PDA

View Full Version : Harrison Ford Confirmed For Blade Runner 2



Seshmeister
02-27-2015, 11:50 AM
Harrison Ford Confirmed For Blade Runner 2
Denis Villeneuve is in talks to direct

27 February 2015 | Written by James White
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=43568

http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/harrison-ford-blade-runner-food.jpg


We’ve been through the various stages of possibility about Harrison Ford returning to another of his iconic sci-fi films as the Blade Runner sequel has made its way across the harsh cityscape of development. He’s thinking about it! He likes the script but he’s not sure! He’s been offered the gig... Well, now he’s officially aboard to once more play Rick Deckard.

With Ridley Scott acting as producer on this one, confirming word from around the Exodus press tour that he wouldn’t be back in the director’s chair given his schedule, Prisoners’ Denis Villeneuve is in negotiations to take over that job, which would see him working from a script by Hampton Fancher, co-writer of the 1982 original, who cranked out the words this time with Michael Green.

As for what story those words will tell? So far, the only real details is that, like Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the new film will acknowledge the passage of time and is set several decades after Scott’s first crack at adapting Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?. Will it confirm the theory that Deckard himself is a Replicant? How will society have changed? And given that modern day cities now resemble the futuristic, advert-drenched Los Angeles of 2019 (aside from the flying cars, darn it), how will a sequel made now jump the visuals forward so that it still seems like the future? We’ll have to wait to find out, as the plan is not to start shooting until summer 2016, which means the new movie won’t hit screens until 2017 at the earliest.

Jérôme Frenchise
02-27-2015, 12:19 PM
What a fucking great film that was! Blade Runner...

Daryl Hannah was beyond gorgeous, and her character was very interesting.
The actress who acted as the enigmatic Rachel did a great job.
Rutger Hauer offered such a memorable scene in the last moments of his character.

Harrison Ford's performance really looked dull to me. But I'll rush to my fave movie theater as soon as this follow-up is showing.

Nitro Express
02-27-2015, 12:45 PM
Need to start making better movies. I think the script writing in much of what they are making now sucks.

Seshmeister
02-27-2015, 04:03 PM
Rutger Hauer offered such a memorable scene in the last moments of his character.


I only found out in the last year or two that he wrote that speech himself.

Jérôme Frenchise
03-02-2015, 05:51 AM
I only found out in the last year or two that he wrote that speech himself.

I'm only finding out now that you're mentioning it. Thanks!

Makes his performance even more excellent!

DONNIEP
03-02-2015, 07:27 AM
Hmm...how would Deckard have aged since he's a replicant?

ODShowtime
03-02-2015, 08:54 PM
Think how people from 1982 would laugh in our faces if they knew we were arguing about evolution right now. They would be excited about the new Van Halen live album though.

clarathecarrot
03-02-2015, 09:19 PM
Loved the first one have it on VHS still and DVD...

Here is my take at the moment may change just don't know.

Old assed Harrison Ford propped up by cables and various apparatuses in front of a Green Screen for one week posing for the cameras....gets paid 1 million bucks. Goes home.

Then the idiots at ILM spend 200 million dollars CGI'ing a movie around the images of Ford.

With 400 graphic artist getting their sticky dirty little fingers all muddied up in the CGI not to mention the 50 middle management goofs who will ruin the movie with their editing skills.

It will look like a CGI lesson in, Hey, why does the movies look like a cartoon?

DONNIEP
03-02-2015, 09:28 PM
Yeah, I don't think Scott is gonna fuck it up.

Seshmeister
03-02-2015, 09:49 PM
I have heard some pretty mixed reviews of Prometheus though although to be honest I haven't seen it yet myself.

clarathecarrot
03-02-2015, 09:56 PM
I have just seen so many good movies gone CGI ( which is the way it is done these days) just looking like shit they don't travel to deepest darkest Africa anymore to shoot a movie about jungle madness they just draw cartoon computer jungle scenes on the green screen images of the actors shot is LA California.

It is too easy to see the lack of true artistry in movies anymore I love artists and I get it but it seems to unveil these movies as way to unrealistic in their approach to what scene content is.

CGI has its uses but it has completely replaced acting and creativity with body image relationships as how can we make this fit in this space then deliver the image as realtime....even situation comedies look like sci fi movies.

DONNIEP
03-02-2015, 09:59 PM
I have heard some pretty mixed reviews of Prometheus though although to be honest I haven't seen it yet myself.

I'm still kinda conflicted about that movie. I liked it but I wasn't thrilled by it. Then again, I didn't like any of the Alien sequels either. I think if they had cut the movie down to bare bones - like the original Alien - then it would have been better.

DONNIEP
03-02-2015, 10:00 PM
I have just seen so many good movies gone CGI ( which is the way it is done these days) just looking like shit they don't travel to deepest darkest Africa anymore to shoot a movie about jungle madness they just draw cartoon computer jungle scenes on the green screen images of the actors shot is LA California.

It is too easy to see the lack of true artistry in movies anymore I love artists and I get it but it seems to unveil these movies as way to unrealistic in their approach to what scene content is.

CGI has its uses but it has completely replaced acting and creativity with body image relationships as how can we make this fit in this space then deliver the image as realtime....even situation comedies look like sci fi movies.

Holy hell - not only did I understand every word of that post, I totally agree with it lol

Seshmeister
03-02-2015, 10:01 PM
I'm still kinda conflicted about that movie. I liked it but I wasn't thrilled by it. Then again, I didn't like any of the Alien sequels either. I think if they had cut the movie down to bare bones - like the original Alien - then it would have been better.

I hear the new Aliens movie is going to pretend that 3 and 4 didn't happen.

clarathecarrot
03-02-2015, 10:42 PM
The third, The Mummy with Jet li was awful Fraser seemed like he knew it was a bad script and phoned it in his kid went from 6 years old to 17 and they replaced Wiesz with someone else and then I don't think a single scene was shot without green screen and if looked like crap to me.

They seem to have spent 100 million on CGI and gave the actors/set designers/camera operators..etc.. 50bucks.It is like they CGI it all elevated image and send it to the viewer as a lightning bolt....one day it will just be hipno-toad up there staring at a confused audience...19$ PLEASE..

How could they even do this all the other in the series were great even the spin-off with the rock was pretty damn good. They have become dependent and CGI logistically it is so much easier than actually making a movie.

clarathecarrot
03-02-2015, 10:46 PM
I hear the new Aliens movie is going to pretend that 3 and 4 didn't happen.

I have the trilogy on VHS saw the 4th in the theater never bothered to buy it .

I still get a chill from the first one late at night cant sleep I pop that baby in and it is like fuck'n spooky all over again,classic.

DONNIEP
03-02-2015, 10:51 PM
I think what made the first one work so well was that it was bare bones. Sure, the sets and "effects" as far as the miniatures and stuff were awesome. But it was a bare bones story: something's coming and it ain't good. Plus you had an incredible cast of actors to pull it off.

I know nothing about this next Alien movie that's about to be made. But I wish they'd just reboot the fucker. The last thing I want to see is a juiced up Sig Weaver running around killing shit. And for God's sake - make the ships (cause it has to be set in space) look like they did in the first one: industrial pieces that are nothing special, well except for the fact that they're space ships.

clarathecarrot
03-02-2015, 10:59 PM
I am a big 1950s scfi nut and one of my favorite directors writer special effects guys is Ray Harryhausen and he said on a interview that they have dialog in these movies but that just surrounds the creature (paraphrasing).

It is a sci fi flick it needs to have those elements and not just take place in a hallway with intense, I need a Oscar, jibby jabber.

Where are the spaceships!! that is my favorite line while watching..lol..

DONNIEP
03-02-2015, 11:05 PM
As much as I love UFOs and shit like that....I've never really gotten into the 50s stuff. I should. When I was a kid I used to watch all sorts of B sci fi movies but they were mostly late 60s/early-mid 70s stuff.

clarathecarrot
03-02-2015, 11:12 PM
I also do the 60s and 70s made films the Japanese Godzilla stuff just takes the edge off a bad day and I dig it.. I like the simplicity of a well made flick from those times as you mentioned bare bones but with something more than what most studios were producing at that time, in that idea of entertainment.. I don't ness, like the Horror slasher stuff but the first Jason and Friday the13th all good I like that stuff.

The Blade Runner movie could lend itself to CGI if done right what is more Replicant than CGI or what is more CGI than a replicants vision... of the world around him.

I buy my 50s films in widescreen with all the whistles and buzzers attached expensive hobby 5 movies might cost me 80bucks it is fun collection them but some I have thought were going to be good are unwatchable not so much due to the passage of time and lack of scifi skills some of those movies were just run off by the studios I guess to use up old black and white film stocks left over from the 1940s lol.

It can be hit and miss on bang for the buck.

DONNIEP
03-02-2015, 11:31 PM
I think a BR sequel has to be mostly shot as practical sets. There's just no other way to get the grainy look and feel of the original. And it has to have that film noir look that the original did. The clothes and the sets have to have that look. And like I said about a new Alien film, the technology has to have that same look...to steal a term - future primitive. Yeah sure there's flying cars. So what. They're no big deal. And the technology can't be what we see technology as - all slick and clean and pretty. It should just be there and not be all that impressive because it's been like that for so long that nobody really gives a shit how it looks any more.

clarathecarrot
03-02-2015, 11:41 PM
Good post.

I doubt they can shoot and kill a woman anymore in these future flicks or any movies these days... even if she is a robot there will probably be a 97lb supermodel who will kick several professional killer styled male thugs asses and not have a scratch on her, equal to the male leads in the flick in strength.. or the lesbian alliance of equality for women in will say the film victimizes women. even if they are robots.

Movies these days are owned by special interest groups who barter money for the rights of image use.

DONNIEP
03-03-2015, 12:00 AM
You should check out the TV show Archer. With the exception of last season, it's set between 1970 - around 1973. But they have a lot of today's technology. So you have the look and feel of the late 60s/early 70s, with the cars and clothes but modern shit tossed in too. And there's no limitations as far as the PC bullshit that permeates today's society. And it's fucking hilarious.

Kristy
03-03-2015, 09:13 AM
If you think Archer is funny you seriously need to upgrade your basic cable plan.

DONNIEP
03-03-2015, 09:21 AM
If you think Archer is funny you seriously need to upgrade your basic cable plan.

If this relationship is going to work you're going to have to at least pretend you like some of the same stuff that I do.

binnie
03-12-2015, 04:02 PM
I am confident that the new Blade Runner movie will suck.

WARF
03-12-2015, 09:10 PM
They don't have any golf courses in the future so I don't expect Harrison to be flying anything in this film....

Seshmeister
01-08-2016, 04:29 PM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/1918915_10207236898333668_5274611972494349730_n.jp g?oh=a9730976103792dd43cef0069893cc84&oe=57032E65

FORD
01-08-2016, 05:28 PM
Hmm...how would Deckard have aged since he's a replicant?

Good question. How the Hell would Androids age? I suppose their metal parts could degrade and rust, but the synthetic skin should be immune to aging.

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 06:23 PM
Hmm...how would Deckard have aged since he's a replicant?

How do you know he's a replicant?

Only one version of the film made that clear, I think it was the Extended Director's Cut or something.

The original was purposefully left ambiguous.

I'd have thought a Star Wars fan like you would be more wary of these remastered versions released years later.

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 06:25 PM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/1918915_10207236898333668_5274611972494349730_n.jp g?oh=a9730976103792dd43cef0069893cc84&oe=57032E65

Rutger Hauer always scared the shit out of me in every film of his I've watched.

He's the Ultimate Badass!

vandeleur
01-08-2016, 06:34 PM
How do you know he's a replicant?

Only one version of the film made that clear, I think it was the Extended Director's Cut or something.

The original was purposefully left ambiguous.

I'd have thought a Star Wars fan like you would be more wary of these remastered versions released years later.

The one with the tin foil unicorn at the end showing that decked dreams were implanted that and for the last 20 years Ridley Scott has said he was :D

vandeleur
01-08-2016, 06:35 PM
Rutger Hauer always scared the shit out of me in every film of his I've watched.

He's the Ultimate Badass!

Nah he was great in the hitcher and movies about that time and then he became Mr straight to video.

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 06:39 PM
The one with the tin foil unicorn at the end showing that decked dreams were implanted that and for the last 20 years Ridley Scott has said he was :D

Fuck Ridley Scott! Deckard shot first, I don't care about no revisionist bullshit.


Nah he was great in the hitcher and movies about that time and then he became Mr straight to video.

He was still scary. And not in a sexual way. Just plain fear scary.

vandeleur
01-08-2016, 06:47 PM
Fuck Ridley Scott! Deckard shot first, I don't care about no revisionist bullshit.



He was still scary. And not in a sexual way. Just plain fear scary.

Woooooow Ridley is a Geordie so by default he is fucking right and did Rutger scare you in his guinness ads :D

PETE'S BROTHER
01-08-2016, 06:55 PM
yes :bolt:

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 07:00 PM
Woooooow Ridley is a Geordie so by default he is fucking right and did Rutger scare you in his guinness ads :D

Ridley is a fucking PUSSY!

What the hell does he know about the film he made?

I read the goddamned book, Vandy! So I win!

If you wanna win discussions, you gotta read them BOOKS.

They make you more smarterer.

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 07:03 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imn7YiIU8HM

I just called my mom, because I'm fucking frightened.

I may have done a doodoo in my panties.

vandeleur
01-08-2016, 07:04 PM
Ridley is a fucking PUSSY!

What the hell does he know about the film he made?

I read the goddamned book, Vandy! So I win!

If you wanna win discussions, you gotta read them BOOKS.

They make you more smarterer.

Yeah see what you mean having read the books an all :)
But I digress we were discussing the movie not do androids dream of electric sheep I believe ............ ;)

PETE'S BROTHER
01-08-2016, 07:07 PM
Yeah see what you mean having read the books an all :)
But I digress we were discussing the movie not do androids dream of electric sheep I believe ............ ;)

yeah! this^^^^ .... wtf....

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 07:08 PM
Yeah see what you mean having read the books an all :)
But I digress we were discussing the movie not do androids dream of electric sheep I believe ............ ;)

Busted.

I underestimated you Vandy. Well played, my friend.

twonabomber
01-08-2016, 07:12 PM
Rutger Hauer always scared the shit out of me in every film of his I've watched.

He's the Ultimate Badass!

Even in Batman Begins?

Okay, not his film, just a cameo. I was surprised to see him in it.

vandeleur
01-08-2016, 07:12 PM
I now want a drink of Guinness , obviously :)

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 07:12 PM
Rutger is less scary as an old lady, but I still wouldn't piss him off.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgcAbJ_cuQI

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 07:18 PM
Even in Batman Begins?

Okay, not his film, just a cameo. I was surprised to see him in it.

Yeah, he shows up unexpectedly. First comment of the interview I posted:


Reb3nga 2 months ago
I saw him about ten years ago.
He ordered a coffee at the bar where I was working. I was stunned since I did not expect to see him at that time and place.
He noticed it, winked, smiled and thanked me for the coffee.
Truly a modest and polite man. I can say I'm honoured to have served him.

Another:


Marc Swart 4 weeks ago
+Reb3nga I had a similar experience. In 1989 I had bought a new motorbike and went to the dealer to pick it up. Outside stood a big white motorhome.
There where two new bikes outside standing next to eachother; Mine, a full on sports bike and an all white huge Honda Goldwing with all bells and whistles and a little trailer in the same livery.
I stood bend over my new pride and joy looking at all the details when I heard a voice saying 'nice bike you have'. Looking up I directly stared in the face of Rutger Hauer. All I could say was 'you too' (he was a youth hero of mine playing in a tv serie Floris in 1969 so it was a bit of a big deal to meet him). Then we shatted a while about our bikes and his big motorhome (which could store the Goldwing btw). Very friendly gentle man. Very nice to have met him.

See? Now tell me that's not scary. You're hanging out, all of a sudden Rutger Hauer is there, looking at you with his cold blue eyes. And you know you have to meet his stare, because if you show weakness, you're dead. But you also know you'll lose. He won't blink or look away first.

DONNIEP
01-08-2016, 07:39 PM
Yeah, he shows up unexpectedly. First comment of the interview I posted:



Another:



See? Now tell me that's not scary. You're hanging out, all of a sudden Rutger Hauer is there, looking at you with his cold blue eyes. And you know you have to meet his stare, because if you show weakness, you're dead. But you also know you'll lose. He won't blink or look away first.

Rutger is a bad ass! And scary too. And way cooler than anybody else.

Seshmeister
01-08-2016, 08:09 PM
I think from memory he improvised a lot of his shit including that famous bit at the end.

Maybe that is a false implanted memory, it's too late on a Friday night to google it... :)

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 08:18 PM
I think from memory he improvised a lot of his shit including that famous bit at the end.

Maybe that is a false implanted memory, it's too late on a Friday night to google it... :)

If you had bothered to check the looooooong 6 minute video I posted, you'd know he talks about that bit.

He didn't improvise it, he wrote it & Ridley Scott let him use it.

DONNIEP
01-08-2016, 08:42 PM
I think from memory he improvised a lot of his shit including that famous bit at the end.

Maybe that is a false implanted memory, it's too late on a Friday night to google it... :)

Maybe you're a replicant and don't know it. Maybe we implanted that memory in your head.

Anonymous
01-08-2016, 08:53 PM
Maybe you're a replicant and don't know it. Maybe we implanted that memory in your head.

:gossip: He's not smart enough to be a replicant.

:yo:

Seshmeister
01-08-2016, 10:12 PM
If you had bothered to check the looooooong 6 minute video I posted, you'd know he talks about that bit.

He didn't improvise it, he wrote it & Ridley Scott let him use it.

Cool so I did and half remembered it.

That's better than average! :baaa:

Igosplut
01-08-2016, 11:11 PM
What's threatening about a guy who's like 80???? His breath??

Seshmeister
01-08-2016, 11:16 PM
It does seem odd he's signed up for Indiana Jones and Blade Runner sequels.

Igosplut
01-08-2016, 11:19 PM
Like hiring the assisted-living people to look badass...

ZahZoo
01-09-2016, 09:39 AM
Think how people from 1982 would laugh in our faces if they knew we were arguing about evolution right now. They would be excited about the new Van Halen live album though.

WTF? I'm people from 1982... we are not laughing.

Just shaking our heads wondering why idiots keep wasting time and money recycling mediocre movie plots that weren't all that great the first time around..? It's time to turn off the recycling machine in Hollywood... enough already!!

Seshmeister
12-19-2016, 01:39 PM
Hmm...how would Deckard have aged since he's a replicant?

Looks like they are just ignoring that plot hole...



https://youtu.be/WFRCrjDK73I

twonabomber
06-21-2017, 10:14 PM
http://io9.gizmodo.com/new-blade-runner-2049-footage-sees-rick-deckard-taken-h-1796294253

twonabomber
07-18-2017, 10:35 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOaI_Fn5o4

Seshmeister
07-18-2017, 11:21 AM
I've stopped watching trailers where possible especially #2s and #3s.

The teaser trailers aren't too bad but then it gets ridiculous with the people selling the movie happy to show the end, all the best lines, anything to make you go spoiling it to fuckery.

I would probably be going to this just based on the directors last 2 films, Blade Runner or not.

Not something you would say about Ridley Scott these days who understandably at 80 seems to have lost some of his powers in the last 10 years...

Terry
07-20-2017, 09:40 PM
I thought Prometheus was okay. Alien Covenant a little less so.

Scott hasn't lost much ability far as cinematography and atmospherics goes.

The thing with Blade Runner was that he had that great Philip K. Dick book ('Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?') from which multiple screenplay drafts had been crafted prior to him even signing on to the film as his starting point when he took on Blade Runner. He doesn't have that advantage with this film.

As mentioned in the thread, more than a few films these days suffer from a lack of decent writers/story ideas providing decent input in the pre-production stages. The idea seems to be that if you blow the viewer away with CGI and stunt action, they won't notice things like plot holes, continuity problems with the storyline or trite dialogue chock full of clichés.

From the trailers I have seen, it looks like it will be visually stunning. However, I think I saw Jared Leto in one of them, and that's not necessarily a good sign far as I'm concerned (I think the guy is an overacting ham and a hack).

However, Blade Runner 2 is really the only movie being released this year that I'm making a point of going to see in the theater. I'm going to temper my expectations and not mentally compare and contrast it with the first movie while I'm watching it, and try to enjoy it on its own terms...as much as one can with a sequel, anyway.

twonabomber
07-20-2017, 10:27 PM
I don't care much for Leto. Seems like a lot of bloggers are complaining about Ryan Gosling being in it too.

The Martian was a great looking movie, but it also had a decent story. Story may be the weak part of BR2.

Seshmeister
07-21-2017, 12:22 AM
Dunkirk is getting great reviews but again I doubt it's a great story.

twonabomber
10-05-2017, 11:40 PM
Just got back from BR2049. Pretty good movie. Looks great. Too long at 2 hours and 43 minutes though.

Nickdfresh
10-06-2017, 01:02 AM
Dunkirk is getting great reviews but again I doubt it's a great story.

It wasn't, but I like it anyway...

twonabomber
10-06-2017, 03:11 AM
Just got back from BR2049. Pretty good movie. Looks great. Too long at 2 hours and 43 minutes though.

And daylight scenes in a Blade Runner movie...odd.

vandeleur
10-06-2017, 01:17 PM
Fuck that is getting Stella reviews ...... even with that chirpy happy Ford in it.

Seshmeister
10-07-2017, 11:07 AM
It wasn't, but I like it anyway...

Yeah I posted that before seeing Dunkirk, I thought it was great.

I'll catch the BR movie later in the week, 2 hours 43 sounds too long, with me topping up my cokes with vodka I'll be drunk by the end of it. :)

Nickdfresh
10-07-2017, 01:22 PM
Yeah I posted that before seeing Dunkirk, I thought it was great.

I'll catch the BR movie later in the week, 2 hours 43 sounds too long, with me topping up my cokes with vodka I'll be drunk by the end of it. :)

LOL at a proper theatre? I was wondering if any are starting to serve liquor, wine, or beer locally. I know it's becoming a trend in some places here...

Terry
10-08-2017, 01:22 PM
Just got back from BR2049. Pretty good movie. Looks great. Too long at 2 hours and 43 minutes though.

Yeah, I hadn't realized it was going to be that long, and nearly 3 hours is quite a long time to sit in a theater: once I recline back in the chair, I'll probably end up falling asleep.

I'll probably see it next weekend.

Nickdfresh
10-08-2017, 02:16 PM
I really don't mind longer films at all...

Dunkirk for instance wasn't long enough and should have shown so much more than a couple shirker coward douches, and Mad Max flying around in a Spit, as representing the BEF & the French Army during the evacuation. But that's another thread...

vandeleur
10-08-2017, 03:05 PM
Biggest compliment I can give it is it didn’t seem that long ... it was good honest :D

Terry
10-08-2017, 04:35 PM
I really don't mind longer films at all...

Dunkirk for instance wasn't long enough and should have shown so much more than a couple shirker coward douches, and Mad Max flying around in a Spit, as representing the BEF & the French Army during the evacuation. But that's another thread...


I don't mind longer films, either, as long as they end up actually being better for having been longer.

Nickdfresh
10-09-2017, 11:20 PM
I saw it and enjoyed it. I don't think the actual film not counting credits is two hours, forty-three minutes. The film is beautiful and darkly depressing yet with flashes of ironic humor (I noticed the neon corporate ads get more absurd as the film goes on with Sony and Coca-Cola being replaced by defunct companies like Pan Am and Atari). I did not find anything very complicated about the plot and think people are being lazy in not seeing this film because they might have to work a bit to keep up...

Apparently, despite overwhelming critical and audience approval, it isn't doing very well. I don't think the original did well in theaters either, but wish it was because I'd like to see quality and thoughtfulness rewarded as it's rare in the sea of Hollywood shit. I liked the ending with the parallels, and a muted nod to, Rutger Hauer's soliloquy...

Terry
10-14-2017, 02:52 PM
I saw it and enjoyed it. I don't think the actual film not counting credits is two hours, forty-three minutes. The film is beautiful and darkly depressing yet with flashes of ironic humor (I noticed the neon corporate ads get more absurd as the film goes on with Sony and Coca-Cola being replaced by defunct companies like Pan Am and Atari). I did not find anything very complicated about the plot and think people are being lazy in not seeing this film because they might have to work a bit to keep up...

Apparently, despite overwhelming critical and audience approval, it isn't doing very well. I don't think the original did well in theaters either, but wish it was because I'd like to see quality and thoughtfulness rewarded as it's rare in the sea of Hollywood shit. I liked the ending with the parallels, and a muted nod to, Rutger Hauer's soliloquy...

I was happily surprised with it.

I thought it did a very good job of managing a balancing act between whatever expectations hardcore Blade Runner fans may have had and being compelling in its own right. It retained the spirit of the original without being a slavish copy: it built upon the original story rather than submitting to mere mimicry.

I thought the new visuals were interesting on their own terms even with obvious homages to the original being sprinkled throughout the picture. The story had some nice twists to it. Much like the first Blade Runner, I thought some of the more interesting parts had to do with futuristic gadgetry that didn't seem inconceivable in terms of things that a reasonable person could imagine having a realistic chance of being built not too many years from now.

The odd part was that the only clunkiness in the sequel for me started to creep in when Harrison Ford/Deckard came into the story: I think an interesting sequel could have been made without Ford's direct participation as an aged Deckard - perhaps even more interesting, truth be told - but rather with just spoken references to the Deckard character.

While the sequel wasn't the quantum leap in terms of cinematic visuals that the original was, the sequel DID use modern CGI in a very effective way: this sequel didn't feel like ten million other movies I've seen before when watching it.

I think it was about as good as anyone could have reasonably expected given the time elapsed between the original being released 35 years ago and the million + ways this sequel could have went wrong. Yeah, the box office isn't exactly lighting the world on fire in terms of US domestic theatrical gross for the first two weeks. Neither did the original, which my father took me to see in 1982 instead of E.T. (the film I wanted to see but he refused to, mostly because he has never had a tolerance for middle-of-the-road pap). I saw it in non 3-D IMAX today at 11AM in a theater that seats maybe 200 and there were 6 people there including myself. Granted, it was playing in two other theaters in #D IMAX and regular release, but it doesn't have many showings due to length.

It is nearly 3 hours long - perhaps too long for younger audiences to be expected to have their phones turned off - plus the original was made so long ago that despite the cult status of Blade Runner it'd be hard for me to imagine masses of movie audiences under the age of 40 who have even seen it unless it was recently, thus they have no context for how visually stunning the original was in 1982. In addition, it's not non-stop mindless action with Mark Wahlberg or The Rock, where you don't have to remain particularly focused on those types of movies to get what you're gonna get out of them. Quite the opposite, in that the harder you focus on modern action movies, the less you get out of them if you think too hard about what you're watching, whereas with this Blade Runner sequel the more intently you view it the more you get out of it. Most people going to the movies want something mindless that hands the experience to them in an easy-to-digest form that requires no thought at all. That's why so many movies these days seem like they are made for the functionally retarded...because they ARE made for the functionally retarded, and rightfully so, because most people (I am convinced) ARE functionally retarded.

twonabomber
10-14-2017, 06:51 PM
I went Thursday night at 8:20 pm, there were five of us in the theater. I figured it wouldn't be busy, with Thursday football and an Indians playoff game on TV. Weather was nice, too.

Seshmeister
11-09-2017, 11:47 AM
https://youtu.be/sLxxbfsj8IM

vandeleur
11-09-2017, 12:42 PM
its how they made prince, true story

Hardrock69
11-18-2017, 02:05 PM
Saw BR 2049. It was good as could be expected. The BladeRunner world was not going to get any better. No sunny skies and happy times, so this movie felt about right.

It is a shame it was not released in IMAX 3D in the US.

But, no matter. Worth seeing on a big screen if you can still catch it.

Terry
11-18-2017, 03:37 PM
Saw BR 2049. It was good as could be expected. The BladeRunner world was not going to get any better. No sunny skies and happy times, so this movie felt about right.

It is a shame it was not released in IMAX 3D in the US.

But, no matter. Worth seeing on a big screen if you can still catch it.

It wasn't released in IMAX 3D in the US?

Weird, because I could have sworn it was available in that format at my local AMC multiplex if one wanted to see it in that format. Which isn't to say you're wrong: I could well be mistaken.

I saw it in regular IMAX (not a fan of 3D anyway), and would agree 100% it is totally worth seeing on a big screen. The cinematography is THAT good.

I think overall it turned out well. Quite a bit better than I expected it would. I think from the screenplay to the locations/direction, the makers of the film managed to create something that wasn't a slavish retread of Blade Runner and was very interesting and visually stunning on its own terms.

That the box office for it didn't match whatever 100 million dollar expectations movie critics had in terms of that being the sole metric re: a "success" didn't matter one bit to me. The last time I looked at a list of films over the past decade that broke 100 million on their opening weekend, I found I had no use for virtually every film on the list. Mostly because I have little to no use for Marvel/DC superhero movies or animated "safe for children but funny for adults" flicks.