Jump to content

Blade Runner 2049


englishbob
 Share

Recommended Posts

4K is such an expensive outlay for me. Would involve a new TV, new Blu-ray player (which are still in the high price range) and if the player doesn't have dual HDMI sockets a brand new AV amp as well. 

 

Stepping to 4K is not something I think I'll be taking until hardware natural retirement (i.e. it breaks).

 

Anyway that BR 4K edition is very bare bones in comparison to editions before it. It has a $44 price tag on Amazon.com 

 

Hopefully Warners will resupply the standard 1080p Blu-Ray with all the editions on again, as they have been out of print for a long time and going for silly money on the 2nd hand market. When it gets to this stage it needs to be stamped out, otherwise (IMO) piracy is fair game if you are not going to make your product available.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is looking pretty good.

 

Spoiler

My prediction: Deckard was one of a few "advanced" replicants made at the time. They can reproduce, grow old and die. That's why everyone is after him. And I'm thinking the twist is gonna be Gosling's is his son.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Despin said:

This is looking pretty good.

 

  Hide contents

My prediction: Deckard was one of a few "advanced" replicants made at the time. They can reproduce, grow old and die. That's why everyone is after him. And I'm thinking the twist is gonna be Gosling's is his son.

 

 

Spoiler

Do you think Ford would've done the sequel, if that's the case? He's been pretty adamant down the years that Deckard isn't a replicant and Ridley Scott is talking out of his arse. I hope he isn't a replicant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The environments look amazing.

And I dare say the acting might be ok too.

 

Story and pacing, fuck knows. It feels a lot more action and less noir thriller from the trailer, but that's trailers.

Plus, as smitty says, it kinda doesnt need to exist in this form. The setting has plenty more story in it, but we didnt really need deckard.

 

Ahhh. Please dont be shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New trailer is all kinds of amazing. So many stunning looking sets, I started to wonder how they're going to fit them all in

Was a bit disappointed with the first trailer. Second one has definitely corrected that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was 10 years old when this first came out. Probably 12 when I first saw this film. Did I understand it? I doubt it. But I was entranced to the same levels of seeing Star Wars when 6. I barely remember it, more remember Empire, but it was this film - Blade Runner that captured me with the music (which set me on my road to falling in love with synthesisers and me bugging my dad to buy me my first one around 4 years later. It was a DX21, but I loved it and did my best to mimic that Vangelis sound (even though it was of course the far superior CS80. However it was something else as well. Harrison Ford was believable, the effects for the time stand up today, but the musc, that opening music still to this day make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

 

I think we're far too critical of movies nowadays but hope this lives up to be my second most favourite movie of all time. My first, well that's reserved for of course Blade Runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it looks amazing, still not as visually good as the original but I'll be there to watch it for sure.

 

If it's shit I can just forget about it and just pretend the original was the only one made, if its good and adds to the world then perfect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/07/2017 at 19:03, Monkeyboy said:

 

  Hide contents

Do you think Ford would've done the sequel, if that's the case? He's been pretty adamant down the years that Deckard isn't a replicant and Ridley Scott is talking out of his arse. I hope he isn't a replicant.

 

 

Spoiler

Didn't hebdo an interview with him saying "It doesn't matter what I think".

 

I think it really undercuts the original if he is a replicant, though appreciate there's a lot of debate on it. But the trailer seems to be hinting that way, unless it's a misdirect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/07/2017 at 19:03, Monkeyboy said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Do you think Ford would've done the sequel, if that's the case? He's been pretty adamant down the years that Deckard isn't a replicant and Ridley Scott is talking out of his arse. I hope he isn't a replicant.

 

why would you hope that... it makes the whole thing philosphically "less" if that was the case.

 

much more interesting if it were the case. It would be to take a spellbinding film and cut out part of its heart.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Clipper said:

why would you hope that... it makes the whole thing philosphically "less" if that was the case.

 

much more interesting if it were the case. It would be to take a spellbinding film and cut out part of its heart.

 

 

 

I take the opposite position

 

Spoiler

I think it's much less interesting if it's machines chasing machines, since the core of the story is what it is to be human. The added subplot of the police using a Replicant Declare detracts ultimately, I think.

 

Deckard is more unambiguously human in the base story.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 24/07/2017 at 20:35, kensei said:

 

I take the opposite position

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I think it's much less interesting if it's machines chasing machines, since the core of the story is what it is to be human. The added subplot of the police using a Replicant Declare detracts ultimately, I think.

 

Deckard is more unambiguously human in the base story.

 

I didnt reply previously as it is all a matter of opinion but I will clarify my position in relation to this, purely so we both understand each other's position even if we don't agree :)

 

I think it is more interesting if

 

 

 


Deckard is a replicant. Other machines/replicants are striving to be human. However one already is "as human" or maybe even "more human" than a human. Therefore is "human" what they should be striving for or should they be pushing to be better than that. Where does that evolution lead them?  Batty and co were in fact behind the times and children by comparison (a theme played on by the film).

 

In some ways Deckard is looking at his past when looking at replicants and being told to erase it and he has been led there by humans trying to deny the evolution before them. But they have fallen into the same trap by trying to use machines to do the job for them. Their answer is to develop more advanced machines to control the older models and eventually it will be their undoing. The escape by Deckard and Rachel shows they are trying to break from this programming and evolve once more exactly as the Batty models did, the experiences with batty and co solidifying their own sense of being and helping their evolutionary path.

 

So ostensibly the older models, despite being cruder, are helping replicants to evolve, albeit newer models.
 

It reminds me of The Last Man on Earth. The new beings are the next step in evolution they have outstripped the humans and out evolved them.
 

 

 

 

 

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.