Blade Runner 2049 - 10.6.17

[Winston T. Boogie]

Title: Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Tagline: There's still a page left.

Genre: Mystery, Science Fiction, Thriller

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Robin Wright, Sylvia Hoeks, Mackenzie Davis, Jared Leto, Carla Juri, Lennie James, Dave Bautista, David Dastmalchian, Barkhad Abdi, Hiam Abbass, Wood Harris, Edward James Olmos, Tómas Lemarquis, Sallie Harmsen, Sean Young, Loren Peta, Mark Arnold, Krista Kosonen, Elarica Johnson, Kingston Taylor, David Benson, Ben Thompson, Suzie Kennedy, Stephen Triffitt, Ellie Wright, Vilma Szécsi, Kincsö Sánta, André Lukács Molnár, István Göz, Pál Nyári, Joshua Tersoo Allagh, Zoltán Béres, Konstantin Pál, Ferenc Györgyi, Samuel Brown

Release: 2017-10-04

Runtime: 163

Plot: Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. K's discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard, a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.

A trailer to promote the trailer...



http://bladerunnermovie.com/

 

[Tino]

I think the first Blade Runner is a visual and aural treat but slow as hell. Hope this one is better and it sure looks like it will be.

 

[dpippel]

The pacing of the original is a huge part of what makes the film so great.

 

[Tino]

I don't agree as I feel it hurts the film. Hopefully the new one wont have the same pacing issues.

 

[dpippel]

Not every film needs to edited into 3 second quick cuts. Just sayin'

 

[TravisR]

I hated Blade Runner when I was younger but I got the Blu-ray years ago in a 'buy 2 get 1' sale and I was surprised by how much I liked the movie on what must have been a fourth or fifth viewing (I had friends in college who would watch it and I was still bored). I'm not running out to get a spinner tattooed on my arm or anything but it's the rare movie where Scott actually got a good script and when that was coupled with his brilliant visual eye, he created a masterpiece.

 

[Tino]

Not every film needs to edited into 3 second quick cuts. Just sayin'

I agree. Still doesn't make Blade Runner any better.

 

[dpippel]

So you think that Blade Runner is somewhat slow and boring, and you love Prometheus? Whoa dude. To each their own, of course.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I kinda get it. I don't think I'm as down on the original Blade Runner as Tino, but like Travis, it wasn't always a movie that I loved unquestioningly. I think it does have a lot going for it, including some of the most incredible visuals that Ridley Scott has come up with, and some great performances. But I'd agree that the script and pacing is slow at times. More than just the pacing, I think the script does leave too much unanswered. It's more of a vague sci-fi movie than a hard sci-fi movie. There's a lot about how the replicants work and what exactly they're supposed to be that's left underdeveloped. The film often hints at being part of a larger, stranger world but can be disappointingly vague on detail. The biology of the replicants doesn't really make sense as explained - I had a similar complaint about the Cylons in the Battlestar Galatica reboot (which I generally loved).

I accept Blade Runner as a movie that holds me at arm's length. I admire a lot of what I see in it, but it feels underdeveloped, and I think Scott's direction and the incredible design work obscures that there's not nearly as much "there" there as its reputation would suggest. Still like it, still own it, still planning on seeing the sequel, but those are some of the factors that keep Blade Runner from being an "all time favorite" for me.

 

[Tino]

To be clear, I do like Blade Runner . I just think it's very slow. Haven't watched it in a while. Need to revisit soon.

 

[dpippel]

I kinda get it. I don't think I'm as down on the original Blade Runner as Tino, but like Travis, it wasn't always a movie that I loved unquestioningly. I think it does have a lot going for it, including some of the most incredible visuals that Ridley Scott has come up with, and some great performances. But I'd agree that the script and pacing is slow at times. More than just the pacing, I think the script does leave too much unanswered. It's more of a vague sci-fi movie than a hard sci-fi movie. There's a lot about how the replicants work and what exactly they're supposed to be that's left underdeveloped. The film often hints at being part of a larger, stranger world but can be disappointingly vague on detail. The biology of the replicants doesn't really make sense as explained - I had a similar complaint about the Cylons in the Battlestar Galatica reboot (which I generally loved).

I accept Blade Runner as a movie that holds me at arm's length. I admire a lot of what I see in it, but it feels underdeveloped, and I think Scott's direction and the incredible design work obscures that there's not nearly as much "there" there as its reputation would suggest. Still like it, still own it, still planning on seeing the sequel, but those are some of the factors that keep Blade Runner from being an "all time favorite" for me.

Many of the things you touch on are part of what makes the film great for me: the unanswered questions and the vagueness work in its favor as far as I'm concerned. While I wouldn't suggest that Blade Runner is quite on the same plane as 2001, another sci-fi film that holds you at arm's length, like 2001 it relies heavily on thematic elements rather than detailed exposition to get its ideas across. In the right framework I find that compelling. And then there's Rutger Hauer's amazing performance - the most human and relatable in the film coming from a character who is basically an organic robot manufactured in a laboratory.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

"2001" is my all-time favorite movie, and I realize I may have a different relationship with it than many, but to me, it doesn't hold me at arm's length. What could be more intimate than floating along in space with a single astronaut while listening to nothing but the sound of his breathing? 2001 is a movie I always feel very engaged watching.

The vague thing about Blade Runner that bugs me is that it's never clear what the replicants are. They appear to be genetically engineered humans, but we're told that they were built by different people. They appear to be organic, but we're told they're constructed. It doesn't seem that the filmmakers actually have an answer to this and left it vague because they hadn't decided what they actually were. That kind of vagueness tends to annoy me. I find that different from 2001, where not everything is verbally explained, but where Kubrick definitely had answers in mind. I'm not sure that the Blade Runner team had answers for some of their more vague things. It's not that I need every answer given to me, but there needs to be one, otherwise it's just "oh let's put this over here because it looks cool".

 

[Dave H]

I just hope this movie makes Warner release the original film on UHD BD.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think the first Blade Runner is a visual and aural treat but slow as hell. Hope this one is better and it sure looks like it will be.

Well, I would say what constitutes good pacing varies from generation to generation. I feel Blade Runner is perfectly paced for the material...which is a futuristic noir. The story should unfold in a thoughtful manner...which it does...allowing you to absorb what is taking place and the consequences for the characters. This makes the film much more meaningful.

I guess people would need to give an example of something they feel is well paced as opposed to something they feel is poorly paced for each of us to understand how another person views pacing.

My problem with films today is so many of them are cut with no understanding of pacing beyond we just need to get to the next joke, explosion, or action sequence within a 2 1/2 to 3 minute window...and I think that window is shrinking all the time. I do not think that the frame being constantly busy should conflate with a picture being well paced. So many filmmakers now seem to feel that the way to keep an audience interested is to have constant movement on the screen. This leads to things in say a science fiction film zipping around in all directions in the frame but also to never having a still camera. The camera in so many of today's pictures is moving constantly even when they are only shooting a conversation.

This I believe has led to younger generations feeling that almost all films made prior to MTV, or right in that early to mid 1980s time frame, are slow because in many of today's pictures a still camera is a rarity and is often now only used to indicate something is wrong. When there is stillness on the screen or a shot is held for longer than a few seconds (because the cutting style is now to have many cuts to again generate the feeling of movement) then it appears...at least to me...that younger audiences feel this means a film is "moving slowly."

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

But I'd agree that the script and pacing is slow at times. More than just the pacing, I think the script does leave too much unanswered. It's more of a vague sci-fi movie than a hard sci-fi movie. There's a lot about how the replicants work and what exactly they're supposed to be that's left underdeveloped. The film often hints at being part of a larger, stranger world but can be disappointingly vague on detail. The biology of the replicants doesn't really make sense as explained

I admire a lot of what I see in it, but it feels underdeveloped, and I think Scott's direction and the incredible design work obscures that there's not nearly as much "there" there as its reputation would suggest. Still like it, still own it, still planning on seeing the sequel, but those are some of the factors that keep Blade Runner from being an "all time favorite" for me.

I won't get into what makes a film a science fiction film because I think opinions on that are so varied it would need a separate thread and it would probably be quite a long discussion. I understand the definition of "hard science fiction" as a story in which the science actually matters and is a significant part of the story and is presented in a manner that makes sense scientifically. Now this pretty much eliminates just about 95% or more of films labeled science fiction from being "hard science fiction" because in most films labeled science fiction they don't care one jot about presenting realistic or sensible science.

Prometheus being an example of a film so far from being "hard" science fiction that it makes Star Wars seem like a documentary because they make such a gigantic mockery of science in the story it appears to being played as comedy.

In terms of the story itself, I do not think a "hard" explanation of how the replicants are made is required as the key point about them is they are man made and the conundrum presented is if we make something that looks human, acts human, and appears to think like a human...is it still just a thing or is it a "being" equal to us that has rights?

Obviously what is presented in the film is these beings don't have rights, they are servants to mankind, designed to do tasks we do not want to do, would prefer not to do, or just to make us happy. Going into a deeper explanation of how they are made would be detrimental to the story because it would emphasize that they are just a "creation" that looks human but is not. This, I believe, would tilt things toward the idea that they are just disposable and that what Deckard is doing is not unethical...it is sort of like shooting a laptop. Just something we made to serve us. This is how Deckard perceives his work until he becomes more deeply involved with both Rachel and Roy. So, an important aspect of the story is how Deckard comes to a different conclusion about how he feels about these creatures he has been offing.

 

[Tino]

Well, I would say what constitutes good pacing varies from generation to generation. I feel Blade Runner is perfectly paced for the material...which is a futuristic noir. The story should unfold in a thoughtful manner...which it does...allowing you to absorb what is taking place and the consequences for the characters. This makes the film much more meaningful.

I guess people would need to give an example of something they feel is well paced as opposed to something they feel is poorly paced for each of us to understand how another person views pacing.

My problem with films today is so many of them are cut with no understanding of pacing beyond we just need to get to the next joke, explosion, or action sequence within a 2 1/2 to 3 minute window...and I think that window is shrinking all the time. I do not think that the frame being constantly busy should conflate with a picture being well paced. So many filmmakers now seem to feel that the way to keep an audience interested is to have constant movement on the screen. This leads to things in say a science fiction film zipping around in all directions in the frame but also to never having a still camera. The camera in so many of today's pictures is moving constantly even when they are only shooting a conversation.

This I believe has led to younger generations feeling that almost all films made prior to MTV, or right in that early to mid 1980s time frame, are slow because in many of today's pictures a still camera is a rarity and is often now only used to indicate something is wrong. When there is stillness on the screen or a shot is held for longer than a few seconds (because the cutting style is now to have many cuts to again generate the feeling of movement) then it appears...at least to me...that younger audiences feel this means a film is "moving slowly."

I don't believe we need to give examples to validate our opinions. But here's a few.

I'm older than you Reggie so I grew up on slow moving films. 2001 is a slow moving film but way more fascinating and exciting than Blade Runner in my opinion.

Arrival is a current example of intelligent slow moving sci fi that I also thought was way more interesting than Blade Runner.

But whatever...these are just opinions. Like I said I liked BR. I just don't think it's a great film. I saw it on opening day in theaters (along with Carpenters The Thing) and felt that way then too.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don't believe we need to give examples to validate our opinions. But here's a few.

I'm older than you Reggie so I grew up on slow moving films. 2001 is a slow moving film but way more fascinating and exciting than Blade Runner in my opinion.

Arrival is a current example of intelligent slow moving sci fi that I also thought was way more interesting than Blade Runner.

But whatever...these are just opinions. Like I said I liked BR. I just don't think it's a great film. I saw it on opening day in theaters (along with Carpenters The Thing) and felt that way then too.

Yes, your opinion is valid, I was not saying you had to validate it. What I was saying was that in order for us to understand what someone else feels is a well paced film we would need to give examples. I don't know what another person feels is good pacing unless that person gives me an example of a well paced film.

I also saw this in a theater back when it opened and I just loved it...voiceover and all. I was kind of stunned back then when I discovered the reception for the film was mainly poor. So, you certainly were not alone.

I think it is fine if you don't like or love Blade Runner. There is nothing wrong with that. I mean I have the same issues I dislike some films other people love...I guess the one I get the most crap about is Gone with the Wind, I find it intolerable...others find it a classic. I don't really have any urge to ever see it again.

I've said it before but not everything is for everybody.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

The vague thing about Blade Runner that bugs me is that it's never clear what the replicants are. They appear to be genetically engineered humans, but we're told that they were built by different people. They appear to be organic, but we're told they're constructed. It doesn't seem that the filmmakers actually have an answer to this and left it vague because they hadn't decided what they actually were. That kind of vagueness tends to annoy me.

Was that really unclear? They are artificially created, genetically grown beings, created by the Tyrell corporation. They're grown, much like, I imagine, like the blanks they grew in 6th Day, or the eyes, or other stuff the genetic engineers created/grew in the movie; snakes, for instance, or owls (except the one in the office, 'of course it's real', which it wasn't in the original script, hence the lip sync error, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/faq#.2.1.17).
When were 'different people' mentioned? I have seen this film countless times in its various incarnations, but that comment I must have missed.

That being said, it really doesn't matter what the replicants are, does it? The movie works brilliantly with them being what I, or you, think they are.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Was that really unclear? They are artificially created, genetically grown beings, created by the Tyrell corporation.

I'd say yes. Because, for instance, we meet the guy that makes the eyes, but we're also told separately that they're built. But they don't look "built", they look "grown". How do you grow body parts individually and then turn them into a whole body?

"Different people" - Roy goes to meet the man who made him (shop in Chinatown or wherever) and the guy says "I only do eyes". This means, to me, that the replicants are made by different people.

You get a vague sense of what they are, but it's never clearly defined. Reminds me of the Cylons in the new Battlestar. Sometimes, they're indistinguishable for humans and scientists on that show say there's no way to tell them apart from humans. Other times, we see the cylons glowing in the dark or plugging wires into themselves which suggests that their biology is different than ours. I feel this kind of deliberate vagueness is annoying and takes away from the completed work, because it feels to me that the storytellers don't know these answers.

 

[dpippel]

Official trailer has dropped: