Blade Runner 2049 (Post-release)

By the way, maybe it's just me but was seeing Rachael like R1 Leia all over again?
In my eyes, it was as perfect as it could have been. She wasn't supposed to be too human anyway.

I stayed for the credits. Sean Young was credited - both among the leads and in the list of cast. I believe it must have been performance capture of a 3D model of her own younger face. Loren Peta got the credit as her body double.
 
I don't think that Rachel had human organs, my thinking is that the whole point was that Tyrell made her as close to human as could be down to the point that her replicant organs functioned as human organs do.
 
Well, you can never go home again, now with that being said i felt like this film is guilty of not having what one of it's questions is and that is Soul.

After a second viewing of it though I realise it has a very painful and tortured one.

Was not impressed with the cityscape as it did not jibe with Ridleys original vision and the lack of Asian character let alone leads was not only an insult but clear evidence someone did NOT do their homework of Ridleys original vision of the City.

I also was not impressed with Deakins work it fell flat.

His use of water reflected on the walls in some scenes although a nice homage to Jordan and Ridleys "Busy backgrounds that don't have to make sense", there certainly was room for them to come up with their own innovations and it just was not there.

Loved ryans performance and what can you say about Harrison?

Nice to knowthat he can still bust out his old acting chops when the material moves him to do so.

Eddie James Gaff was absolutely horrible, the lack of voice and cityspeak lingo as well as his mannerisms just took me out of the movie that scene should have been left on the cutting room floor, but I blame Dennis for that one and not Eddie J

All in all I thought it was a worthy sequel, but what scares me is that they are planning 3 to 4 sequels to this.

If that happens there will not be enough rain or snow to cleanse oneself from that travesty. :unsure
 
Last edited:
One scene in this movie encapsulates the whole: a 45 second shot of the back of Ryan Gosling's head.

If you like this movie you probably didn't really understand the original.
 
Could it simply be that the area the first was set was like China town, so this time its simply set in another part of the metropolis?
Yeah thought Gaff wasn't needed, and to add how did he know Deckard was being transported to the airport - that was an odd jump for me.
 
Well, my decision to never view it is justified, the critical spoilers I read are certainly verified in full by comments here.
There is no way I can allow this in my head as canon without greatly diminishing the first film's value to me.
I'm sure it's a great film on it's own, but it's smashing under it's boot the first film for me and I will protect those memories
over further exposition on characters that in my belief was a no go zone to begin with.

I am as alone as a man on the moon right now on this I know. Odd feeling.
 
You are not alone, I know how you feel, one of my friends feels the same way, but I have talked him into seeing it.

Is it as good as the first , hell no, but it is worth a viewing imo


I am as alone as a man on the moon right now on this I know. Odd feeling.
 
I was so amazed by that opening scene flying to LAPD when i thought we were looking at flat barren land, when it was actually the tops of the city that was so smashed together, then you start seeing the lights from the ground level... just so amazing.

Overall, the best thing was that they didnt forget that it was a noir movie.
 
No, I believe she did did in childbirth. There was an emergency c-section to save the baby.

Wasn’t the woman holding the baby in the photo the resistance leader we meet later who has removed her right eye? She talks about being there, etc.

I could be wrong. It was a late night showing and I need to see it... a few more times. But I definitely got the clear impression Rachael died in childbirth.

She died in childbirth,.....yes the woman in the photo with the baby was the one eyed replicant

J
 
Need to see the Gaff scene again to get it straight. He`s definitely not Gaff "The Dandy" anymore, seems like the "Retirement" home he`s in has dulled his sense of style and need to talk in cityspeak. Did he assist in the escape and why did he do an origami of Deckards dog?
 
Accidentally booked front row centre in an IMAX 2D cinema. Seeing it again Tuesday from the same seat. Absolutely immersive. It's not the original but it's a fantastic, transporting contemplative film. So much to unpack.
 
Just left the theater. I thought it was very good. I will need to rewatch it to catch the finer details. I think they captured the flavor of Blade Runner very well.

I cant wait to spend some real time watching and analyizing this movie. I noted that Gaff had the same (or very similar) cane that he had in the original. It is also the same one that Olmos' character carries in Agents of shield.
 
Need to see the Gaff scene again to get it straight. He`s definitely not Gaff "The Dandy" anymore, seems like the "Retirement" home he`s in has dulled his sense of style and need to talk in cityspeak. Did he assist in the escape and why did he do an origami of Deckards dog?

Its a sheep : Check 44 seconds into trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CjPWSlrcY note the lack of a tail and the general body structure.

Its either a clever nod to the title of the original novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and its trying to get the audience to think that Gaff knows Deckard is a replicant or its just a throwaway to show that he still makes figures,
 
Still not clear he's a replicant... which is nice. I'm sure everyone will argue it to death...

Man... too much to unpack... how do you even start tearing apart the scenes... themes... gah.

I loved it.

Is it better than the original... no... and yes... mostly no...

It's chapter 2. The way movies sequels should be. Continuing the story, not re imagining it.

Great ending... great "twists"... great design... love the world... loved the characters...

I don't even know if I can hang in this thread cuz it's just gonna be nuts in her dissecting...

And maybe I don't want to dissect it.
 
Just got back and trying to digest it. I don't think I've run into a movie that's inspired this kind of reaction from me before. I love it. Unashamedly, and without reservation. It's huge, it's epic, it's languid and aggressively unfolds at its own pace. It's inarguably gorgeous in every frame. It absolutely belongs in the Blade Runner world of hyper-real, and purely expressionistic visual metaphor. It (mostly) feels like a natural evolution of the world we were introduced to. It's a more coherent narrative than Blade Runner. And yet...it doesn't manage to ask the big questions the way Blade Runner does. It also doesn't come close to sticking the landing for me, the climax...isn't...and doesn't make a lick of sense (sooooo....they discover one too few bodies, none of which are a 70-something year old man, and from THAT deduce that Deckard drowned? How does that work exactly?) And I can't say I see why Deckard is in this movie at all. I mean, unless you know the first movie and want to know 'what happened to them next', there's no particular reason Joe has any connection to him, or any reason to save him. I also don't buy ANY of the ending. None of it. Rick hasn't been pining for his child the whole movie, so who cares about their reunion? Joe hasn't been racing against his own impending mortality like Batty was, so killing him just feels like 'welp, jeeze, it's been great, but (YAAAAAAAAAWN) we're almost three hours in, and it's sure late, so....we're gonna get going audience....". It's so frustrating in the end....but I deeply love it regardless.
 
Joe's investment in Deckard was the belief that he was his father. I had no issue with him continuing to save him after he realized he wasn't his son.

EVERYTHING Deckard did was to protect his daughter... so I had no problem buying he would want to see her, especially after a pseudo-reunion with a replicant that wasn't quite his wife/mother of his child.

Joe's dying was just a shot, but the point was made. When he first left the place with Deckard's daughter, he believed he may be real... "have a soul" (which he stated the importance of earlier) and he was "a real boy" (obvious reference to Pinocchio... ironic cuz wood is rare and precious). he watched snow fall on his hands... which I took as marking the moment he realized he wasn't a "skin job". in the end he knows he's a skin job, and watching the snow fall on his hands I think he realizes it ultimately doesn't matter... he's still dying. What's more alive than something that can die?

Even his girl could tell the end was coming and panicked, feeling the need to express love. So what is being alive?

I'm too half asleep for this... and these conversations are going to go on and on... this thread will be chaotic with love and dissection.

Fun!
 
Great movie, a totally different beast from the original, but 2049 has legs to stand on its own. It would be pointless to tell what I liked, as a whole the movie just stroke a cord with me personally, not the same one as the original but it definitely did. So I'll just focus on what I didn't like. Joi. Can't really see the purpose for it being so central in K's story, but I guess a second vision will allow me to better undestand its weight, narratively speaking. The second thing is not something I dind't outright enjoy, just something that in time might be problematic. The whole Frysia (not sure if the spelling is correct) story put things in a much broader contest which I fear will shortly be exploited in all kinds of other media, such as comic books, novels, video games and even tv shows. I really don't want to see a procedural buddy cop tv show set in a LAPD station...

And finally: the final confrontation sequence. I though it was brilliant, the incessant crashing of the waves set up a sense of impending doom. Too bad I didn't enjoy it. And the fault is yours! All I could think about was what was going to happen to Deckard's blaster! I cared about it more than I cared about K and Deckard :) And I am even angrier because I didn't pay attention as to where it ended up. I believe K got disarmed after shooting and wounding Luv, and I guess the blaster fell into the water to not be seen again.

Can you confirm this? Did any other of you got distracted in that scene? I remember thinking: couldn't they just fight on the bloody ground instead of deep water? Just for the sake of the blaster!
 
I have just come in from seeing it.

I always loved the original and had no idea (being 12 or so) that the critics didn't like it or that it didn't do so well.
It had everything that I wanted from a film including Atari neon. I truly understood the real hero was Roy and it was his search for meaning that drove everything and Deckard only questioned his own existence in relief, and then grabbed at his second chance.

I'm so relieved this second chance was never taken for granted in 2049.

I came close to tears two or three times during the movie and at beginning of the credits my girlfriend disappeared of to the girls room, and then I totally caved in.
I cried silently for most of the credits.

A sequel addressing the main topic of the original without rehashing, will never happen this well ever again.
I'm in shock.
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top