Blade Runner: Final Cut

[Bespin 8,480]

Everytime I see this movie I buy a bottle of this.

 

[A24 4,331]

 

A French docu (Arte).

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

"BLADE RUNNER is the most influential film, ever made".

Discuss.

[A24 4,331]

It certainly influenced me. 

 

 

 

[bruce marshall 1,315]

On 5/29/2021 at 12:47 PM, Naïve Old Fart said:

"BLADE RUNNER is the most influential film, ever made".

Discuss.

I thought you " quit us"?

[A24 4,331]

Richard was quit when he came back, saw that Drax & Gruesome are still gone, and now he's twice as quit. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,709]

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

Richard was quit when he came back, saw that Drax & Gruesome are still gone, and now he's twice as quit. 

He knows the score. You’re JWFanner or you’re little people.

[Nick1Ø66 4,709]

I’m actually watching 2049 tonight for the second time.

Thought it was a worthy sequel the first time I watched & curious to see how it holds up.

[A24 4,331]

Meh!

[rough cut 1,714]

2049 is a good movie, that - not only is able to stand on its own - but also gently and caringly builds on the lore established by the original.

 

Not many sequels that are produced 25 years after the fact can say that.

[Jay 37,336]

I agree with rough cut!

 

But of course it was 35 years later, not 25

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

I agree to but I have to add that not many sequels have been produced 35 years after the fact. I actually can only see one other (TFA)

[rough cut 1,714]

Oops!

 

Well, point is, it’s hard to make a good sequel and the further away from the original, the harder it gets.

 

I was just trying to point out that I think they did really well considering the huge amount of time that has passed.

[A24 4,331]

I think it's mainly liked by those who never liked loved the first movie, like my son. I know it sounds harsh but the truth often hurts. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

And you still refer to him as your son?

[GerateWohl 4,350]

I think, I already said it before somewhere in this thread. I did not like the movie 2049. Because for me it makes the same mistake like Prometheus, a little story about a group of people, which is originally supposed to be just one of many other stories in a universe suddenly in the late sequel becomes super important and results in some kind of a christ like saviour story or a craddle of mankind story or meaning of life story.

 

But I liked the animé short film. Favourite quote from it, the one replicant asking the other one "When we die, do we go to heaven?" That gave me goose bumps.

[A24 4,331]

Indeed! Well said, GerateWohl. And not only that, I thought Villeneuve showed us an unlayered, clean world with no interesting characters and average quality dialog. It's watchable, but that's all I can say about it.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

And you still refer to him as your son?

 

Kinship!

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

24 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Oops!

 

Well, point is, it’s hard to make a good sequel and the further away from the original, the harder it gets.

 

I was just trying to point out that I think they did really well considering the huge amount of time that has passed.

Yeah I've got what you mean.

 

16 minutes ago, AC1 said:

I think it's mainly liked by those who never liked loved the first movie, like my son. I know it sounds harsh but the truth often hurts. 

Or people who loved the first movie and who knows that it cannot be remake. So they enjoy what's enjoyable in the sequel without always spitting on it because it's obviously less good than the original

[GerateWohl 4,350]

15 minutes ago, May the Force be with You said:

Or people who loved the first movie and who knows that it cannot be remake. So they enjoy what's enjoyable in the sequel without always spitting on it because it's obviously less good than the original

I don't think that this is the point. Look, I am one of the three people that liked the Matrix sequels. I would have prefered they had shortened the action sequences and merged the two sequels into one movie, nur anyway. The sequels were a logical development of the story from the first movie. Neo was a saviour from the very beginning, so that was his story. Therefore, in my eyes good sequel.

2049 mystified the story in a way that did not do any good. A little bit like in the Highlander sequel where Sean Connery's character is suddenly alive again and now they came from a foreign planet. That was as well a bad sequel.

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

2 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

2049 mystified the story in a way that did not do any good.

 

I can't even remember what the story was, except that Ford had a daughter who was "special".

[GerateWohl 4,350]

Yes, it's a little bit like with the babies of the lesbian dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, who can't have babies, but they should have, so they can in the movie.

Something like that.

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

5 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

2049 mystified the story in a way that did not do any good.

The story is indeed really different from the first one, with different objectives because of different characters so it's kind of logical that it isn't told the same way.

Villeneuve really succeed to give this new mystical dimension to a universe without taking away the main visual atmosphere nor the essence of Ford's character and I think it's really good.

At the end BR2049 use the opposite approach to TFA when it comes to make a late sequel: either you bring a lot of new materials and give a different tone to your movie or you're focusing on the old plot to keep the exact same coherence without bringing to much original materials. In either case if you loved the original movie and are not fine with this two approaches you'll be disappointed because it's either too far or too close from the original, so one advice if you're in this case: just keep to the original!

Just now, GerateWohl said:

Yes, it's a little bit like with the babies of the lesbian dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, who can't have babies, but they should have, so they can in the movie.

Something like that.

0:48. Just rewatch this

 

[GerateWohl 4,350]

Just now, May the Force be with You said:

The story is indeed really different from the first one, with different objectives because of different characters so it's kind of logical that it isn't told the same way.

Villeneuve really succeed to give this new mystical dimension to a universe without taking away the main visual atmosphere nor the essence of Ford's character and I think it's really good.

At the end BR2049 use the opposite approach to TFA when it comes to make a late sequel: either you bring a lot of new materials and give a different tone to your movie or you're focusing on the old plot to keep the exact same coherence without bringing to much original materials. In either case if you loved the original movie and are not fine with this two approaches you'll be disappointed because it's either too far or too close from the original, so one advice if you're in this case: just keep to the original!

I treat you to like the sequel regardless of its flaws. But turning it into one of these thousands of Hollywood's saviour stories was a cheap move plotwise. So yes. I stick to the original. 

One thing I liked about Villeneuve's story, that he did not pick up Ridley Scott's not so brillant idea making Deckard a replicant.

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

10 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

Yes, it's a little bit like with the babies of the lesbian dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, who can't have babies, but they should have, so they can in the movie.

Something like that.

 

Kinky!

[GerateWohl 4,350]

10 minutes ago, May the Force be with You said:

0:48. Just rewatch this

 

Not necessary. I saw that in the cinema already.

[A24 4,331]

44 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

 

One thing I liked about Villeneuve's story, that he did not pick up Ridley Scott's not so brillant idea making Deckard a replicant.

 

Even before filming began, Villeneuve said he wanted to keep that completely in the dark. 

 

 

And of course, nobody got my 'kinship' joke. What amateurs you all are!

[Nick1Ø66 4,709]

2 hours ago, AC1 said:

I think it's mainly liked by those who never liked loved the first movie, like my son. I know it sounds harsh but the truth often hurts. 

 

Perhaps. But I'm fairly certain of one thing...Villeneuve made a better sequel than Scott would have.

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

15 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

I treat you to like the sequel regardless of its flaws.

Nah. 2049 is a good example, I'm not a fan of it, really didn't like the weakness of the story for instance but this weakness doesn't make a bad movie

[A24 4,331]

8 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Perhaps. But I'm fairly certain of one thing...Villeneuve made a better sequel than Scott would have.

 

Sure, but Scott is old. Mohammed Ali wouldn't make it through the first round against Floyd Mayweather either!

[Nick1Ø66 4,709]

9 minutes ago, AC1 said:

 

Sure, but Scott is old. Mohammed Ali wouldn't make it through the first round against Mayweather either!

 

What did you think of A Good Year? It's one of the few Scott films I haven't seen.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

2 hours ago, AC1 said:

I think it's mainly liked by those who never liked loved the first movie, like my son. I know it sounds harsh but the truth often hurts. 

 

Perhaps. I never loved the first one (though I have a lot of respect for it), but I find much to admire in BR2049. It might not have the best story, but neither did the first one - it had "ideas" (the sequel does, too), but I always found the actual story/plot one of its weak point.

[A24 4,331]

43 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

What did you think of A Good Year? It's one of the few Scott films I haven't seen.

 

That's a pretty average move, maybe not even that. I keep saying All The Money In The World is his best movie in... a very, very long time. It has that same effortlessness of Thelma & Louise . Scott's direction swings, it grooves.  

 

41 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Perhaps. I never loved the first one (though I have a lot of respect for it), but I find much to admire in BR2049. It might not have the best story, but neither did the first one - it had "ideas" (the sequel does, too), but I always found the actual story/plot one of its weak point.

 

In Blade Runner, the story was merely a bonus*, and it's certainly not my main gripe with the sequel. 

 

 

*Just as it is in Alien.

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

56 minutes ago, AC1 said:

Floyd Mayweather wouldn't make it through the first round against Mohammed Ali either!

Fixed. Ali bomayé!

[A24 4,331]

50 years ago, sure. 

[GerateWohl 4,350]

The first BR was extremely thrilling.  I remember that my stomace still hurt from all the tension when I left the cinema. Marvelous showdown. The second BR2049 had a lot, but no thrill at all. Was a little bit like Alien 4 compared to Alien 1. In the first one your stomace hurts, in the other one you sit there and think "Probably interesting."

[bruce marshall 1,315]

5 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

I’m actually watching 2049 tonight for the second time.

Thought it was a worthy sequel the first time I watched & curious to see how it holds up.

I watched it twice for the visual splendor

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

10 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

I remember that my stomace still hurt from all the tension when I left the cinema.

 

Possibly gas from eating too much cinema popcorn?

[GerateWohl 4,350]

Just now, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Possibly gas from eating too much cinema popcorn?

Yeah. Maybe it was just that.

[A24 4,331]

Please take our experiences seriously, JS. 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

Gas is a serious problem.

[A24 4,331]

I was 15 and Alien was the very first KNT* movie that I watched in theaters. I was shaking from tension most of the time (especially after the chestburster scene).

 

 

*Kinderen onder 16 Niet Toegelaten

 

[SteveMc 2,674]

4 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Because for me it makes the same mistake like Prometheus, a little story about a group of people, which is originally supposed to be just one of many other stories in a universe suddenly in the late sequel becomes super important and results in some kind of a christ like saviour story or a craddle of mankind story or meaning of life story.

This is a valid criticism.  Perhaps the cropping up of this sort of thing in modern sequels it is reflective of how modern societies have lost a lot of their sense of meaning and purpose, so people look to myth, in this case the cinema of the 70s and 80s, and instinctively want those myths to be made more overarching in an obvious way.

 

I have very mixed feelings on 2049.  Can't help but feel it missed out on the most interesting and provoking possibilities of its story.

[blondheim 1,157]

4 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Yes, it's a little bit like with the babies of the lesbian dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, who can't have babies, but they should have, so they can in the movie.

Something like that.

 

I think you mean asexual. In the film, amphibian DNA was used to fill the gaps in the dinosaurs' codes and amphibians have been known to breed asexually in one-gender communities. But the female dinosaurs weren't falling in love and impregnating each other.

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

Of course they did.

[Nick1Ø66 4,709]

19 minutes ago, blondheim said:

But the female dinosaurs weren't falling in love and impregnating each other.

 

Nonsense. JWFanners are a single sex species, and they reproduce.

 

Nature finds a way.

[HunterTech 989]

7 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

I think, I already said it before somewhere in this thread. I did not like the movie 2049. Because for me it makes the same mistake like Prometheus, a little story about a group of people, which is originally supposed to be just one of many other stories in a universe suddenly in the late sequel becomes super important and results in some kind of a christ like saviour story or a craddle of mankind story or meaning of life story.

 

Except wasn't the point of the film that it ultimately wasn't that? Sure, that aspect of the story certainly exists to drive the plot forward, but K pretty much abandons everything the rebel replicants told him to do, so that he could rescue Dekard and get him back to his daughter. It honestly more depends on what a follow up does with that particular set up, but I doubt those two would want to help a group of people that wanted one of them dead in the first place. Hell, with the way the first movie sets it up about how Rachel is a special replicant in some sense (depending on the cut), then wouldn't it be inevitable for the attention to be placed on them eventually (especially when being on the run)?

 

And I find it amusing you use "craddle of mankind/meaning of life story," since that was actually a complaint a friend had about the original, given he always felt the rogue replicants were a confused/extremely vague way of approaching that sort of thing.

 

Gotta admit: regardless of how you feel about either film, it at least invites a lot of discussion.

[A24 4,331]

Holy cow, I posted my signature quote by Chris Alexander in the facebook Blade Runner group and it has completely gone viral!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

Link, please.

[rough cut 1,714]

Link or it didn’t happen 😂

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

This is Alex we're talking about. Of course it happened!