Blade Runner 2022
If the movie will be of similar quality, I'm not sure how worth it it'll be.
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
Blade Runner 2022 If the movie will be of similar quality, I'm not sure how worth it it'll be. | ||
Frolossus
United States4779 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + it was a super gorgeous movie that had a lot in common with the original and carried a great atmosphere. however i just can't picture deckard's character ever having a child and i feel that they created this relationship between him and rachel out of thin air | ||
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
PhoenixVoid
Canada32725 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Gorgeous movie with evocative shots and does a great job of building a dystopia where life is eroding away. The city presents itself with all the neon signs in Asian languages and holograms advertising as you expect. I thought the performances were great, but the plot left a lot more to desire. Wallace didn't feel like a complete character who had a proper end, and just why does K have the memories of Deckard's daughter? The ending wasn't like the first BR, which left long-lingering questions about the characters. In this one, I was just wondering why it felt like such sequel bait with the revolution left hanging and Wallace's fate. I enjoyed it as a visual spectacle, but I didn't feel so enthusiastic about the narrative. | ||
ahw
Canada1099 Posts
On October 07 2017 07:14 PhoenixVoid wrote: Thoughts after viewing + Show Spoiler + Gorgeous movie with evocative shots and does a great job of building a dystopia where life is eroding away. The city presents itself with all the neon signs in Asian languages and holograms advertising as you expect. I thought the performances were great, but the plot left a lot more to desire. Wallace didn't feel like a complete character who had a proper end, and just why does K have the memories of Deckard's daughter? The ending wasn't like the first BR, which left long-lingering questions about the characters. In this one, I was just wondering why it felt like such sequel bait with the revolution left hanging and Wallace's fate. I enjoyed it as a visual spectacle, but I didn't feel so enthusiastic about the narrative. Ending discussion ~ + Show Spoiler + K has the memories of deckard’s daughter because she was unintentionally creating them for K. She alluded to this when she was explaining the creator always puts a bit of themselves in to it. Wallace was awfully wordy in both of his scenes (I only counted 2 in a 3 hour movie) and would’ve been better having said nothing I don’t think it’s sequel bait because the revolution isn’t interesting and, more importantly, it doesn’t fit bladerunner storytelling. It’s the same reason the first matrix movie is the only good one. The revolution itself isn’t interesting, it’s the psych / social issues with replicants that are cool and unique. Also walllace isn’t a character so they can’t build a sequel off him. I think the narrative was decidedly straight forward because the original was decidedly straight forward. Seemed like a homage choice to me. The only difference this time was the flashbacks / reminding us over and over again of key points... but that’s a Hollywood movie for you nowadays. I think they do the original justice in keeping deckard’s identity ambiguous, cause the “miracle” works either way. Also, in restrospect, the ending makes K a really interesting character because he is quite literally nobody in the grand scheme of things. it’s easy to forget because he is the focal character, but it actually makes the whole story a lot more complex if you think of the implications for how an entire society of similar beings could act (as he is one of many) and it turns out there is nothing unique about him (he’s not the “miracle” child). I actually think the little glimpses we get of the revolutionaries weakens this impact and it would’ve been better left as rumor or alluded to. Overall, I think it is a good sci fi film and a great homage to the original. It’s weakened by a bad villain and some “spell-it-out-to-them-cause-it’s-2017-and-they’re-stupid”-style narrative flashbacks. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17041 Posts
Definitely recommended. | ||
Alaric
France45622 Posts
On October 07 2017 15:29 ahw wrote: Show nested quote + On October 07 2017 07:14 PhoenixVoid wrote: Thoughts after viewing + Show Spoiler + Gorgeous movie with evocative shots and does a great job of building a dystopia where life is eroding away. The city presents itself with all the neon signs in Asian languages and holograms advertising as you expect. I thought the performances were great, but the plot left a lot more to desire. Wallace didn't feel like a complete character who had a proper end, and just why does K have the memories of Deckard's daughter? The ending wasn't like the first BR, which left long-lingering questions about the characters. In this one, I was just wondering why it felt like such sequel bait with the revolution left hanging and Wallace's fate. I enjoyed it as a visual spectacle, but I didn't feel so enthusiastic about the narrative. Ending discussion ~ + Show Spoiler + K has the memories of deckard’s daughter because she was unintentionally creating them for K. She alluded to this when she was explaining the creator always puts a bit of themselves in to it. Wallace was awfully wordy in both of his scenes (I only counted 2 in a 3 hour movie) and would’ve been better having said nothing I don’t think it’s sequel bait because the revolution isn’t interesting and, more importantly, it doesn’t fit bladerunner storytelling. It’s the same reason the first matrix movie is the only good one. The revolution itself isn’t interesting, it’s the psych / social issues with replicants that are cool and unique. Also walllace isn’t a character so they can’t build a sequel off him. I think the narrative was decidedly straight forward because the original was decidedly straight forward. Seemed like a homage choice to me. The only difference this time was the flashbacks / reminding us over and over again of key points... but that’s a Hollywood movie for you nowadays. I think they do the original justice in keeping deckard’s identity ambiguous, cause the “miracle” works either way. Also, in restrospect, the ending makes K a really interesting character because he is quite literally nobody in the grand scheme of things. it’s easy to forget because he is the focal character, but it actually makes the whole story a lot more complex if you think of the implications for how an entire society of similar beings could act (as he is one of many) and it turns out there is nothing unique about him (he’s not the “miracle” child). I actually think the little glimpses we get of the revolutionaries weakens this impact and it would’ve been better left as rumor or alluded to. Overall, I think it is a good sci fi film and a great homage to the original. It’s weakened by a bad villain and some “spell-it-out-to-them-cause-it’s-2017-and-they’re-stupid”-style narrative flashbacks. On one hand, I wouldn't have understood some of these points without the "spelled out flashback", maybe later but certainly not on the spot. I'm pretty dense about that. For all these people watching the movie, making sure they make the connections and get the point is pretty important. On the other hand, I can't help but think the movie would be better, more elegant, without them. So it's a bit of the classic artsy question "do you want your movie to be understood by the people who're going to be exposed to it, or do you want to keep it 'purer' if less accessible?" I think I'd rather they didn't spell it out and I'd just have to get it explained to me later. + Show Spoiler + I'm with you on K's role in the ending. I didn't really see it that way before I saw you mention it, though. The part where he reappropriates the motto "what's the most human thing we can do if not sacrifice ourselves to a cause?" from "Deckard would agree to die to protect us and our revolution" to "K is ready to die to allow Deckard to meet his daughter" was pretty apparent; same with the reasoning he gets from Joi's avatar that makes him value "true" connections and ties with real beings, hence his "devotion" to that cause of Deckard. But I hadn't reframed it as K being a nobody. The point about AIs and engineered feelings and non-people felt pretty ham-fisted, though. It's there as a counterpoint to the flesh and blood relationship between Deckart and his daughter, and that kind of love that doesn't need proximity or being spelt out, so I understand it in a way. But it kind of felt like they developed the theme of whether an artificial intelligence can develop and experience feelings too, in parallel of whether an artifical human can, only to stamp it out during that bridge scene, as if they'd built it up to strengthen their ultimate denial of it. In the end the theme felt more alluded to than really fleshed out—which makes sense considering the expressed opinion about it, but it got the short end of the stick regardless. Points I disliked were Wallace, and Deckart being the father of Rachel's child. Wallace seemed to be written as the philosophical/intellectuel villain there to spout words and seem charismatic, but came out as vain in a way that undermined anything he was supposed to express. Not that his points were great obviously, but I didn't even need a villain in the movie, so getting one dressed up specifically as such, and not much else, was a bit of waste, and an unteresting character. "Rachel" having a defect rather than seeing Deckart's reaction to her and potentially making another point regarding engineered/artificial people (especially before the AI one, by pointing that such people could be mass-produced just the same) would have been more interesting imo. And the point about Deckart being a father in a relationship with Rachel was already laid out. I'd add that the movie definitely pushes the idea of him as a replicant though, be it the "engineered role" speech from Wallace, the allusions by the revolutionaries about how things went, etc. The final "fight" felt sluggish, and not in a good way. The scene was too long, and aside from pointing how durable replicants are I didn't get much for all that fighting after they both take a bullet (K in the belly, Luv in the torso iirc). The ending felt like a succession of scenes at times, and that one being so long didn't help it. I don't need Luv to be The Terminator for her to illustrate a point about devoted servants. One thing I didn't get though was Luv's kiss to K. I see her comment "I am the best one" a pertaining to their confrontation in general rather then the fight just concluded, and her being obedient while he's going against what's been asked of him. Was it to mock emotions and feelings that are generally attached to kisses? As others have said, the visuals are excellent and really lay out an atmosphere for the movie, while also being a callback to the original. I'm not going to say I'm very fond of the OST, but the music did well in its background parts; it was too noisy at times (which detracted from the scenes because of the sudden volume differences) but that may be coming from the cinema I watched it at. | ||
Complete
United States1864 Posts
Maybe that's Blade Runner style. I haven't seen the first one. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42202 Posts
Just now I'm learning that it was a box office flop. Not at all surprising. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17041 Posts
On October 09 2017 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blade Runner 2049 was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Nearly three hours of nothing but blaring music. I actually fell asleep in the theater for a bit, which is something I've never done before. Both my wife and I hated it, and agreed that this movie (a sequel) did not do the original any justice whatsoever. It was as dead and emotionless as Ryan Gosling's face. Just now I'm learning that it was a box office flop. Not at all surprising. First one was a huge box office flop too. Edit: I think that this movie is a bit ahead of its curve. Just like the first one. It took some time for people to realize what it actually was and appreciate it. It's not a true Hollywood movie. The amount of intricacies weaved into it are amazing. It's a multi-layered spectacle and I keep discovering more and more about it. Even freaking release date is meaningful for this movie. Time will tell. Still, the best movie this year has to be Dunkirk. This one could be there as well but some minor flaws prevent it from achieving stellar status. | ||
eviltomahawk
United States11132 Posts
| ||
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
To each his or her own right? You like it or you don't right? No, not really, some movies are art, they change cinema.. change the world... i don't judge people saying they did not like it, they just don't know better and that's fine. That's the particularity with old stuff, seeing it 30 years later completely out of context makes no sense, you have to relate to who was meant to see it (kind of like a job with hardship and mostly hits and misses). Go see silent Chaplin movies (which are art), be convinced that you could not possibly see how important those movies are and then go back to look at stuff you loved, stuff you hated.. you will possibly enjoy this drive down memory lane and maybe you will still like movies and want to decipher/feel movies and rate them from then on, maybe not. Movies are usually a laxative to people, nothing more. They wish to feel "other", feel good, have fun (whatever) but not really be hurt, be changed by the experience. While most movies are sh t, some are not, some are even masterpieces and change the world. i hate the idea to sequel a great movie, but that is based on stupid notions i have and i know it. i will gladly watch this movie (the sequel) which is not meant for me. Yes, i'm too old to appreciate movies made in 2016, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The ideas you get from a movie, the feelings you feel after seeing a great movie is like a memory you are fond of from way back.. so far back that you change that memory year after year (convincing yourself more and more of what you want to feel/know), you love it / hate it and change it to allow yourself a "stable" introspective self comfort. We change stuff and stuff changes us. Ridley scott is a good director and sometimes a great one. What happens after he's done with a movie is inconsequential, you love that movie or hate it and it becomes yours. That there is a market for a sequel is as inconsequential. i freely admit that it will be "harder" for me to invest in the sequel, i'm afraid it will change the fondness i have for this memory/feeling/invented life the first movie made exist. Maybe it will elevate the movie, maybe ruin it.. funny thing is it has more to do with the rest of my life (feeling good or bad, being wounded, being overflowed with anguish about the mountain of things i'm involved in etc) and the movie's task is obviously made harder for it. i write stories and i feel there is important stuff to get out there, and bull sh t.. and possibly grey stuff in the middle sometimes. i got more and more sick with the movies in the last decade, how lame and empty they are, just how dumb/juvenile/apathetic the developers think their audiences are, worse just how lame the end products are (even with good directors at the helm). So i guess i'm doomed, i'll watch it on a comp screen and even if it is to my taste, i will probably search for all that is bad instead of giving it my all for it to succeed. While movies are meant to satisfy, they need their customer to allow themselves to be as open as they possibly can (that hardly ever happens really, but the will to do it is a start!). By the way, so nice to have spoilers in place, thank you for people not spoiling the sequel like the teaser/trailers spoil stuff these days. ps: if you have not seen blade runner, you should see it. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 09 2017 06:56 Manit0u wrote: Show nested quote + On October 09 2017 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blade Runner 2049 was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Nearly three hours of nothing but blaring music. I actually fell asleep in the theater for a bit, which is something I've never done before. Both my wife and I hated it, and agreed that this movie (a sequel) did not do the original any justice whatsoever. It was as dead and emotionless as Ryan Gosling's face. Just now I'm learning that it was a box office flop. Not at all surprising. First one was a huge box office flop too. Edit: I think that this movie is a bit ahead of its curve. Just like the first one. It took some time for people to realize what it actually was and appreciate it. It's not a true Hollywood movie. The amount of intricacies weaved into it are amazing. It's a multi-layered spectacle and I keep discovering more and more about it. Even freaking release date is meaningful for this movie. Time will tell. Still, the best movie this year has to be Dunkirk. This one could be there as well but some minor flaws prevent it from achieving stellar status. at a very basic level, BR2049 reminds me of inception but not dumbed down. 100% agreed on dunkirk though, i don't think i've ever been so invested in a movie. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17041 Posts
On October 09 2017 17:00 fluidrone wrote: Blade runner is an awesome movie. To each his or her own right? You like it or you don't right? No, not really, some movies are art, they change cinema.. change the world... i don't judge people saying they did not like it, they just don't know better and that's fine. That's the particularity with old stuff, seeing it 30 years later completely out of context makes no sense, you have to relate to who was meant to see it (kind of like a job with hardship and mostly hits and misses). Go see silent Chaplin movies (which are art), be convinced that you could not possibly see how important those movies are and then go back to look at stuff you loved, stuff you hated.. you will possibly enjoy this drive down memory lane and maybe you will still like movies and want to decipher/feel movies and rate them from then on, maybe not. Movies are usually a laxative to people, nothing more. They wish to feel "other", feel good, have fun (whatever) but not really be hurt, be changed by the experience. While most movies are sh t, some are not, some are even masterpieces and change the world. i hate the idea to sequel a great movie, but that is based on stupid notions i have and i know it. i will gladly watch this movie (the sequel) which is not meant for me. Yes, i'm too old to appreciate movies made in 2016, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The ideas you get from a movie, the feelings you feel after seeing a great movie is like a memory you are fond of from way back.. so far back that you change that memory year after year (convincing yourself more and more of what you want to feel/know), you love it / hate it and change it to allow yourself a "stable" introspective self comfort. We change stuff and stuff changes us. Ridley scott is a good director and sometimes a great one. What happens after he's done with a movie is inconsequential, you love that movie or hate it and it becomes yours. That there is a market for a sequel is as inconsequential. i freely admit that it will be "harder" for me to invest in the sequel, i'm afraid it will change the fondness i have for this memory/feeling/invented life the first movie made exist. Maybe it will elevate the movie, maybe ruin it.. funny thing is it has more to do with the rest of my life (feeling good or bad, being wounded, being overflowed with anguish about the mountain of things i'm involved in etc) and the movie's task is obviously made harder for it. i write stories and i feel there is important stuff to get out there, and bull sh t.. and possibly grey stuff in the middle sometimes. i got more and more sick with the movies in the last decade, how lame and empty they are, just how dumb/juvenile/apathetic the developers think their audiences are, worse just how lame the end products are (even with good directors at the helm). So i guess i'm doomed, i'll watch it on a comp screen and even if it is to my taste, i will probably search for all that is bad instead of giving it my all for it to succeed. While movies are meant to satisfy, they need their customer to allow themselves to be as open as they possibly can (that hardly ever happens really, but the will to do it is a start!). By the way, so nice to have spoilers in place, thank you for people not spoiling the sequel like the teaser/trailers spoil stuff these days. ps: if you have not seen blade runner, you should see it. I loved the original Blade Runner even with all its flaws (it'a a beautiful movie but not very good one when it comes down to plot and pacing). I think this "sequel" is actually better than the original because it takes all the good parts from it and fixes all the bad parts. The attention to detail in it is quite astounding too. | ||
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
If you can, see it in IMAX. This movie and Dunkirk are enhanced so much by having such an immersive experience. Edit: Oh but one part that confused me + Show Spoiler + Why the hell did the bad replicant lady leave K alive for after they took Deckard? I mean yeah maybe he was in bad shape and would have died without help, but leaving any sort of thread loose definitely wasnt her style | ||
Manit0u
Poland17041 Posts
On October 10 2017 11:55 DannyJ wrote: I absolutely loved it. Funny how some people can say it was amazingly boring and long when to me I wish it went on even longer. I just loved the world it created. It also had a relatively simple story that was woven nicely and it left you with some stuff to think about. Really the only part I didn't like was Jared Leto being his typical annoying pretentious self. If you can, see it in IMAX. This movie and Dunkirk are enhanced so much by having such an immersive experience. Edit: Oh but one part that confused me + Show Spoiler + Why the hell did the bad replicant lady leave K alive for after they took Deckard? I mean yeah maybe he was in bad shape and would have died without help, but leaving any sort of thread loose definitely wasnt her style + Show Spoiler + She went to save Deckard who was close to drowning. She needed him alive. Edit: Oh, I thought you meant near the end, when they were fighting. Previously she left him because she didn't think he would make it I believe. She was also arrogant as hell so it fit her "Witness my glory!" attitude and character. | ||
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On October 11 2017 00:04 Manit0u wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2017 11:55 DannyJ wrote: I absolutely loved it. Funny how some people can say it was amazingly boring and long when to me I wish it went on even longer. I just loved the world it created. It also had a relatively simple story that was woven nicely and it left you with some stuff to think about. Really the only part I didn't like was Jared Leto being his typical annoying pretentious self. If you can, see it in IMAX. This movie and Dunkirk are enhanced so much by having such an immersive experience. Edit: Oh but one part that confused me + Show Spoiler + Why the hell did the bad replicant lady leave K alive for after they took Deckard? I mean yeah maybe he was in bad shape and would have died without help, but leaving any sort of thread loose definitely wasnt her style + Show Spoiler + She went to save Deckard who was close to drowning. She needed him alive. Edit: Oh, I thought you meant near the end, when they were fighting. Previously she left him because she didn't think he would make it I believe. She was also arrogant as hell so it fit her "Witness my glory!" attitude and character. + Show Spoiler + This goes back to their first meeting where he's searching for clues about rachel after the autopsy of the bones in the box. She tries to flirt with him, but he rejects her. She asks something personal, showing that she too is lonely, but i can remember what ecactly. | ||
DucK-
Singapore11444 Posts
| ||
eviltomahawk
United States11132 Posts
On October 13 2017 13:33 DucK- wrote: Do I need or should I watch the original before this movie? 2049 stands up pretty well on its own, but the original still greatly enhances the sequel through plot references and thematic parallels. It felt like 70-80% of 2049 was dealing with its own plot and characters, but the references to the original were nice when they popped up. I'd suggest getting a hold of The Final Cut version of the original if you watch it. Also, there are three official short films on Youtube that were released leading up to 2049, and they provide interesting but optional exposition and background to the movie. I personally saw Blade Runner (The Final Cut) and the three short films right before heading to the theater to watch 2049. I thought that was a cool way to experience the franchise. | ||
Bacillus
Finland1825 Posts
I saw it pretty tired and it was in 3D, so maybe I also missed interesting stuff. A few questions: 1. + Show Spoiler + Was is ever explained why Wallace couldn't create reproducing replicants? I do somewhat understand using it as a setup for the questions about nature of humanity and all that, but from a scifi viewpoint it was pretty confusing. The replicants are superhuman in many ways already, how is the reproduction such a mystery? 2. + Show Spoiler + What was the "her eyes were green" part about? I do understand again Deckart bluffing or being able to tell the difference, but how does the whole idea of cloning Rachael and then possibly getting that wrong or buying the bluff work? 3. + Show Spoiler + Didn't K consider the wooden horse memory could've been implanted into his head from somewhere else despite it apparenlty being a genuine memory? He instantly seemed to assume it's his memory since you're not supposed to use genuine memories as implants, but didn't he ever even consider some kind of foul play? Was it just that he wanted to believe in his own memory so much? 4. + Show Spoiler + How does K track down the convoy in the end? It felt like the thing came from nowhere. Also a bit about the symbolism: + Show Spoiler + How do you feel about the water in the film? I think raindrops turning into unique snowflakes makes quite a lot of sense in themes of individuality and free will and all that. A body of water could be considered a faceless mass of individuals. However, it's being used pretty liberally around Wallace and in the final convoy encouter. Does it have some additional significance I'm not grasping? | ||
| ||
Big LiuLi Cup
Finals
NightMare vs Oliveira
ByuN vs herO
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Bisu 16903 Dota 2Sea 7603 Calm 3759 Hyuk 396 Snow 269 Pusan 266 ggaemo 191 Zeus 148 Mini 137 ZerO 136 [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2315 DeMusliM707 B2W.Neo480 crisheroes389 nookyyy 119 XaKoH 100 Hui .76 NuckleDu67 QueenE53 Kaelaris29 Crank 8 Liquid`Ken6 Organizations StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
ESL Pro Tour
Big Brain Bouts
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
OSC
OSC
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
TerrOr vs Sziky
Nyoken vs Zhanhum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Bonyth vs StRyKeR
DragOn vs MiStrZZZ
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
|
|