Finally saw the new Blade Runner...

Still prefer the original:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sean+young+images+blade+runner&rlz=1C1RUCY_enGB744GB744&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH_5n00p_XAhWCHsAKHQmMB8kQsAQIJw&biw=1396&bih=668#imgrc=JSJSExOeTBsptM

:

The first Blade Runner has a grittiness to it that this one doesn’t have, but I think that has to do with differences in technology and filmmaking at the time the films were made. I think the first does a wonderful job of blending classic LA Noir with compelling science fiction. 2049 just feels full on science fiction.

My other major beef is that Ryan Gosling plays the cool, tough, stoic, emotionless role that he plays in pretty much every film now. Yawn.

Overall, though, I liked it enough to see it twice (in IMAX!). One of my favorite mainstream films in recent years. The studio was stupid to spend so much on the film. If we are being honest, the original is a niche film, but loved so strongly by its fans that they think the appeal is wider than it is. The average movie goer doesn’t know why the original Blade Runner is so good. The themes and plot are too complex for the average movie goer. It was destined to disappoint as a big budget film.

Also it’s obvious that Peugeot is going to re-enter the US car market.

I think the new one is a great movie. I actually haven't since the original one (shame on me, for some reason I thought it's just a random action movie and never bothered to check it out). It helps if you read a plot synopsis of the first part.

One thing I was wondering about, are Peugeot and the other featured brands actually paying for this? I'm not sure this is the kind of brand image you want to create, being associated with a dystopian future.

I have my minor complaints, but I also think it’s a great movie. I rarely see a movie twice in films.

Yes, brands pay to appear in movies. It’s called product placement, quite common, and is a method of funding films. Peugeot is planning a comeback to the US auto market and this is an early tell. It has no brand image in this country, except for old timers that might remember it. I think they might be going for cool, utilitarian, and futuristic. I, for one, would welcome an affordable Euro-mobile that doesn’t have the flaws of Volkswagen and Fiat.

Was quite excited to see the movie. After 2 hours I was quite excited for it to end.

Big letdown.

Normally I don’t agree with you but that’s an excellent critique.

I love anything “LA Noir”, by the way.

I thought the movie was great. I'm not going to argue it's one of the best movies of all time, but it was excellent.

This (like Fury Road) is a movie really designed to be seen in the theater. I thought the sound was even better done than the visuals, but both of those would likely be lost in a living room viewing. Anyone on the fence about seeing it should see it in the theater before they lose the chance.

The replay value for me is not there, as a few scenes rely on the intensity of the moment to carry you through a long stretch of no dialogue or action. I loved it when I experienced it, but know the second or third time through I won't be as patient (like watching the movie 2001 many times).

What I will say is that it's what I want in a movie. The sound and visuals would be lost on you at home; only a theater is capable of it. The running time is long and you get more value out of the ticket price. TV shows these days have such good budgets (think Game of Thrones) that it's hard to imagine movies holding up as the years go on, so kudos to Blade Runner for really focusing on a movie that's meant for theaters.

Thanks to Ryan Gosling (new hotness) and Harrison Ford (old man hotness) I was able to convince my lady to see it with me. She did not leave as pleased as I did (story of my life?), but I enjoyed hearing her take on things like who are the bad people, who is real or replicant, and what did the director want you to believe. Just like the first movie you can have endless debates about some of these things, which I think is a credit to how well written it is.

Gee thanks, honored to meet your approval!

Agreed. I was pretty disappointed with 2049. It just didn't feel the same. Blade Runner is, visually (and conceptually somewhat), the greatest movie I have seen. You can pretty much print any frame from that movie and hang it on the wall. 2049, in comparison, just felt forced. Generally I like the stuff Deakins does but, throughout the movie, I kept wondering if he'd even seen the first film.

I remember seeing the original as a kid and thinking how cool it was that the replicants were actual physical people and how there were no stupid holograms floating around. I don't know what it is with modern sci-fi movies and holograms, but I think they're lame and 2049 go nuts with them. I wasn't too crazy about the cgi Racheal either. When that scene came up (Leto's overacting in the background) I just rolled my eyes.

I think the biggest thing was that it didn't need a sequel. A sequel was destined to fail simply because BR isn't mainstream sci-fi. Your average Star Wars/Star Trek/Marvel nerd doesn't care about Blade Runner. I have a friend that is crazy into sci-fi/Marvel and see's every movie opening day. He still hasn't seen 2049 and told me he'll probably wait until it goes to blu-ray.

If you're pondering seeing 2049 do yourself a favor and rent the final cut of the original. It makes 2049 look like a student project.

vivalarepublica wrote:

Yes, brands pay to appear in movies. It’s called product placement, quite common, and is a method of funding films. Peugeot is planning a comeback to the US auto market and this is an early tell. It has no brand image in this country, except for old timers that might remember it. I think they might be going for cool, utilitarian, and futuristic. I, for one, would welcome an affordable Euro-mobile that doesn’t have the flaws of Volkswagen and Fiat.

dude, my point was not to question the relevance of product placement per se, I was wondering if every kind of product placement has as positive impact on sales. specifically, the case where a brand would be associated with negative emotions. that's not obvious at all. but nevermind.

vivalarepublica wrote:

John Utah wrote:

Now you're reverting back to normal.

Normally I don’t agree with you but that’s an excellent critique.

I love anything “LA Noir”, by the way.

Gee thanks, honored to meet your approval!

above_average_joe wrote:

vivalarepublica wrote:

Yes, brands pay to appear in movies. It’s called product placement, quite common, and is a method of funding films. Peugeot is planning a comeback to the US auto market and this is an early tell. It has no brand image in this country, except for old timers that might remember it. I think they might be going for cool, utilitarian, and futuristic. I, for one, would welcome an affordable Euro-mobile that doesn’t have the flaws of Volkswagen and Fiat.

dude, my point was not to question the relevance of product placement per se, I was wondering if every kind of product placement has as positive impact on sales. specifically, the case where a brand would be associated with negative emotions. that's not obvious at all. but nevermind.

Dude, I have no idea why you interpreting my comments this way! Your comments made it seem like you aren’t aware of product placement in movies, so I responded accordingly. Now if you explicitly wondered whether product placement actually works in movies, I would respond differently (I don’t know actually).

Peugeot puts out an image of tough, utilitarian, cool. and futuristic car with this product, despite the dour theme of the movie. Who knows if this will lead to sales or whatever they are aiming for.

You must be one of the teenagers trawling the boards, because you’re clearly over-reacting like one.

If Deakins is involved, that usually is enough to get me in the door, because at least I know that I’m getting a visually stunning cinematic experience.

One of the big differences with the original and 2049 is that 2049 casts a much wider net. The original is more contained, in the sense that the main purpose is the Blade Runner hunting down these four rogue replicants. Yes, there are larger themes, such as what does it mean to be alive in an age of human-like robots, but the storyline is rather contained.

Now look at 2049. Yes, the main storyline is the chase for the replicant child. But intertwined with this is the fate of humanity in the face of replicant reproduction, Gosling as this Jesus savior figure, ecological collapse, AI emotional development and love, underground replicant revolution, and generally the future of humanity and androids here and throughout the universe. It spans too far and wide, it’s too much, but they had to make it this way to get butts in the seats to make back the budget.

I don’t know how you could make a film this could live up to the legendary original. There’s no point. Rather than have a story line that connects directly to tante original, just come up with something only inspired by the original idea and scrap too many direct connections.

The best films don’t try to do too much. The point of a film is to tell a story, it’s like a novel for the screen. Keep the film contained and limited to the story you are telling. Yes, you can incorporate larger universal themes and ponderings on the nature of man, but do we really need to mull over the entire fate of humanity, the collapse of planetary life and social order, and the vast possibilities of AI over the course of two hours?

I went to the movie too. I thought I was going to see how he killed his girl friend....

BUT here's my real beef with the movie: It's an epic fail for a sci-fi movie.

No matter how you cut it, it's a sci-fi with so many outdated imaginations and its scientific basis was not right (or out right wrong) on so many levels.

1. WTF that one is comparing genome sequences MAUNNUALLY in 2049? Does the movie producer have any idea how many gens one's got? Have you not heard of "computer"?!

Then, how does a male and a female have exactly the same DNA?! (supposedly if they're "born" by the same mom, the mitochondria DNA which only comes from the mom can reveal that (side note, one pretty much inherited his/her athletic gens from the female parent), but there's no definite DNA evidence to show they are from the same father) . If their gens have been altered (since they're replicants) then there's no point of this same DNA trash.

3. Throughout the whole movie it's grey and dark, no sunlight, no plants (except the holographic recreation), no flower. Yet there's BEES! Somebody was farming bees. How's that possible!!

4. LA never snows. Period.

4.2 If for whatever reason (can't think of any. Climate change is in a scale several ORDERS of magnitude SMALLER) it does in 30 years, we'd be worrying about human (and all animals and plants), NOT replicants, extinction/existence.

5. It looks like they have a big population in the city (a lot of people). And they have FLYING CARS. But unlike what we see in Star Wars, there's barely no traffic!

6. Have you heard of AI? Robot?

What the hell do human want to use replicants in the future? So we can slave them!?

There will be some controversial issues regarding future AI/robot and genome alternation. But no about slaving replicants.

And don't get me started on to the technical stuff.

(If Trump gets the low paying low level manufacturing jobs back to the states, we may need a lot of replicants to do the job in a filthy environment. Nowadays, high tech manufacturing is done in high grade no-dust, no-vibrating lab setting and low tech manufacturing is done with a lot of automated processes involving robot like tools in OTHER countries).

All movies require you to suspend some disbelief. This isn't your future; it's the future the movie created or the future as progressed from the original. Some of your facts are wrong, though, like about the flying cars.

1. If Ryan Gosling is a computer, then why can't he look at the genome and interpret it as quickly?

2. They have virtually the exact same DNA because one exists and one doesn't..?

3. The movie starts at a farm, so there's some life. And the whole point of the bees is that something unique was going on in that location.

4. It can snow pretty much anywhere, especially a random non-LA place they keep traveling to that is always snowy.

5. They showed tons of cars on streets. It was obvious that the high skies were reserved for people like police to use only.

6. Pretty much every robot we've designed so far is made to do what we ask it. How is that very different from slavery?