of doing a sequel but those never really went anywhere.  After injecting state of the art 3D in reviving Alien, imagine what Scott can do with Blade Runner? Now, the filmmaker is ready to engage. Alcon has its output deal with Warner Bros, which remastered and released a 25th anniversary version on DVD and Blu-Ray in 2007. Warner Bros made the original film.

This is just the first step and the project will have to be written and it will likely evolve during that process. That’s what happened on Alien, which began as a prequel to his 1979 classic. That changed when Lost‘s Damon Lindelof came in with a different take on the subject matter that imprinted on Scott and Fox  executives. They wound up making Prometheus, which Fox considers an original but which I’ve heard is a cousin to the original Alien franchise. That film will be released June 8, 2012, with Charlize Theron, Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace, Patrick Wilson, Idris Elba and Guy Pearce starring.  Scott is repped by WME.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: MacGuffin on May 31, 2013, 03:23:32 PM
Ridley Scott Taps 'Green Lantern' Writer Michael Green to Pen 'Blade Runner' Sequel (Exclusive)
TheWrap has learned that the project will be a follow-up to Scott's 1982 sci-fi classic

Veteran scribe Michael Green ("Green Lantern") is moving from superheroes to replicants, as he's in negotiations to write the sequel to "Blade Runner" for Alcon Entertainment and director Ridley Scott's production company Scott Free, an individual familiar with the Warner Bros. project has told TheWrap.

Representatives for Alcon and Green did not immediately respond to TheWrap's request for comment.

While Alcon hasn't officially revealed whether "Blade Runner" will be a sequel or a prequel to the original 1982 movie, an individual familiar with the sci-fi project has told TheWrap it will be set some years after the conclusion of the influential first film.

Scott will return to direct the "Blade Runner" sequel, and he's courting Harrison Ford to reprise his role as Rick Deckard.

Scott is producing with Alcon co-founders Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove, as well as Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin. Thunderbird Films CEOs Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble will serve as executive producers.

Released by Warner Bros. more than 30 years ago, “Blade Runner” was adapted by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples from Philip K. Dick’s groundbreaking novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and directed by Scott following his landmark “Alien.” The film was nominated for two Academy Awards and led to numerous feature adaptations of Dick's other works.

Green, who got his start writing for "Smallville" and "Heroes," previously wrote "Green Lantern" and "The Flash" for Warners and DC Entertainment. He also wrote the epic Moses movie "Gods and Kings" for WB. He's repped by WME, 3 Arts Entertainment and Felker Toczek Gellman Suddleson.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Lottery on May 31, 2013, 06:40:17 PM
Bad idea. Didn't Scott watch Prometheus?
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Just Withnail on June 01, 2013, 02:07:29 AM
Bad idea. Didn't Scott watch Prometheus?

Or Green Lantern?
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: polkablues on June 01, 2013, 02:16:42 AM
I can't possibly upvote that last comment enough.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: MacGuffin on October 09, 2013, 05:50:18 PM
Harrison Ford reveals he's had conversations with Ridley Scott about a Blade Runner sequel
Source: JoBlo

Not much is known about Ridley Scott's planned BLADE RUNNER sequel, but we do know the GREEN LANTERN scribe might be writing the script, the protagonist could be a female and Harrison Ford probably won't be back. Or will he? Ford recently talked to IGN and they asked him if he would be interested in playing Deckard again for Ridley Scott. His response?

We've been chatting about it.

So that means Harrison Ford is at least open to the idea, and while Ridley Scott might still be bouncing around ideas for a BLADE RUNNER sequel, Deckard returning does sound like it could be a possibility. Harrison Ford was also asked if he has fond memories from working on the first film.

I remember [the first film] with 'complication. But I'm not there to generate nostalgic moments, I'm there to do a job of work. I quite understand that everyone has an ambition when they come into a film and everyone's ambition may not be so focused on the same thing. I truly admire Ridley as a man, and as a director and I would be very happy to engage again with him in the further telling of this story.

When asked if a voice-over while be featured in the sequel (something that was added to the original by the studio), Harrison Ford said "I'm now capable of losing my voice, cutting out my tonsils and my vocal chord." Seriously though, what about a voice-over?

"No, that was a big part of the issue. I didn't think it was necessary, and Ridley of course didn't think it was necessary. That was something that came up from the studio."

Not necessary is how some might describe a BLADE RUNNER sequel, but with Ridley Scott on board and Harrison Ford sounding like he's game to play Deckard again, I'm down with another film. Any guesses as to what the plot could be for the sequel?
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: MacGuffin on May 15, 2014, 06:05:10 PM
Harrison Ford Asked To Reprise Role In ‘Blade Runner’ Sequel
Source: Deadline
   
Alcon Entertainment has an offer out to Harrison Ford to reprise his role of Rick Deckard in its Ridley Scott-directed sequel to Blade Runner. Original screenwriter Hampton Fancher and Michael Green are writing the new one, which takes place several decades after the conclusion of the 1982 original. Alcon acquired Blade Runner‘s film, television and ancillary rights in 2011 from producer Bud Yorkin to produce prequels and sequels of the sci-fi cult classic. Yorkin will serve as a producer on the sequel along with Alcon’s Andrew Kosove and Broderick Johnson. Cynthia Sikes Yorkin will co-produce. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble, CEO’s of Thunderbird Films, will serve as executive producers. Alcon actually sent a press release out that it offered the role to Ford (which is unusual in itself), but Ford gave an interview recently saying he was anxious to see the script. He has expressed interest in reprising the role in the past, but no deal is set as he has yet to read the script.

If Ford agrees to the script, this is the second audience-pleasing role the actor would be stepping into. He is also set in the next installment of the Star Wars franchise as the actor is currently readying to reprise his role as Han Solo with Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill in Star Wars: Episode VII for filmmaker J.J. Abrams, which Disney plans to release December 18, 2015. Abrams is directing, co-writing the script with Lawrence Kasdan and producing with Kathleen Kennedy and Bryan Burk. The project recently had a read-through with key members of the cast.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Lottery on December 19, 2016, 05:43:07 PM
Alright, this trailer is way too cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haXvp8M9Cog
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: jenkins on May 08, 2017, 12:32:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Fernando on May 08, 2017, 04:14:10 PM
Visually it looks fantastic, let's hope it's good.

Now, I think this is the 2nd or 3rd trailer I've seen that they announce the trailer before it plays, that's dumb.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Shughes on May 08, 2017, 05:40:48 PM
I read somewhere that the announcement of the trailer on the start of trailers these days are because many of them auto-play as ads on YouTube, and even if you want to skip it you're forced to watch the 5 second super-cut before you're allowed to 'skip ad'. So I wouldn't say it's dumb. Pretty annoying still though.

This looks like a cross between Blade Runner and Only God Forgives - am I being too hopeful?

Also, am I the only one who wishes Harrison Ford wasn't in this? He looks like the weakest link from the footage so far.

Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: RegularKarate on May 09, 2017, 09:49:45 AM
Also, am I the only one who wishes Harrison Ford wasn't in this? He looks like the weakest link from the footage so far.

I've heard he's not in that much of it.

Visually, this is pretty amazing.
Is it weird to anyone else that this is the first thing Hampton Fancher has written since Minus Man?
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: KJ on May 09, 2017, 02:48:46 PM
Looks good. Denis Villeneuve is pretty much the perfect choice for this.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: polkablues on May 09, 2017, 09:56:15 PM
Is it weird to anyone else that this is the first thing Hampton Fancher has written since Minus Man?

It's weird to me that this is only the fourth movie Fancher's written in his entire career.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Lottery on July 17, 2017, 09:15:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOaI_Fn5o4


Shows a considerable amount but very pretty.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on July 17, 2017, 09:30:22 AM
"Very pretty" is I fear what we'll say for the movie. They had to show Harrison Ford...David Lynch showed with Twin Peaks that you can revisit a world without that world being some kind of weird remaster. I do appreciate remasters for video games, though.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: WorldForgot on July 17, 2017, 03:57:18 PM
Sicario made me cry but I found Arrival dull.

Plz Denis do Papa Dick Proud!
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: wilder on July 17, 2017, 07:56:34 PM
It looks so flat and non-textural compared to the original. Less like a lived-in world and more like a series of green screen soundstages for Tron: Legacy. The organic texture of Blade Runner is related to the themes of Blade Runner. Speaking of which, 2049's decision to answer the question of whether Deckard is a replicant or not further negates the meaning of the story. It takes away the meditative quality that gives the original so much power and lasting resonance: "What does it mean to have a soul?"

(http://i.imgur.com/dQ2KYsh.jpg)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 17, 2017, 09:07:40 PM
I'm hopeful. Until proven otherwise, in Villeneuve I trust. Josh Brolin, while making Sicario, thought the film was going to suck based on last minute re-shoots and rewrites and indecisiveness on set, but he said Villeneuve proved him wrong big time.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: jenkins on July 17, 2017, 09:15:57 PM
Incendies is one of my least-liked movies ever. but i'm on BR2049's side, because personally i'd prefer to like BR2049.

but as i've said, if i like it i have to go back and watch four movies. if i don't like it i get to move forward in peace. so it's kind of either way for me really
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Lottery on July 18, 2017, 12:09:00 AM
Just a quick note in light of what Wilder said and Jenkins' avatar-
Chungking Express is one of the few films ever that made me feel the world like Blade Runner did. I was reminded so heavily of the latter when watching CE and amazed because the way both films were shot were so different- BR is all sets and production design while CE is on-the-go, shooting on location. CE is of course, the real deal- it is alive, textured and lived in because Hong Kong is that way. At least part of it.

WKW can make a setting feel futuristic, fantastical and distant yet grounded in a way that others can't, even if he doesn't intend on doing so.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: wilder on August 11, 2017, 02:59:08 AM
This is cool (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sliceoflifefilm/slice-of-life-original-short-film-homage-to-blade)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Lottery on September 15, 2017, 12:00:59 AM
Shinichiro Watanabe of Cowboy Bebop and Samurai Champloo fame will be writing and directing an anime short which takes place between the two Blade Runner films. Music by Flying Lotus.
Sounds pretty fucking amazing.

https://myanimelist.net/news/52310915
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on September 26, 2017, 01:55:56 PM
Early buzz is pretty strong. I wouldn't bet against Denis.

http://www.slashfilm.com/blade-runner-2049-early-buzz-this-is-the-sci-fi-masterpiece-fans-hoped-for/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/blade-runner-2049-early-buzz-this-is-the-sci-fi-masterpiece-fans-hoped-for/)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on September 26, 2017, 04:07:24 PM
You give eye candy to critics and if it's a blockbuster they pretend like it's the best thing they have ever seen. Roger Deakins is a good DP? I didn't know...

I saw the trailer and...the original Blade Runner is a beast of its own. What is it, exactly? Sci-Fi? A weird dream? A nightmare? Hell. What's the plot of that movie? I remember the mood. How real and yet eerie it is.

What does the trailer sells? Well. Someone is making an army of replicants. Ryan Gosling, you better call the lead of the original Blade Runner!

I'm not saying it will be bad, I'll see it and I'll probably enjoy the movie. I'm sure Villeneuve will be able to add something to it.

But we can't go back to the past.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Lottery on October 05, 2017, 09:48:39 AM
Just saying, avoid every review, trailer, comment and post if possible before watching this. Despite watching the first trailer, the plot was a mystery to me and unfolded in unexpected ways which was pretty neat.

It's a good movie. It's clearly separate from the dreamy, hypnotic original but it has its own atmosphere and has an old-school sci-fi story vibe despite it very obviously being a modern film. It's pretty weird and trippy in its own right, and probably would have been even better with less dialogue- in fact, less dialogue, fewer scenes and overall greater abstraction could have made this really, really special (the original benefited greatly from a dreamlike ambiguity as we all know). That said, there's meaningful content in the movie (along with an unconventional and surprisingly good relationship), which builds upon the themes of the original work.

I know some of you guys will find it to be too visually clean in both cinematography and production design (I did at times) but the team did great work on the look and feel of the film- which is hugely significant considering the legacy of the original.

Blade Runner probably didn't need a sequel but I quite liked this and it's wayyyyy better than Prometheus in regard to Ridley Scott franchise revivals.

Ryan Gosling was also very clearly the best man for the role as he excels at playing quiet weirdos. Not sure how I felt about Leto. Can't really talk about the other characters without spoiling things.

SEMI-SPOLIERS
There's a scene with a de-aged actor/character and it's the best de-aging special effects I've ever seen. I wasn't sure if it was CGI or an eerily similar actress at first, it just looked good. Makes Rogue One's CGI/de-aged characters look like trash.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on October 05, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
It was a mess. But it did things that other Hollywood movies don't do anymore and I appreciate it for that.

Then. It was a mess, wasn't it? I liked some scenes and it is often inventive and almost always—at least—interesting.

But it is way too self-conscious and its originality becomes a gimmick. Let me explain. The movie isn't as fast paced as almost all the big Hollywood movies. At the contrary, it takes its time. But every scene takes its time even when it is absolutely not necessary. There are a lot of shots of Gosling slowly walking in great sets. Do great sets make a great movie? Some shots seem to be motivated by how great the set is. There is no reason for this movie to be that long.

What I was angry about in my previous post is not entirely bad in the movie—the impossible re-creation of the first movie isn't 100% of the movie, it even does what The Force Awakens doesn't do: it extends what was. But it is an act of re-creation. How did the first movie feel? Let's try to do that again. It's...awkward...But Villeneuve is good and it is visually beautiful. It does look clean but...it's kind of the nightmare of our modernity, no? Malls look like that. And it's scary. Does the movie wants to be scary? I'm not sure. But it can work in that context.

Everytime you have an old character in a sequel that takes time a lot of time after the original, the most important thing in his life is—more or less—linked to the first movie. What if the most important thing in the life of that character occurred after the original movie? What if it is absolutely foreign to us? That's what I was thinking at some point in the movie. Because we go back to the fetishization of the past. Something that the movie at some point in its plot criticizes while doing it!

The plot is actually good—even if it's overstuffed with nonsense and I was not surprised to read that the original writer gave a script of 80 pages to the studio before they decided to give it more content. There is a storyline in it that is dull version of Her. If you cut it the movie can be at least twenty minutes shorter.

So: I appreciate the movie for what it wants to do, its unusual pace, what it brings to the original. In english, does the expression having your ass between two chairs exist? Google tells me that it's "being caught between two stools". That's the position of the movie. It's caught back.

It's a shame that a science-fiction movie in 2017 proposes a version of the future from 1982.

PS: I don't understand all the fuss about spoilers. I can't understand feeling "spoiled" if you know the basic details. I never felt like I was exposed to mind blowing plot twists...
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: RegularKarate on October 06, 2017, 02:36:02 PM
I found this far from a mess. Don't get that criticism. I understand the placement and pace of almost every scene (*there are a couple odd choices, but overall, it's so much better than it could have been)

I will wait until more have had time to see it to start Spoiler discussions, but I got lost in this. Completely beautiful and true to the original while being allowed to be something different.

Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on October 06, 2017, 03:08:34 PM
The half subplots added to the main story make it messy to me.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: RegularKarate on October 06, 2017, 03:21:43 PM
The half subplots added to the main story make it messy to me.
Yeah, I don't see those as subplots. It reminds more of a book in that any time we meet a new character, we get a nice  background for them.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on October 06, 2017, 03:32:53 PM
SPOILERS


I don't understand what is going on with Jared Leto. And the weird resistance thing at the end is really too much—even on a plot level, you don't need them for Gosling to try to rescue Ford. Everything with the prostitute and Joi is very sloppy and akward. The overlong scene with Ford's daughter can be the example for what I mean: good idea shown in an interesting way but overlong and almost mechanical in its execution...I was so embarrassed with the Joi scenes too...But that's more a Villeneuve problem I have. I liked Arrival, but Villeneuve is like a cold, distant, maker of great images.

Then: I loved the fight scene between Ford and Gosling. When it's about Gosling thinking he is the child/has a soul or when he learns that he is not, the movie is thrilling.

Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: WorldForgot on October 06, 2017, 03:47:33 PM
SPOILERS
I liked Arrival, but Villeneuve is like a cold, distant, maker of great images.

"There's a little of every artist in their work."
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Lottery on October 06, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
SPOILERS

I actually really liked the Joi relationship stuff in this movie. It was pretty unconventional and kinda touching and really added to Jo's desire to be more. It was pretty upsetting when she 'died' and one of the best moments in the movie is when he sees the giant hologram advertisement after he returns to LA.
Also ties into the how much is simply programming, how much is real thing.

I think Gosling did an excellent job of portraying a replicant gradually wanting to be more than just a replicant, it's superbly crushing when he realises that he isn't the child. Towards the end he does absolutely 'downtrodden' and 'driven' really well. Good actor.

The resistance stuff was a bit sudden, yeah but it kinda works with the ending- assuming they don't do something silly and have another sequel. It's open ended and hopeful in a way. That said, the final shot of the film really irked me.

Leto's presence in the film was a bit odd. It should have been one of those brief yet powerful performance and while he looked pretty damn cool, he just didn't make that much of an impact (though Dave Bautista managed to in his single scene). He also just drops out of the film towards the end after his the interrogation scene. The idea of the character is great but the film either couldn't flesh him out properly or provide him with a worthwhile concluding scene.

And Drenk, regarding what you said about a vision of the future from 1982, I personally am glad that they logically proceeded from the world presented in the original. It feels believable and it possibly would have been a disservice to both films by diverging too far from some of the aesthetic/conceptual ideals of the original.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: wilder on October 07, 2017, 01:24:55 AM
I eat my words. It was way better than I thought it would be.


SPOILERS

The actors really make this. Most everyone was perfectly cast and so present in that sort of uncanny way that made the 1982 film what it was. That's what did it for me. Gosling had real weight for the first time. The initial 'Memory Maker' scene was as good as anything in the original -- that actress' performance especially was phenomenal. Villeneuve must have a thing for The Neverending Story, because between her likeness to The Childlike Empress and those sphinx-like statues in the radiation zone, there are some blatant parallels.

/SPOILERS


2049 is a different beast, but it totally works as a thematic mirror image, and as Lottery and Drenk said, builds on the ideas of the original in genuinely thought-provoking ways. I'm glad to be wrong, and glad I saw it in a theater.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: mogwai on October 08, 2017, 10:40:57 PM
SEMI-SPOILER

I thought Deckard was going to die at the end. But Joe/K did die at the steps or did he?  :ponder:
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: csage97 on October 08, 2017, 11:02:05 PM
SEMI-SPOILER

I thought Deckard was going to die at the end. But Joe/K did die at the steps or did he?  :ponder:

POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN THIS POST

My interpretation was that he didn't.

I loved this movie. I liked the near-three hour run time because it allowed for full immersion into the visual world. My hat goes off to Roger Deakins; the lighting was fantastic, and I loved the soft monochromes. I appreciated the pacing of the story as well and that the film wasn't overblown with action scenes. A user above said that they thought the Joi scenes were embarrassing; I get that, but, ehh, it's science fiction, and it's not like the whole world design isn't super out there, so it didn't bother me at all. (Edit: The user was Drenk.)

The only thing that I didn't think was good was Jared Leto's character .... Just kind of too weirdly sinister and cartoonish, so much that it became tacky. I think Joi's character bordered on this level of tackiness, but didn't go as far as Leto's character with it. That's something I always fear about movies like this: That they indulge in this kind of campiness. On the whole, though, I think Villenueve avoided it enough, and the main story and visuals were aplenty enough to keep everything afloat.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on October 09, 2017, 06:37:12 AM
SPOILERS


The Joi scenes are embarrassing because they are overlong, the actors are bad in them (even Gosling, yes), and Her did it in a fantastic way a few years ago. I mean, the whole sex scene with a "robot" through a human body is a great scene in Her. In this one you have to watch Gosling being stoic for what seemed to be ages while random hot actress number #45—and it suits the character that she is random hot actress #45—is trying to act like she in a soft porn scene.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: KJ on October 09, 2017, 09:29:34 AM
SEMI-SPOILER

I thought Deckard was going to die at the end. But Joe/K did die at the steps or did he?  :ponder:

That's a semi spoiler?
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Alexandro on October 09, 2017, 11:52:10 AM
I can see that the film is overlong and there are some scenes which scream "cut me a little you fuck"... but man... this was trippy as hell. I don't think I've had this feeling of being in some kind of trance with a movie for a long time. Because that's the real thing here, the feeling. The combination of all those fantastic images with the sound and the music and the sense of loss and mystery. That weird feeling of witnessing a sentient being slowly blooming... I don't know how to explain it but it was tense, for me, the whole film. I was bathing in what it made me feel more than anything, even though I kept second guessing myself about wether I was understanding every bit of information. About half way through I was like "am I really following everything here? there's a lot going on! fuck, this is another beautiful moment!"...

in short, I understand the complaints... but damn it if I can't wait to see this again on IMAX and submerge into it like I'm taking LSD and being extra aware of every thing around me like I'm an android in a journey of self discovery.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on October 09, 2017, 01:05:16 PM
Yes, there is a meditative state in this movie that I appreciate. (Even it doesn't work all the time.)

Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: csage97 on October 09, 2017, 01:35:38 PM
I can see that the film is overlong and there are some scenes which scream "cut me a little you fuck"... but man... this was trippy as hell. I don't think I've had this feeling of being in some kind of trance with a movie for a long time. Because that's the real thing here, the feeling. The combination of all those fantastic images with the sound and the music and the sense of loss and mystery. That weird feeling of witnessing a sentient being slowly blooming... I don't know how to explain it but it was tense, for me, the whole film. I was bathing in what it made me feel more than anything

in short, I understand the complaints... but damn it if I can't wait to see this again on IMAX and submerge into it like I'm taking LSD and being extra aware of every thing around me like I'm an android in a journey of self discovery.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with these feelings, except I don't think it's too overlong. I guess I just have patience for long runtimes if they're able to create an atmosphere and a world to be sucked into, which I think this film achieved on the whole. (I really despise the quick pace and quick cuts of modern blockbusters.) However, I DO agree that some scenes could have been cut. I can concede to Drenk's view about the Joi scenes ... but I also think they provide the necessary fulfillment of giving Gosling's character some human characteristics that viewers can identify with. If this plot thread were entirely cut, I feel like we'd have a sort of Drive protagonist on our hands, but without the do-gooder nature and the with knowledge that he's also essentially an android ... which would reduce his human traits and run the risk of the having the audience feel that he can't be identified with enough. BUT, I'm open to the idea that the Joi scenes could have been different and better in their execution. The writers and director could've shown Gosling's human side in a completely different way that maybe wouldn't induce cringe in the way Drenk is experiencing it .... So I can totally sympathize with you there, Drenk.

There's a scene with a de-aged actor/character and it's the best de-aging special effects I've ever seen. I wasn't sure if it was CGI or an eerily similar actress at first, it just looked good. Makes Rogue One's CGI/de-aged characters look like trash.
Totally agree. I thought BR2049's special effects were at times outstanding and at other times quite good in the sense that their being apparent didn't make it a deal breaker for me. But man, I was totally disappointed with The Force Awakens' CGI. Totally killed the immersion of the film for me and instantly felt dated/characteristic of an era where Blockbusters are overly reliant on shitty computer effects. Huge disappointment. But then again, I didn't have massive hopes for a Star Wars reboot anyway.

Maybe it's getting too off topic, but I thought the trailer for Last Jedi looked terrible (the editing was good, but the content from the film just looked ... blah).
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on October 09, 2017, 01:41:47 PM
SPOILERS

I must say that I also dislike the Joi scenes because everything else about K's "awakening" is interesting—the fact that he thinks he is more than a replicant and then his disillusion...The whole trope about wanting to be touched when you are a robot—when it's done without an ounce of warm or through Gosling's empty eyes makes me cringe, yes...

The idea of Gosling as a replicant with the memories of a human being is quite interesting and quite moving at the end.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: BB on October 10, 2017, 01:24:36 AM
I feel like this movie raises an interesting question about the extent to which context matters when it comes to the quality of a film. To me, it's a MIRACLE given the modern studio system (if this does well and the general public demonstrates a taste for it, some real interesting films could get made), but agree that it's not perfect. Most movies of this scale don't even seem to try to try for perfect. And you never know what might have been studio mandated. The runtime almost definitely given that most people won't leave the house for anything less than two hours.

The same thing seems to be happening with The Florida Project, with people online getting pretty nit-picky. These are good films! Real deal adventurous, interesting films!
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Drenk on October 10, 2017, 07:22:46 AM
I feel like this movie raises an interesting question about the extent to which context matters when it comes to the quality of a film. To me, it's a MIRACLE given the modern studio system (if this does well and the general public demonstrates a taste for it, some real interesting films could get made), but agree that it's not perfect. Most movies of this scale don't even seem to try to try for perfect. And you never know what might have been studio mandated. The runtime almost definitely given that most people won't leave the house for anything less than two hours.

The same thing seems to be happening with The Florida Project, with people online getting pretty nit-picky. These are good films! Real deal adventurous, interesting films!

Yes, but it is being spoiled to still be picky when a movie is worth discussion? I did think about it. It's true that most movies on this scale aren't even trying. That said, even if I, personally, think the movie is messy, the mere fact that I am writing a lot about it here is a sign that they have done something.

Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: Fernando on October 10, 2017, 10:29:48 AM
LOVED IT.

Pretty much agree with what Alexandro said, although the length was fine for me.


Give all the awards already to Deakins.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: jenkins on October 10, 2017, 04:02:51 PM
like with mother! i can't dislike it without betraying some of my core principles, so i won't dislike it. absolutely the feeling of this movie will resonate with me, and that is indeed a quality i cherish. plus yeah it's got all the candies of cinema and Deakins should win all the awards. on top of that it's set in the future and they saved the snow scene for last.

one can keep in mind that i like Blade Runner and still i've watched that movie without liking it. because the thing is my life isn't sitting inside there. the people i know aren't sitting inside that movie. so for me the feeling is a place and not a person. and some days i'd rather visit a park than see my friend, but parks are everywhere and friends are rare. if The Florida Project was multiplex i'd've seen it instead and it'll have problems sure, but they'll be human problems. that's my jam and y'all know it.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2
Post by: BB on October 10, 2017, 07:17:01 PM
Yes, but it is being spoiled to still be picky when a movie is worth discussion? I did think about it. It's true that most movies on this scale aren't even trying. That said, even if I, personally, think the movie is messy, the mere fact that I am writing a lot about it here is a sign that they have done something.

Yes, totally. Didn't mean to call you out. Was speaking generally to similar sentiments I've seen here and there. Love that the movie is generating discussion. Love when ANY movie generates discussion. Just sense a slight forest-for-the-trees perspective lately. I feel like any conversation between movie people on this one should begin from the premise that it's something special. You may like it, you may hate it, but I think we can (mostly) all agree that it's a cut above. 
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049
Post by: wilder on October 13, 2017, 03:26:03 PM
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on October 19, 2017, 06:12:39 PM
So glad I caught this in IMAX. I have no idea what it's like in other formats, but I think I will carry that experience with me through every rewatch.

This movie showed me things I've never seen before, sounds I've never heard before. I can think of 5 or 6 scenes that were absolutely jaw-dropping. It's boiling over with new ideas. I want more!

Never has Hans Zimmer bombast worked so well for me. I was continuously blown away, and then swept away, by this glorious soundtrack.

But it is way too self-conscious and its originality becomes a gimmick. Let me explain. The movie isn't as fast paced as almost all the big Hollywood movies. At the contrary, it takes its time. But every scene takes its time even when it is absolutely not necessary. There are a lot of shots of Gosling slowly walking in great sets. Do great sets make a great movie? Some shots seem to be motivated by how great the set is. There is no reason for this movie to be that long.

Having watched Arrival, I can be 100% certain that this movie's patience and ponderousness is genuine. Denis Villeneuve is such a perfect fit. The original Blade Runner is even slower, I'd argue, and is more transparently about the beauty of its world.

I am also completely fine with a movie that sacrifices character/story potential for other equally cinematic things. Avatar was kind of the embodiment of that, for example.

But I fully agree with this criticism:

probably would have been even better with less dialogue- in fact, less dialogue, fewer scenes and overall greater abstraction could have made this really, really special

With that alteration, this easily could have been a masterpiece. Shame it was so close.

Spoilers

When Harrison Ford arrived, it was like, wow, that's a real actor right there. This is his best performance in a very long time. He pumped so much emotion and weight into his first few scenes especially.

Most fiction about androids, including Westworld and Ex Machina, don't bother to deal with the issue of the human soul — what that is, and under what circumstances a synthetic human could hope to have one. Blade Runner 2049 addresses this question head-on. To paraphrase the movie: if something is legitimately, biologically born, how could it not have a soul? I appreciated that this movie is philosophically serious.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049
Post by: The Ultimate Badass on October 21, 2017, 09:12:13 PM
Great direction, acting, cinematography and FX. Shit script.