Jump to content
IGNORED

Blade Runner 2049


englishbob
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, gizmo1990 said:

Couldn’t find a Bladerunner thread. 

 

Because it's two words? :)

 

There have been a few threads in ATF asking which cut to watch, but this is the main previous one in Film & TV:

 

There was also this, about the initial news of the sequel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

It looks so much better than i thought it would, like that is a set up photo to demonstrate, though if you zoom in on Harrison Ford's right eye that is real fear. Gosling seems like such a fun person, he always has great chemistry with his cast mates on talk show sofas. 

 

It genuinely makes me gutted we won't see The Nice Guys 2 because all the rich people in the world who could fund it are failures to the human race. He's so bloody good in it.

 

And now I'm disappointed we won't see a buddy film with Gosling and Ford. It's probably too late given his age. Listening to the film stories podcast has made me realise so many films only exist as vehicles for actors, either to show different sides of them or to join them up with another actor or director. I've never looked at Twins and thought; that film exists because Arnold had dinner with Ivan Reitman and Ivan was like; heh you're good at telling stories, there's another side to you that doesn't come through when you're playing killing machines. And then for Ivan to send off several writers to come up with ideas that could work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

It looks so much better than i thought it would, like that is a set up photo to demonstrate, though if you zoom in on Harrison Ford's right eye that is real fear. Gosling seems like such a fun person, he always has great chemistry with his cast mates on talk show sofas. 

 

There's an interview with them from This Morning at the time of the films release. It's on Youtube. It's with the lady who I think was on Big Brother years ago. Angela or something like that? Anyway she brings them a bottle of whiskey as a gift which at some point they get into. I remember laughing out loud at it. That was a while ago and frankly I might have been pished at the time but it stuck in my memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/06/2021 at 18:17, Loik V credern said:

IT HAS EMERGED  (or has it been revealed before, first i've seen it anyway)

image.thumb.png.dcfd2f3d3cfd530a5cae3b862927ebfb.png

 

:lol:

 

Gosling: "A Harrison Ford punch is a different animal altogether"

 

Ford: "It was not a good punch"

 

Gosling: "I'll be the judge of that"

 

Gosling's expression says to me "I just took a real punch from Indiana Jones. This was a good day."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

After a recent re-watch, probably only the third time I've seen it, I struggled a bit with the plot - I mean even the original has a hole (how does Batty know Deckards name?) 

Spoiler

I thought the baby/child replicant plot, and the two factions that wanted the child - those being Wallace Corporation and the Replicant resistance - both seemed to me to want the same thing but ended up going toe-to-toe with each other, whereas the police wanted it dead.

 

It's not really explained why Luv (played amazingly well by Sylvia Hoeks) gets an alarm call when K checks in the front desk with Rachel's DNA - did they already know a replicant baby was out there, and they were just waiting for a knock on the door with the answers?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wallace wants the child because he thinks they're the key to unlocking reproduction among the Replicants. Basically a cheaper alternative to the no doubt costly and slow process of creating a Replicant from scratch. He wants to own a completely self-replicating species.

 

The resistance understands that the child represents an undeniable change in humanity's perception of Replicants. If they can reproduce the way 'nature intended', aren't they all the more similar to ourselves, rather than tools manufactured for specific purposes? At the same time, they do want to protect the child because they know the dangers of that attention.

 

K's boss realises the truth of the child would be such a culture shock for the general population it's best to just sweep everything under the rug.

 

As far as Luv goes, I assume they'd flag anything to do with the anomaly that was Deckard and Rachel. I don't think they know about the child to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sabreman said:

Wallace wants the child because he thinks they're the key to unlocking reproduction among the Replicants. Basically a cheaper alternative to the no doubt costly and slow process of creating a Replicant from scratch. He wants to own a completely self-replicating species.

 

 

I have only seen it once but my recollection is that they went to great pains to not say explicitly that Deckard was a replicant. Therefore isn't all this coloured by the fact that we either deduce the child is a product of two replicants OR a product of a replicant and a human. Either scenario places a different complexion on the motives the various parties have. Ironically those motives are more interesting and complicated if Deckard is human.

 

I personally disliked the fact that 2049 fudged its way around the issue as I have always been of the opinion Deckard is a replicant and it makes the original far more interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always ascribe to the theory that Deckards eyes don't "glow" like all the replicants do, thus he is human. But there is a scene where you can with freeze frame and magnification, see Deckards eyes have a red tint. It depends on where you want to draw the line really. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Clipper said:

I have always been of the opinion Deckard is a replicant and it makes the original far more interesting.

 

You're with Ridley Scott on that one but personally I think it's a richer film - and final fight in particular - with a weak, knackered, privileged human fighting a robot who's the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Gigawatt said:


The point I took from 2049 is that the question of whether or not Deckard is a replicant is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter, what matters is that replicants and humans are similar enough to not be treated differently. It’s the movie’s biggest triumph for me and why I love it so much, it takes a 35 year old unanswered question and skewers it. This film is a modern masterpiece for me. 

I disagree with the last bit but can see that interpretation certainly. It is a more worthwhile sequel than 2010 which tried to do a similar job to this film but failed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it’s a marmite film and I’d never criticise anyone who doesn’t like it. I know a lot of people don’t like the slow pace of it, but that really works for me. I’ll admit that Jared Leto is hamming it up a bit too much. But it looks and sounds amazing and the story really worked for me. Plus it has one of the most inventive sexy-time scenes that I can think of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to rewatch blade runner soon as it has been too long (it is a top 3 all time movie for me).

 

I will rewatch 2049 afterwards as I have only seen it once which is doing it a disservice I think given the sentiments in this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gigawatt said:

I suppose it’s a marmite film and I’d never criticise anyone who doesn’t like it. I know a lot of people don’t like the slow pace of it, but that really works for me. I’ll admit that Jared Leto is hamming it up a bit too much. But it looks and sounds amazing and the story really worked for me. Plus it has one of the most inventive sexy-time scenes that I can think of. 


It’s not the slow pace I don’t like, and if anything it could do with being a lot more studied. It’s the fact that from the second Harrison Ford turns up the rest of the film is a fat pile of wank. If K had smashed his hover car into one of those nude statues and then the credits rolled it would be an excellent movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Clipper said:

I need to rewatch blade runner soon as it has been too long (it is a top 3 all time movie for me).

 

I will rewatch 2049 afterwards as I have only seen it once which is doing it a disservice I think given the sentiments in this thread. 

 

I did this recently, one night after the other. The original is nice and punchy and moves along nicely, 2049 is too long - and misses the point by not having a decent soundtrack

 

I'd certainly welcome maybe one more film in this universe though, but there is no point retreading what has gone on before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/05/2022 at 10:50, Clipper said:

I have only seen it once but my recollection is that they went to great pains to not say explicitly that Deckard was a replicant. Therefore isn't all this coloured by the fact that we either deduce the child is a product of two replicants OR a product of a replicant and a human. Either scenario places a different complexion on the motives the various parties have. Ironically those motives are more interesting and complicated if Deckard is human.

 

I personally disliked the fact that 2049 fudged its way around the issue as I have always been of the opinion Deckard is a replicant and it makes the original far more interesting.

 

I feel like the child wasn't a product of either and isn't actually real - well, as real as Joi is real, but neither human or replicant. I like that the first film has this preoccupation with whether Decker is human or a replicant, but the second resolves this issue by saying that ultimately it doesn't really matter. He loved Rachel, K loved Joi and Deckard decides to accept what is presented to him, as unlikely as it seems.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, englishbob said:

2049 is too long - and misses the point by not having a decent soundtrack

 

 

 

Man, Zimmer doing jukebox Vangelis is an absolute tragedy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.