Blade Runner 2049

For posts related to a specific film -- beware of spoilers o ye who dareth enter!
Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Blade Runner 2049

Post by Stewball »

How ironically fitting that a horror movie in its 5th week and centered on a clown (It), takes in more than an exquisitely produced sequel to a cult classic. Perhaps its a sign that dystopia as a genre, with music and denouement to match, has finally run its course, along with what some are calling noir as well--but how could it be noir without narration. The menage a (1+1)/1, was very exotic, but didn't draw much notice. Perhaps they should have been clowns. 8/10

TheSean
Posts: 51
1220 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:08 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by TheSean »

I know the following opinion is probably objectively wrong but I found Blade Runner kind of... underwhelming. Maybe it was spoiled because I'd been told over and over that it's the or one of the best films of all time. It was good... but somehow disappointing.

Blade Runner 2049 was the opposite. I didn't read nor hear anything about it. Wow, what a film! Really enjoyed it.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by Stewball »

TheSean wrote:I know the following opinion is probably objectively wrong but I found Blade Runner kind of... underwhelming. Maybe it was spoiled because I'd been told over and over that it's the or one of the best films of all time. It was good... but somehow disappointing.

Blade Runner 2049 was the opposite. I didn't read nor hear anything about it. Wow, what a film! Really enjoyed it.


I agree. Maybe not to that degree of difference, but yeah. It's hard to stay focused watching the original.

TheSean
Posts: 51
1220 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:08 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by TheSean »

It's depressing to see how poorly it has done (so far) at the box office. :|

Luna6ix
Posts: 501
4609 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 3:26 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by Luna6ix »

I agree. Blade Runner was slow and boring, 2049 was slow and electrifying. Even in the parts where nothing was happening, there was always something to look at and wonder about.

CMonster
Posts: 689
1444 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:22 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by CMonster »

[spoiler]I've been thinking about this movie a lot since I saw it. My roommate was complaining that the "twist" where we find out K isn't the special one was kind of lame. I on the other hand found that it was pretty essential to what I viewed as the "point" of the film. I think part of the brilliance of 2049 is that it examines the themes of what makes us human and what is a soul in a different way. It presents these themes with the simple question "Is K special?"

On one hand the rug is pulled out from under us with with Harrison Ford story line, but his interactions with Robin Wright's characer said to me who he is/what he was doing made him special by virtue that he took those actions rather than the memories that triggered his motivations. Still unclear as to whether that makes him human or has a soul but it sparked some thought.

I liked Blade Runner, but I kinda loved 2049. Slow and electrifying is a perfect description.[/spoiler]

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by Stewball »

I think the movie side steps the issue of AI, but is true to the inevitable conclusion that there is no such thing as a special "one". Special, yes, but not THE One or anything that smacks of preordination. No one is exempt from a sudden, meaningless death, if any death can have meaning in the first place. And as for AI, no movie has handled that better than Her.

guy piranha
Posts: 28
2041 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:01 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by guy piranha »

it's tough to fault this.
as mentioned, it IS definitely one of the best outings this year, especially compared to the "competition".
with names like villeneuve and deakins at the helm, what else should one have expected?
it's also important that filmmakers get the message, that this still has a place in big budget, not just the repetitive, lazy crap that gets made almost entirely in post-pro.

however, to me (!) the movie demystified what made the original special in the first place. permission to call this move the "ridley-scott" still pending.
the ambiguity about what makes a human (or rather conscious) being, which i accredit to david webb peoples understanding philip k. dick best, was sorely underdeveloped.

[spoiler]for instance, the original choice not to go into detail about replicants' manufacture was deliberate.
it didn't matter how they came to be. what matters is what they are. how experience, fake or real, formed their character.
just like deckard, the viewer should find their own terms on which to rate them, facilitated by a visual likeness.

with 2049 they now chose the least important aspect, the "love-story" (the most unbelievable and sudden part of the original), to put their money on. obviously also as a convenient way to force deckard back into all this.
throw in a miracle child (the laziest plot device i can think of), translating all contemplation back onto a physical level, sorta missing the point.

who cares if deckard got a crush on rachel and wants to check her slots for compatibility? what's important is that he began to view replicants as individuals, capable of genuine emotional responses and experiences. not programmed robots you shoot when they become a liability.
this is perfectly finalized by him realizing that even roy beatty, who wasn't given any "emotional cushion", had developed a personality, based on his own unique experiences in the short time granted to him. and that he was afraid of death because of it.

with 2049, they fidgety grabbed at similar themes, but always superficially, as a side note, built around their misplaced focus.
the introduction of the purely visual AI would be a good example. it's an interesting extension of the question, what is needed for consciousness and life we would deem "valuable", but never handled in a way that allowed for a conclusion beyond "oh look, she got stumped.". like stewball mentioned, jonze's "her" would be a good example on how to go for depth with this sort of thing. which begs the question if it shouldn't have been left out altogether.
or if this sequel was needed in the first place, $$$ aside.
sure, the twist about "not being the one", if there even was such a thing, was a nice touch. but as a thematic extension of what 'blade runner' was about, it's pretty useless. and in all honesty, who didn't see it coming from a mile away?[/spoiler]

don't get me wrong, except gosling's performance, which frederic_g54 so aptly described as "mastering the kuleshov effect" (+one indeliberately hilarious outburst), 2049 has a lot to offer, especially in technical terms.
but as a sequel to a cult classic, it simply couldn't further any of its agendas for me. which i kinda think a sequel is supposed to?

not saying everyone needs to think this way, but one should mention that even villeneuve himself said it was an outright impossible task from the getgo.
on the other hand you have people like ford, who say they wouldn't have done it, if the script hadn't blown them away.
up to you, which opinion you think is the marketable one ;)

have a nice weekend, dudes.

p.s.: did you know that according to ridley scott, 'alien' no longer takes place in space? it's set in plumme now. new cut coming up.
Last edited by guy piranha on Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CMonster
Posts: 689
1444 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:22 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by CMonster »

it simply couldn't further any of its agendas for me. which i kinda think a sequel is supposed to?

Your not wrong in that it didn't further any agenda, it just explored it in a different way. I think if I were to make a comparison, it would be to food. Same ingredirects cooked up different ways can produce 2 things that are different yet still the same. I found that interesting and satisfying. That said, I also thought the trailer made it look more actiony and less thoughtful so I didn't go in with the expectation of a sequel advancing themes of the original. I can see how that would be kinda lame if you wanted that.

guy piranha
Posts: 28
2041 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:01 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049

Post by guy piranha »

sure, it all hinges on your expectations. that's why, sticking with your food analogy, i'd say

blade runner is a prime rib you bought at the butcher, allowing you to prepare and season it to your liking. you might mess it up, though.

blade runner 2049 is going to a restaurant, ordering a steak. might just be the best you ever ate. but just in case, there's some tabasco and soy sauce on the table.

the trailer and shorts were pretty misleading, i agree.
i expected it to be about the blind dude, trying to get permission to establish a new line of replicants which can't disobey. the anti-replicant league (or whatever) would fear for humanity being infiltrated and send gosling to find proof that it would backfire just like before, because you can't tame life or something like that. sorta the jurassic park angle, i suppose.

Post Reply