Movies: Blade Runner 2049 (2017): Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford. Directed by Denis Villeneuve.

[x Tame Impala]

Yeah, I don't know if that's where you're aiming at, but he's not a replicant in the book. I don't think Ridley Scott gets to change that in an ambiguous ending.

After seeing Alien: Covenant I think Ridley thinks he can do whatever he wants

Deckard isn't a replicant though. Even before reading the book (which was decent btw, did you like it?) I never found that fan theory to be particularly interesting as it just never would've made sense for him to be one.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

After seeing Alien: Covenant I think Ridley thinks he can do whatever he wants

Deckard isn't a replicant though. Even before reading the book (which was decent btw, did you like it?) I never found that fan theory to be particularly interesting as it just never would've made sense for him to be one.

Yeah, I did. A bit bland and tedious at times, but a good read all-around. I've just always had a bitter taste with Ridley's antics in regards to his ending. I find it rather lame that he goes out and claims Deckard to be a replicant in the movie when there is nothing in the movie to suggest it (I don't even think the ending really leans towards this) and without consulting the original story. Just seemed like a way to draw attention to himself and make fanboys speculate.

 

[XX]

It's out on rental I believe and will be hitting home release soon. My personal movie of the decade.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

After seeing Alien: Covenant I think Ridley thinks he can do whatever he wants

Deckard isn't a replicant though. Even before reading the book (which was decent btw, did you like it?) I never found that fan theory to be particularly interesting as it just never would've made sense for him to be one.

Really?

I guess having Rachel be a replicant and not Deckard certainly works but I got the impression the movie insinuated that Deckard is in fact a replicant.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Really?

I guess having Rachel be a replicant and not Deckard certainly works but I got the impression the movie insinuated that Deckard is in fact a replicant.

Blade Runner or Blade Runner 2049? The first movie left a tiiiiiiiiinnny little hole open for that to maybe be a possibility.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Blade Runner or Blade Runner 2049? The first movie left a tiiiiiiiiinnny little hole open for that to maybe be a possibility.

2049.

I mean the whole thing was about replicants being able to reproduce rather than replicants being able to get pregnant. That makes me think the movie insinuates that Deckard is a replicant.

 

[Nalens Oga]

I saw it and would say that it was far far more entertaining than the original, still a bit flawed though like all Villeneuve movies are. The guy knows how to create an atmosphere but doesn't fill it in as well and he always leaves you a bit cold, his endings are more abrupt and unresolved than the rest of the film and a bit anti-climatic tbh, it really annoys me. I wasn't really satisfied with how Gosling's plot resolved or the villain (not the side-kick villain but the actual villain. Great movie, either way.

Also, I HATE absolutely hate Jared Leto's acting, stop casting him in good shit, he's just become so punchable.

 

[Puck]

I'll agree with those that don't see Rick Deckard as a replicant. I mean the movie is basically about a human Blade Runner's evolution in thinking about the replicant race. Also, Replicants only lived short lives, Rachael was the first to have the premeditated obsolescence feature turned off in her genetic make-up (that was a unique first and only for a Replicant in the original film, Deckard would have died earlier if he was a Replicant). I suppose fans can re-write BR canonical history all they want later but this twist wasn't in the Original.

 

[XX]

“I will say that there’s no great things that are being lost. When I cut something, it’s dead. It means it was not good enough. Even if sometimes I’m cutting my favorite shots, I still strongly think that when it’s cut on the floor of the editing room it should not go back to see the light of day again. I don’t like extended cuts. I must say, apart from Touch of Evil and Blade Runner, I have never seen a director’s cut that was better than the original. I mean, I’m not a fan at all of Apocalypse Now Redux. I thought it was a massive mistake to do Apocalypse Now Redux. It’s true that maybe sometimes the director lost control and had to do what producers – but, most of the time the movie stands by itself. It’s stronger than one individual.”​

Villeneuve says he won’t be releasing the four-hour cut, saying it “doesn’t work” as a finished film, and adds that while the first cut was strong, he doesn’t particularly miss what came out

Hope he reconsiders.

 

[Jussi]

I watched this last night. Pretty good. I'd probably rate it 8½ or 9-/10. Visually great but Zimmer really mailed it in with the music. Just constant rehashes of Vangelis tunes from the original. The movie was also 10-20 minutes too long. Too much time wasted on long shots/sequences that didn't really amount to anything. Leto was completely useless. If there's more scenes with him, I'd rather not see them.

 

[Shadow Journal]

Visually great but Zimmer really mailed it in with the music

Yes, this exactly. The writing is probably janky in parts, but I was just so enthralled by the visuals, music, and overall ambience the combination created at times that it was easy to just ignore it and enjoy the ride.

 

[Chaels Arms]

It sounds strange but I actually held off on seeing this in theaters just because I knew I'd want to buy it day one of home release. Just watched it and I have to say it really is a great film.

I don't agree with Scott coming out and saying the movie crashed because it was too long. There's no fluff in this movie. What could have been cut that would have resulted in any substantial time saving? Perhaps the only thing you could argue that wasn't absolutely essential to advancing the plot were Joe's interactions with his projection significant other but that was essential to making him an interesting character. I just don't see what else could have been trimmed. Those "long shots" are part of the reason the movie looks so freaking fantastic and were a hallmark of the original film as well.

 

[XX]

Modern audiences have ADD at the theater. If something isn't crammed full of jokes and action it's unlikely to be successful. Anything that asks questions and doesn't explicitly explain things people tend to dislike as well.

 

[Jussi]

It sounds strange but I actually held off on seeing this in theaters just because I knew I'd want to buy it day one of home release. Just watched it and I have to say it really is a great film.

I don't agree with Scott coming out and saying the movie crashed because it was too long. There's no fluff in this movie. What could have been cut that would have resulted in any substantial time saving? Perhaps the only thing you could argue that wasn't absolutely essential to advancing the plot were Joe's interactions with his projection significant other but that was essential to making him an interesting character. I just don't see what else could have been trimmed. Those "long shots" are part of the reason the movie looks so freaking fantastic and were a hallmark of the original film as well.

They weren't as long as in this one and above all, were something never seen before. The visuals weren't grounbkreaking or new in this one.

In case it wasn't clear, while I thought this was a good movie, it wasn't as good as the first Blade Runner.

 

[Chaels Arms]

I think the marketing for the film is the real problem behind how it did at the box office, not its length. The shorts on youtube were good but the TV ads gave up absolutely nothing of what was happening in the film. I think they were far too anti-spoiler in their presentation. It would have been a good hook to new audiences to just reveal Gosling's true nature in the ads so you get a feel for the conflict there especially since it was revealed five minutes into the movie anyway. Even for fans of the original Blade Runner other than seeing Ford running away from an explosion the ads gave you no information as to what connection, if any, this film had with the original.

As to 2049 vs. the original film I'd say this movie was absolutely better than the version of Blade Runner that was originally released in theaters. Ford's voiceover was horrendous and the tacked on "positive" ending was nauseating. I'd concede that the director's cut version released on Blu-Ray is a better movie than 2049. Still though, as a huge fan of the original I was very worried that nobody would ever be able to replicate the feel and visuals of the world from the original and the fact that Villeneuve nailed it is amazing.

 

[Ducks in a row]

It was OK but not as good as the original IMO.

 

[Ainec]

As expected this was my favorite film of 2017 (not saying much), and if people hate on it I can't help but fear the trend of poor Hollywood films to continue

 

[aufheben]

Anyone else find it interesting that the protagonist's name is K/Joe, similar to Josef K. in Kafka's The Trial? Or was this something obvious that's already been discussed?

 

[sabresfan129103]

Saw it again. Loved it just as much. I really enjoyed Jared Leto's character. It also sounds like they want to make a 3rd one. I'd be down for that.

I'm even more stoked for Villeneuve's version of Dune now.

 

[Shareefruck]

I thought it was pretty clear that Deckard was a replicant, personally, in both this and the original, and I don't see any reason why the film had any obligation to stick with what is canon in the source material or why we have any obligation to deny what, to me, seemed pretty clearly communicated in the film.

That said, I can see the criticism behind this having no bearing on anything whatsoever in the original film.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I thought it was pretty clear that Deckard was a replicant, personally, in both this and the original, and I don't see any reason why the film had any obligation to stick with what is canon in the source material or why we have any obligation to deny what, to me, seemed pretty clearly communicated in the film.

That said, I can see the criticism behind this having no bearing on anything whatsoever in the original film.

I don't recall anything really suggesting that to be the case in the original film personally. I don't mind if a director strays away from the source material - although it rarely pays off - but I do find it a bad creative decision when there seems to be no reason for it besides '' Dun, dun, dun, is he or is he not? ''. It's distracting and purposeless, IMO. I can see it's usefulness in creating hype and vapid discussion, but this is irrelevant to the work itself.

 

[NyQuil]

I don't recall anything really suggesting that to be the case in the original film personally. I don't mind if a director strays away from the source material - although it rarely pays off - but I do find it a bad creative decision when there seems to be no reason for it besides '' Dun, dun, dun, is he or is he not? ''. It's distracting and purposeless, IMO. I can see it's usefulness in creating hype and vapid discussion, but this is irrelevant to the work itself.

There's a cut of the original Blade Runner film where Deckard has a recurring unicorn dream and Gaff leaves a unicorn origami figurine by his front door.

How would Gaff know about his dream unless it were somehow implanted?

IIRC, that complete sequence isn't in every cut of the original Blade Runner.

Now in the story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", there's nothing indicating that Deckard is a replicant so it's a twist that Ridley Scott added.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Anyone else find it interesting that the protagonist's name is K/Joe, similar to Josef K. in Kafka's The Trial? Or was this something obvious that's already been discussed?

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'd have trouble imagining the bad guy in Blade Runner resembling Josef K. or the movie being anything like The Trial.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

There's a cut of the original Blade Runner film where Deckard has a recurring unicorn dream and Gaff leaves a unicorn origami figurine by his front door.

How would Gaff know about his dream unless it were somehow implanted?

IIRC, that complete sequence isn't in every cut of the original Blade Runner.

Now in the story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", there's nothing indicating that Deckard is a replicant so it's a twist that Ridley Scott added.

I don't recall seeing that in the version I've watched, so that's an interesting point. With that said, in the book, not only is there nothing indicating that Deckard is a replicant, IIRC, it's an important detail that he isn't, especially when you consider the book's themes (our relation to technology/one another and how we treat it).

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't recall anything really suggesting that to be the case in the original film personally. I don't mind if a director strays away from the source material - although it rarely pays off - but I do find it a bad creative decision when there seems to be no reason for it besides '' Dun, dun, dun, is he or is he not? ''. It's distracting and purposeless, IMO. I can see it's usefulness in creating hype and vapid discussion, but this is irrelevant to the work itself.

Which version did you see? The unicorn scene wouldn't have made any sense to me unless he was a replicant.

I don't feel too strongly either way about it, but overall I think I found it to be a neat touch, making the world a little more interesting (replicants hunting replicants), even though I agree that it isn't some significant thing. The movie barely hinted at it, too, so it didn't bother me as much as it would if it was a huge reveal that they hammered over your head. I think it's something minor that the fans have made annoying rather than anything wrong with the movie, personally. (I actually find that rampant fan-boy speculation puts me off and sometimes kills my interest in the lore of some movies)