Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#351 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:59 pm

SpoilerShow
jbeal wrote:There is a dog in BR2049, and K asks if it's real, to which Deckard replies, "Why don't you ask him?" thus leaving the question unanswered. So to the extent that K is dying "like a dog," and the only dog in the movie is of uncertain authenticity, this might leave some ambivalence as to the level of "humanity" that K has achieved over the course of the film.
I took Deckard's flippant answer to be suggesting that the question of whether one is real is self-determined. So if K is achieving any humanity, it's by answering his own question of whether he is real.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#352 Post by Ribs » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:56 am

DarkImbecile wrote:To Domino and Mr. Sausage’s points, look at the arguments you’re using regarding critical consensus and at how casually you tossed out that Godfather Part III could not have been good because Godfather Part II was a classic and obviously so superior to the first Godfather - which is itself held to much greater critical esteem in the aggregate than the original Blade Runner by a substantial distance!

This comes off much more like trying to selectively use majority opinions when they reinforce your personal tastes - which don’t need any reinforcing! - and to denigrate the tastes of others.
I popped out of the discussion because clearly my opinion apparently wasn't anything I could really have a consensus on here but you seem to have not really gathered what my point was about the example - for Francis Ford Coppola to make another Godfather in 1974 is to make a sequel to a hit film, commercially and critically. To make a sequel in 1990 is to make a sequel to the "greatest film(s) of all time." It's just a literal impossibility on a practical level it could quote-unquote "match the hype" that comes with 15 years of the original being canonized. It's an expectations thing - he tried, though.

As I've discussed in other parts of the forum (maybe the "how you got into this stuff?" thread?), my education was very, very "canon" averse, going out of its way to break the canon and show things that aren't really on a threshold of importance like a lot of these other works, and that had the adverse effect of making me really, very strongly believe that the canon is a good and real thing that must be preserved, though I'm a little worried at how impenetrable it seems to have become for modern films to cross into that path (what's the most recent American film that's even in the mix? Goodfellas? Tree of Life? (I'm probably forgetting something obvious in between)). This is all tertiary to this film, though, and more involves the original, so that's all I've really got to say about that for now.


User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#354 Post by tenia » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:56 am

These are very good numbers, but only all proportions kept. I mean, the home video market isn't doing as well as 10 years ago, so it's probably not going to save the movie financially-wise.
Interestingly, I received yesterday my US 4K release (to get the Atmos track on BD, I had to import the US release), and the one quote it has on the backcover is about how you don't have to know the 1st movie to watch this one. I found that funny that this would be the main selling strategy for the movie, especially since it's really best if you actually know the 1st movie before watching it.
But in a way, even the extra features spend quite some time explaining the movie's background for the viewers. At this point, it might have been simpler to just bundle 2049 with the 82 movie !

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#355 Post by knives » Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:10 pm

This is the quickest three hours I've experienced in a long time. Like a lot of people here I was not expecting anything I would enjoy as I'm rather ambivalent to the original (though still like it overall) and detest the rest of Villeneuve's films I've seen. So I'm quite happy that instead of a fetishization of the original, as Domino so brilliantly said, we get a tone poem. Outside of some of Joi's scenes, I would argue she is the character that thematically makes this film whole and who without it would feel incomplete, there doesn't seem to have a feeling of dialogue with the visuals communicating all of the ideas (narrative and thematic) with a weird feeling of brevity in the slowness. The film looses a little bit of steam when the story forces itself at the conclusion, but even dealing with those machination doesn't distract it for long it from its beautiful strangeness.

In a lot of way this is just like Skyfall. Although I do like Mendes' work that film felt like him letting go for Deakins to author the film. This does likewise where the ticks of Villeneuve barely are felt (at least for me) with the ideas of Deakins work taking prominence.

moreorless
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:34 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#356 Post by moreorless » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:16 am

knives wrote:This is the quickest three hours I've experienced in a long time. Like a lot of people here I was not expecting anything I would enjoy as I'm rather ambivalent to the original (though still like it overall) and detest the rest of Villeneuve's films I've seen. So I'm quite happy that instead of a fetishization of the original, as Domino so brilliantly said, we get a tone poem. Outside of some of Joi's scenes, I would argue she is the character that thematically makes this film whole and who without it would feel incomplete, there doesn't seem to have a feeling of dialogue with the visuals communicating all of the ideas (narrative and thematic) with a weird feeling of brevity in the slowness. The film looses a little bit of steam when the story forces itself at the conclusion, but even dealing with those machination doesn't distract it for long it from its beautiful strangeness.

In a lot of way this is just like Skyfall. Although I do like Mendes' work that film felt like him letting go for Deakins to author the film. This does likewise where the ticks of Villeneuve barely are felt (at least for me) with the ideas of Deakins work taking prominence.
Finally roused myself from lurking to sign up here.

As much as I enjoyed 2049 I must admit you touch on the two main reasons I didn't find it was up to the standard of the original. As you say the Joi character to me really feels like the heart of the story yet it feels like she ends up being dramatically sidelined when we meet Deckard, as if this is the point two quiet different scripts merge. I find the way the character is treated after the surrogate scene with the billboards rather too blunt and indeed "easy". If K is going to have to confront the relationship as just a controlling fantasy I feel it should have been much more directly to her face, perhaps with her pushing the idea that he was "special"(as she does across much of the film) and his ultimately shutting her down himself in order to accept he isn't.

Whilst the film is definitely more focused on tone than your typical blockbuster I do find its still more caught up in the mechanics of its plot than the original. Pretty much every single frame of Scott's film is building up atmosphere that's informing the tone of the drama and the plot itself is simple with the specifics of it rarely a point of drama relative to the characters. 2046 to me though feels like more of a merger of that style and a more standard sci fi thriller, a more complex plot involving more arbitrary badguys with much more weight put on the specific unfolding of said plot over the characters.

Visually as well I do tend to think that whilst its definitely Villeneuve's most interesting film with Deakins likely given more free reign it still feels a bit too mannered for me, as if its weary of taking things a bit too far in terms of visual ambition/romance. We end up with something that to me feels more like its following fashion rather than potentially leading fashion as the original did or indeed Kubrick's(which in some respects the film actually feels more similar to for me) work often did.

That does all sound very negative I spose for something I still rated as one of the best films I'v seen from 2017 so far but thats really down to the regard I hold the original in.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#357 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:40 pm

It premiered tonight on HBO, in the original aspect ratio.

Rupert Pupkin
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#358 Post by Rupert Pupkin » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:01 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:40 pm
It premiered tonight on HBO, in the original aspect ratio.
you mean, in scope like the Blu-Ray or the theatrical release ?

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#359 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:20 pm

There are black bars, which is about as technical as I can get about this stuff.

Rupert Pupkin
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#360 Post by Rupert Pupkin » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:58 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:20 pm
There are black bars, which is about as technical as I can get about this stuff.
I ask this because apparently HBO used to broadcast some IMAX movies (thus, in open-matte ratio (1:78 for instance during the imax sequence)... (I'm not familiar with HBO since I live in France I don't have access to this channel)
so if Blade Runner 2049 was shot in IMAX perhaps they could have broadcast an open-matte version instead of the scope/theatrical version (which is the same for the blu-ray)

for instance (but I can not see the point here, except to see more legs of Jessica Chastain and perhaps some better shot of her crouch (but this movie wasn't Molly's Game) I've been very curious to "find" an open-matte version of "Zero Dark Thirty" (which was released on blu-ray/theatrical release in 1:85 (thus with some slight black bar (top and bottom) not wide 16:9 1:78) : 1:78 for this open-matte version of Zero Dark Thirty vs 1:85 for the original theatrical (intended ratio)
I thought : what's the point here ? (it's not like discovering a scope movie in open-matte) (or the 1:33 open-matte version of Crash (Cronenberg)
and this is really an open-matte version with a bit more picture on top and bottom (after having check with my blu-ray I realized that the movie hasn't been "zoomed" to fit on 1:85) : this is really an open-matte version of Zero Dark Thirty with more picture top and bottom -and left and right of the picture contain as much "picture" than the blu-ray.

sorry for the aparté. Back to "Blade Runner 2049", seeing an open-matte version would be just for the sake of curiosity. I think that the scope format works just perfectly with the photography of this movie.

Rupert Pupkin
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#361 Post by Rupert Pupkin » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:03 am

for what is worth (I don't know if such info at imdb.com can be accurate) : the movie has been shown in open-matte (not scope) in some countries :
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/alternateversions

we will know quickly if someone watched "Blade Runner 2049" at HBO

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#362 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:50 am

Rupert Pupkin wrote:
Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:03 am
for what is worth (I don't know if such info at imdb.com can be accurate) : the movie has been shown in open-matte (not scope) in some countries :
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/alternateversions

we will know quickly if someone watched "Blade Runner 2049" at HBO
I caught a bit of it on HBO last night and the aspect ratio appeared to be 2.39:1, which gives me hope that HBO will continue honoring original aspect ratios instead of cropping to 1.78:1. Dunkirk, which primarily is 1.78:1 on the Blu-ray (for the IMAX sequences which make up somewhere around 80% of the film - 2.20:1 for the rest) has been shown on HBO at 2.20:1 throughout.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#363 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:55 am

ethan17 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:13 am
Why does this film begin with an extreme close-up of an eye, and whose eye is it?
I'm surprised nobody here considered they could be...
SpoilerShow
Rachael's. Perhaps what we see is her eye at the moment of Ana Stelline's birth, just before her own death.

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#364 Post by Lost Highway » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:45 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:55 am
ethan17 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:13 am
Why does this film begin with an extreme close-up of an eye, and whose eye is it?
I'm surprised nobody here considered they could be...
SpoilerShow
Rachael's. Perhaps what we see is her eye at the moment of Ana Stelline's birth, just before her own death.
It’s a green or blue eye, it’s definitely light. Rachael‘s/Sean Young‘s eyes are brown.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
LightGenius
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#365 Post by DarkImbecile » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:54 am

SpoilerShow
Doesn't Deckard say that Rachael's eyes were green when Leto's character tries to tempt him with a recreated version of her, prompting the replicated Rachael's execution?

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#366 Post by Lost Highway » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:06 am

DarkImbecile wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:54 am
SpoilerShow
Doesn't Deckard say that Rachael's eyes were green when Leto's character tries to tempt him with a recreated version of her, prompting the replicated Rachael's execution?
He does say that and there has been some online discussion about that because her eyes clearly are brown. I think it’s simply his excuse to reject her within seconds, I find it hard to believe that’s a mistake considering how much research went into digitally recreating her exactly as she was.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#367 Post by Big Ben » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:23 am

Surely it's possible it's just a throwback?

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#368 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:21 pm

Lost Highway wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:06 am
DarkImbecile wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:54 am
SpoilerShow
Doesn't Deckard say that Rachael's eyes were green when Leto's character tries to tempt him with a recreated version of her, prompting the replicated Rachael's execution?
He does say that and there has been some online discussion about that because her eyes clearly are brown. I think it’s simply his excuse to reject her within seconds, I find it hard to believe that’s a mistake considering how much research went into digitally recreating her exactly as she was.
Fair enough, but the line stuck out more clearly the 2nd time around. It could be Deckard's memory failing him, or simply a red herring.
SpoilerShow
I'm a little more convinced that this film takes the view that Deckard could most likely be a replicant, when during that scene Wallace posits that him meeting Rachael was not an accident, that somehow they were designed to fall in love with each other and procreate ("Tyrell's last trick", Wallace says earlier in the film). Again that may not mean much either, but overall I'm glad it's something that Villeneuve left out of the story to an extent.


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#370 Post by domino harvey » Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:08 pm

With a better screenplay, better editing and Bradley Cooper in the lead, this could have been a worthy sequel

Just a reminder to never read the comments section on anything ever

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#371 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:02 am

Unless of course that comment was under one of the previous versions of A Star Is Born!

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#372 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:35 am

I find his presence in movies a bit hard to swallow. I'm sure he means well but first impressions are pretty deep and in my head he carries the burden of The Hangover like a fucking albatross.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#373 Post by domino harvey » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:40 am

He'll always be Bill Zebub to me

Post Reply