Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jay

SPOILER TALK : Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

Recommended Posts

Hello!

For big films that will generate a lot of discussion, we'll be creating spoilers-allowed threads where people can discussing everything openly without needing to use spoiler blocks, letting those avoid the discussion entirely until they've seen the film, and making it easier to discuss for people who have seen it.

 

You are welcome to post spoiler-free thoughts in What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Newer films) or Blade Runner 2049, but in here, feel free to say anything and not use any spoiler tags at all. 

 

Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third felt very much like fan fiction. And aside from Ford's badass entrance, I did not understand the purpose of his character in the finale forward.

 

First act was the film's strongest. It felt like I was watching Sicario, but in the Blade Runner universe.

 

Jared Leto's character has like 2 lengthy scenes, and that's about it. For some reason, we close with a shot of Ford reuniting with his daughter, but we've established almost no connection with either character to warrant that. K/Joi relationship was the best part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KK said:

The third felt very much like fan fiction. And aside from Ford's badass entrance, I did not understand the purpose of his character in the finale forward.

 

I think it's fair to say that some compromises had to be made to get someone to shell out 150Mio$. This in mind i think i can blur out parts of the third act and not make a big fuss out of some headscratchers. Gosling dying in the snow with Ford entering the building was a fitting coda and Ford sells the emotional turmoil that brings him there. I could have done without the last image via the screen but well..the underground replicant army was the only truly doofus idea and the Tyrell of this movie and his short Bond villain appearance also a puzzler (would such a guy really make a big scene out of Harrison Ford or just have the henchman deprogram him or something...take your pick). The dominatrix dame was pretty much a bad idea, too.

 

But that's essentially the usual nitpicking that neglects the cumulative effect of being in this world up to that point. I found the whole wistful love story much more thoughtful than whatever happened in the original between Ford and Sean Young and ultimately that was the core of K's story (and his quest for a meaningful life).

 

I don't think it's a masterpiece, but parts of it clearly have greatness in them that override minor complaints that inevitably will be blown out of any proportion once the things is under closer internet scrutiny.

11 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

How's her catfight with the Dutch replicant?

 

Boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, publicist said:

 

I think it's fair to say that some compromises had to be made to get someone to shell out 150Mio$. This in mind i think i can blur out parts of the third act and not make a big fuss out of some headscratchers. Gosling dying in the snow with Ford entering the building was a fitting coda and Ford sells the emotional turmoil that brings him there. I could have done without the last image via the screen but well..the underground replicant army was the only truly doofus idea and the Tyrell of this movie and his short Bond villain appearance also a puzzler (would such a guy really make a big scene out of Harrison Ford or just have the henchman deprogram him or something...take your pick). The dominatrix dame was pretty much a bad idea, too.

 

It should have ended with the last Ford/Gosling scene and Gosling having his "Tears in the Rain" moment. The scene with Deckard and his daughter felt like an unearned addendum.

 

I guess Leto's character works to "shoehorn" the necessary BR philosophy about the human condition and whatnot. That said, all the Wallace interior shots were gorgeously shot. The play between light and mood was great.

 

11 hours ago, publicist said:

But that's essentially the usual nitpicking that neglects the cumulative effect of being in this world up to that point. I found the whole wistful love story much more thoughtful than whatever happened in the original between Ford and Sean Young and ultimately that was the core of K's story (and his quest for a meaningful life).

 

Agreed. I like how it features an ensemble cast of characters that are all ultimately trying to find meaning and purpose in life. Very much in line with the Blade Runner spirit. I just felt like the film veered away from that at some point.

 

I think was convinced I was on board for greatness until K is taken off the force. For some reason, the sex scene is crammed in there right when the film establishes a need for momentum and rising action (after K finds out he might be the "child") and the film's pace is brought to a standstill. After that is when the more problematic fan-fiction stuff pops up (though the whole Deckard intro setpiece is great).

 

Anyone else rolled their eyes at the "resurrection" of Rachel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KK said:

I guess Leto's character works to "shoehorn" the necessary BR philosophy about the human condition and whatnot. That said, all the Wallace interior shots were gorgeously shot. The play between light and mood was great.

 

See also 'Frankenstein'/the creation. The angle was not unsound (Wallace is obviously frustrated his products cannot procreate) but as you said, it's all a bit overproduced without the audience getting much out of it.

2 hours ago, KK said:

I think was convinced I was on board for greatness until K is taken off the force. For some reason, the sex scene is crammed in there right when the film establishes a need for momentum and rising action (after K finds out he might be the "child") and the film's pace is brought to a standstill. After that is when the more problematic fan-fiction stuff pops up (though the whole Deckard intro setpiece is great).

 

The editing throughout could have been tightened by 20-30 minutes but then i haven't seen  that edit - maybe it just didn't play very good at a shorter length and those are really construction problems with the script, i got the impression that Villeneuve shot more scenes that could've led the film either way but didn't know exactly what would be the end result in putting them all together (it's not his baby, after all). So it's certainly a bit more broad and by-committee than the older movie but my expectations of movies like this have been lowered to a point that i consider 70% of greatness instead of a hundred a big achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KK said:

Anyone else rolled their eyes at the "resurrection" of Rachel?

 

I think done a bit differently, it could have worked.

 

As it is, it felt a bit too fan-service-y, and also mostly there to give Ford something to do (because remove that moment, and he's not left with much to do, acting-wise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, crocodile said:

But then, they used a lot of moody lighting, she barely speaks. And it almost looks like a replica from the footage of 1982 Blade Runner.

 

Karol

 

Well, if you were going to do something like that, that would be the smart way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping this wouldn't happen, by the way. But it wasn't as bad as I expected when it actually did happen. The eerie set and lighting almost create that ghostly mood which actually helps to sell this scene.

 

By the way, isn't it interesting that they decided to open this film with the unused opening from one of early Hampton Fancher drafts from the 1982 film?


Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great movie. Felt like Blade Runner despite the 30 something year gap. Which is more than most remakes, reboots, and sequels can say. 

 

That said I was bummed out by the lack of textural detail in the film. The original was just rich in visual textures and little touches that took the film, regardless of story and acting and music, to another dimension. 

 

By the third act the film looked as sterile and streamlined as Tron. 

 

Is Deakins to blame? Or did Denis just not take time for the little touches? But he had 40 extra minutes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit.  It was long but I didn't mind.  I found it very immersive and enjoyed the long shots.  I thought the cast was very good and fit in to the universe and Villeneuve did a fabulous job of continuing the story without making it feel like a reboot.  I can't imagine Ridley Scott could have done a better job.  The visuals and special effects were excellent.  The music also felt very much consistent with the Blade Runner sound though granted there are cues taken from the original however the original score from Wallfisch/Zimmer was very appropriate and fit the movie well.  I liked how the story continued where BladeRunner left off rather than rebooting it.  My thought about the ending scene of Decker meeting his daughter was to give the film a finale that didn't require another sequel.  The only criticism is that it didn't quite reach the metaphysical level that the original did.  The art direction was fantastic.  I would certainly recommend this to any fan of the original film.  I like Ryan Gosling but I know he drives some people nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, karelm said:

My thought about the ending scene of Decker meeting his daughter was to give the film a finale that didn't require another sequel.

 

While there's truth to that, I wonder if some stuff was included mostly to leave the door opened for potential sequels (the underground Replicant rebellion that comes out of nowhere for just one scene and then is never mentioned again, the fact that Wallace is still alive at the end of the film...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

While there's truth to that, I wonder if some stuff was included mostly to leave the door opened for potential sequels (the underground Replicant rebellion that comes out of nowhere for just one scene and then is never mentioned again, the fact that Wallace is still alive at the end of the film...).

I can't wait for the spin-off movie where Wallace will find himself competing with yet another brilliant man... Peter Wayland. This, of course, will lead to the creation of the ultimate replicant David... who, as we know, has an agenda of his own. Finally, this android's obsession with creation will be explained... it's the legacy of his three terrible fathers.

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, crocodile said:

I can't wait for the spin-off movie where Wallace will find himself competing with yet another brilliant man... Peter Wayland. This, of course, will lead to the creation of the ultimate replicant David... who, as we know, has an agenda of his own. Finally, this android's obsession with creation will be explained... it's the legacy of his three terrible fathers.

 

Brilliant!

 

8 minutes ago, publicist said:

And let's thank god for that.

 

Oh, yeah, I wouldn't have wanted more of that either (really felt out of place here), but it begs the question: why is it here in the first place? And as I see it, there are only two logical explanations: it was more developed in the original cut of the film but most scenes having to do with it were deleted or it's here as a potential idea to be explored in a sequel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the point of Wallace being blind?  It didn't really add anything to the character or his modus operandi.  One other thing I liked about the film is how much the characters seemed to exist in the same place as the 1982 odd characters.  I thought the women were all extremely beautiful even when deadly.  Luv seemed to embody Sean Young.  Speaking of Sean Young, did she contribute to this film?  She is credited in IMDB but I can't tell if she took part or just her likeness was used requiring her to get credit and payment.  The excessive Sony brand placement was annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, karelm said:

What was the point of Wallace being blind?  It didn't really add anything to the character or his modus operandi.

 

My guess is that it is to reinforce the man/machine relationship thematic (since he can see using the chip next to his ear to control the flying robots), with the separation between the two becoming blurrier and blurrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

Oh, yeah, I wouldn't have wanted more of that either (really felt out of place here), but it begs the question: why is it here in the first place? And as I see it, there are only two logical explanations: it was more developed in the original cut of the film but most scenes having to do with it were deleted or it's here as a potential idea to be explored in a sequel.

 

I'm sure they were meant to be explore that further in the original script. Maybe they were just supposed to be a one-off thing. I need to see the film again though. 

 

Unfortunately I doubt there's gonna be another sequel, at least if the box office results are anything to go by. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want another sequel as I don't want Blade Runner to become a franchise, so I'm fine with the movie not doing well at the box-office in that regard. That being said, it is a shame for those involved, because they did some good work and the film at least gave us something different than most blockbusters these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, not sure how much 3-hour, slow sci-fi flicks sell to the masses...

 

It's a shame, because Villeneuve was had a pretty good box office record till now. I wonder how this fares for Dune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this!

 

Solid film. The climactic action scene and the final scene in the snow were great (that final aerial shot of K with the snow will probably be my most enduring image from this film), although prior to that there wasn't much emotion or intrigue to the plot IMO. There were lots of nice shots, and the score meshed beautifully with the images (and was mixed very highly!) However, the locations were all pretty dreary. Most of them didn't really feel "inspired" to me. My favorite location from the original was the LA streets, bars, etc., and unfortunately we really didn't see all that much of that here. 

 

I'm definitely glad I saw the original beforehand (thanks BloodBoal! ;)) It added a lot of important context. The film was very deliberately paced -- I kept wondering when Ford would ever show up! My biggest annoyance was that it was LOUD, from the opening scene's blasting music to the ear-splitting SFX. I felt like my ears were going to explode. 

 

I was a little disappointed that the story was so straightforward. The reviews had all promised some major, shocking plot twists, but I really was never shocked, although there were some interesting reveals. 

 

All in all, an impressive film, probably about equal to the original in my book. But I wouldn't say I rank the original all that highly, although it is good. It's certainly far from one of my favorite movies of all time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was amazing.  I didn't spoil myself with anything so I didn't know what to expect going into it.  I did find it great that the daughter was a memory maker.  

 

So is Deckard a replicant or not?  I don't think so.  Although the Wallace talked, it made it sound like he thought Deckard was.  But Deckard didn't respond either way.  

 

The music.  Hmmm.... Doesn't touch the greatness of the maestro, Vangelis.  Although it serves the film well.  There are hints of Vangelis' original here and there, with a great callback to Tears in Rain.  But it does not have that memorableness to it.  Even though the visuals gave the music plenty of room to breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Really? I thought that was one of the weakest aspects of the film.

 

I can definitely see why some may think that, but I thought it was very dramatic. Wallfisch/Zimmer's score worked great in that scene. 

 

Certainly, it was nothing revolutionary, but I thought it gave the film some emotional weight that I hadn't really felt up until that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the climax very much as well

It was the moment where I finally saw the point to the whole Luv character too

(Not that she wasnt entertaining before that, but that scene put it all into a context that fit with the standard blade runner themes) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 8, 2017 at 10:04 AM, karelm said:

Speaking of Sean Young, did she contribute to this film?  She is credited in IMDB but I can't tell if she took part or just her likeness was used requiring her to get credit and payment.

 

There was an article somewhere mentioning that she did film new material on-the-sly, but I was wondering about this, too. Was her face captured and manipulated to mimic the footage from 1982, or did she actually film new scenes that were eventually cut out?

 

Also, was anyone else bummed/confused that Gaff, of all people, ended up in a retirement home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I discovered more. Little details and connections from one end of the movie to the other....without hammering you over the head THAT THIS IS A CONNECTION. Beautiful cinematography and atmosphere, masterful transitions. On the second viewing I realized how well done the pacing of the film is.

 

You are watching and learning the story in step with Gosling’s character. You don’t know more at any point, and you don’t know less. And the rare occasions you do feel a step ahead, there is just enough ambiguity to make you doubt, so you can’t runaway and solve the puzzle. That’s the mark of a good detective movie to me.

 

I still felt some of the sets and lighting were disappointingly sterile and TRON: Legacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it this afternnon and I must admit... I loved it.

 

True to the first Blade-Runner. Superb image, good musical ambiance. Great.

 

But the 1.000.000 $ question is: are the Replicants won?.... or not?

 

And I guess, that if Deckard took age...well it's because he's human after all.

 

But wait a minute, if Replicants can now gave birth... why they can't take age too.... 

 

F***, we know nothing :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...